Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177

14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing (CAT)

A quantitative Comparison of Tolerance Analysis Approaches

for Rigid Mechanical Assemblies
Benjamin Schleicha,* , Sandro Wartzacka
a Chair of Engineering Design KTmfk, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Martensstraße 9, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-(0)9131-85-23220; fax: +49-(0)9131-85-23222. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

Tolerance analysis is a key tool to predict the consequences of geometric variations on product quality. During the last decades, various approaches
for the computer-aided tolerance analysis have been proposed, where each of them has specific advantages and disadvantages. In this contribution,
three tolerance analysis approaches, namely tolerance stacks, vector loops, and the tolerance analysis based on the Small Displacement Torsor are
quantitatively compared with the tolerance analysis based on Skin Model Shapes considering a typical case study. The novelty of the contribution
lies in the profound assessment of these approaches and their results.

©c 2016
2016 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing
Keywords: Tolerance Analysis; Variation Simulation; Skin Model Shapes.

1. Introduction and Motivation ometry schemes, such as surface meshes and point clouds, for
the virtual representation of deviated workpieces.
The presence of geometric part deviations is ubiquitous The aim of this contribution is the quantitative assessment
throughout the product life-cycle from manufacturing, to as- of this novel approach for the tolerance analysis in compari-
sembly, inspection, and product usage [1]. Since these geomet- son to established tolerance analysis methods, where the focus
ric part deviations distinctly affect the function and quality of is laid upon rigid mechanical assemblies. This comparison is
mechanical products, there is a strong necessity for companies performed employing a typical tolerance analysis case study.
to manage these geometric variations. In this regard, geometric
dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) activities aim at speci-
fying limits for such geometric part deviations in order to en- 2. State of the Art and Related Work
sure the product function and to meet quality goals.
In this context, tolerance analysis is a key tool for product Tolerancing aims at specifying allowable limits for geomet-
and process developers to predict the effects of inevitable part ric part deviations, which inevitably result from manufacturing
deviations on functional key characteristics of mechanical as- imprecisions [7], to ensure the product assemblability and func-
semblies and to assess the consequences of variation on prod- tional requirements [2,8]. In this context, tolerance analysis is
uct quality [2,3]. During the last decades, various approaches a key tool to predict the effects of geometric part deviations on
for the computer-aided tolerance analysis have been proposed, assembly characteristics without the need for physical mock-
where each of them has specific advantages and disadvantages. ups, where “the objective of tolerance analysis is to check the
However, most of these approaches imply shortcomings, such extent and nature of the variation of an analyzed dimension or
as the missing consideration of form deviations and the incom- geometric feature of interest for a given GD&T scheme” [9].
plete conformance to international standards for the geomet- Three main issues in tolerancing research regarding the tol-
ric product specification and verification (GPS). With the aim erance analysis are to establish mathematical models for the ex-
to overcome these shortcomings, the concept of Skin Model pression and representation of geometric deviations, geometric
Shapes as a novel approach for modelling product shape vari- specifications, and geometric requirements, to model the effects
ability and for the computer-aided tolerance analysis has been of these geometric deviations on the assembly and the system
developed [4,5]. It is based on the Skin Model as a fundamental behaviour, and to provide solution techniques for these models,
concept of modern GPS standards [6] and employs discrete ge- such as worst-case or statistical evaluations [10]. During the

2212-8271 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.013
 Benjamin Schleich and Sandro Wartzack / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177 173

last decades, various approaches have been proposed in order equation, and finally the evaluation of the stack equation using
to solve these issues, which can roughly be classified as devia- worst-case or Monte-Carlo methods [9].
tion accumulation methods, where the functional key character-
istic is expressed as a function of geometric part deviations, and Vector Loops. In contrast to tolerance stacks, where tradition-
tolerance accumulation approaches, where the tolerance zones ally only dimensional part deviations are modelled, vector loops
to be analysed are expressed as subsets of multidimensional also consider geometric part deviations and kinematic varia-
spaces, accumulated (using Minkowski sum and intersection), tions [13]. The mechanical assembly is modelled as a loop of
and compared to the functional subset in the multidimensional vectors, where each of these vectors represents an assembly di-
space [2]. For both of these categories, several approaches have mension, which in turn may be either a dimensional part devi-
been proposed, such as parametric tolerance analysis [11], sim- ation, a geometric part deviation, or a kinematic variation. In
ple tolerance stacks [9], solid offsets [12], vector loops [13], this regard, geometric part deviations are only considered as the
and based thereon the direct linearization method [14], which effect they may have on mating points between parts and kine-
are deviation accumulation methods, and the tolerance analy- matic variations denote the kinematic effects of dimensional
sis based on the Small Displacement Torsor [15,16], Tolerance- and geometric part deviations on the mating parts [24].
MapsR [17], deviation domains [18] and their expression by The different steps for performing a tolerance analysis us-
polytopes [19] as well as their use for the formulation of the ing the vector loop model involve the creation of the assembly
tolerance analysis issue in quantifier notion [2], which are tol- graph, the definition of datum reference frames for the different
erance accumulation approaches. parts, the definition of kinematic joints and the creation of da-
These approaches are also the basis for tolerance analysis tum paths, the identification of vector loops, and the derivation
software [9,20], such as MECAMasterR , which is based on the of stack-up equations [24].
SDT, 3DCSR , VSAR , and CeTolR , which use parametric ap-
proaches (CeTolR used vector loops in former versions), and Small Displacement Torsor. The Small Displacement Torsor
PolitoCATR , which employs polytopes. (SDT) describes the displacement of a geometric element by
Furthermore, a considerable number of review papers high- a translation vector and a linearised rotation matrix written as
lighting the similarities and differences of the aforementioned a three-element rotation vector [15], i. e. the SDT τ is given as
approaches exist, such as [9,11,17,21–24]. Based on these τ = t ω with t, ω ∈ R3×1 . With this, the displacement Δp
works, it can be found, that most of the proposed tolerance anal- of a point p is expressed as:
ysis methods are not capable of holistically considering form Δp = t+ω× p (1)
deviations, are consequently not fully conform to tolerancing  
standards and imply shortcomings regarding the combination where t is the vector of translations, i. e. t = t x ty tz , ω is the
 
of 3D tolerance zones, envelope and independence principles, vector of rotations, i. e. ω = α β γ , and × is the cross-product.
material condition modifiers, and datum precedence. Thus, the SDT can be used to express the displacement of
In contrast to these established approaches, the concept of each part in an assembly, leading to the part SDT, the displace-
Skin Model Shapes [4,5] employs discrete geometry represen- ment of points on a toleranced feature, leading to the deviation
tation schemes, such as point clouds and surface meshes, for SDT, and the relative displacement between two parts, lead-
the representation of parts and assemblies considering all kinds ing to the gap SDT [15]. As the allowable displacements of
of geometric deviations and grounds on the Skin Model as a each point on a toleranced feature are constrained by the re-
fundamental concept of modern GPS standards. spective tolerance zone(s), inequations between the entries of
the deviation SDT and the respective tolerances can be formu-
lated, which leads to the concept of deviation domains [18].
3. Overview of considered Tolerance Analysis Approaches These constraints and consequently the boundaries of the de-
viation domains are in general not linear [19]. However, there
As it has been argued, various approaches for the computer- are approaches to express the deviation domains by polytopes
aided tolerance analysis have been proposed during the last and thus to replace the non-linear constraints by sets of linear
decades, where three major approaches are tolerance stacks, constraints. For more details, the reader is referred to [18,19].
vector loops, and the tolerance analysis based on the Small Dis- The tolerance analysis employing the SDT concept is per-
placement Torsor (SDT). In contrast to these approaches, the formed by propagating the different SDTs using Minkowski
tolerance analysis employing discrete geometry representations sums and intersections to obtain the possible deviations of a
of deviated workpieces considering form deviations is a novel feature or point of interest [16,19].
method. In the following, these four approaches are briefly
highlighted before they are applied to a typical case study. Skin Model Shapes. In contrast to the aforementioned ap-
proaches, the tolerance analysis based on Skin Model Shapes
Tolerance Stacks. Tolerance stacks are a simple and straight- (SMS) is a novel method, which allows the consideration of
forward approach to model the effects of part deviations on dis- form deviations and is conform to international standards for
tances between different part features in an assembly. In this the GPS. Skin Model Shapes are specific outcomes of the Skin
regard, tolerance stacks include most often only dimensional Model [6] as a basic concept of modern standards for the ge-
tolerances, though modern modifications of this method also ometric product specification and verification employing dis-
consider geometric tolerances [9]. The procedure of perform- crete geometry representation schemes, such as point clouds
ing the tolerance analysis based on tolerance stacks comprises and surface meshes [4]. The tolerance analysis based on Skin
firstly the definition of a stack coordinate system, secondly the Model Shapes [25] comprises the generation and scaling of de-
identification of the stack path and the formulation of the stack viated workpiece representatives according to specified toler-
174 Benjamin Schleich and Sandro Wartzack / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177

ances [26], their processing using computational geometry al- The gaps gi→i+1 depend on the geometric deviations of the
gorithms for the relative positioning and assembly simulation mating parts, which result from the perpendicularity tolerances
[27], as well as the measurement of functional key characteris- ((1), (5)) and the parallelism tolerances ((2), (6)). In this regard,
tics (FKC) from the simulated assemblies (see Fig. 1). each of these tolerances lead to a rotation around the y-axis of
the corresponding feature. From these rotations around the y-
SMS SMS Assembly FKC axis of the mating features and the part heights hi,i+1 , the gap
Generation Scaling Simulation Measurement
between each two parts can be computed by:
gi→i+1 = 0.5 · |(hi+1 · βi+1 − hi · βi )| , (5)
where βi ∈ [−t /hi ; t /hi ] is the orientation defect of part
(2,6) (2,6)
h
i around the y-axis due to the parallelism tolerance t(2,6) and
βi+1 ∈ [−t(1,5) /hi+1 ; t(1,5) /hi+1 ] the orientation defect around the
y-axis of part i+1 due to the perpendicularity tolerance t(1,5) (see
Fig. 1. The Tolerance Analysis based on Skin Model Shapes Fig. 6). Thus, depending on the rotations of the mating features,
the gap between two parts takes a value between min(gi→i+1 ) =
0 (when βi and βi+1 balance out) and max(gi→i+1 ) = 0.5 · (t(2,6) +
t(1,5) ), whereas the gap gStart→0 = t(1,5) /2 and g3→End = t(2,6) /2.
4. Case Study
In contrast to the orientation tolerances, the position toler-
ances ((3) and (7)) are considered to have no effect on the fea-
In order to provide a quantitative comparison between the
ture rotations and hence on the gaps, but only on the part dimen-
different tolerance analysis approaches, a typical case study
sions li∗ . However, it has to be noticed, that the parallelism tol-
consisting of four parts as shown in Fig. 2 is analysed. The
erances ((2),(6)) are covered by the position tolerances ((3),(7))
cubes are subsequently assembled on the clip, where a three-
and that the perpendicularity tolerances ((1),(5)) have an effect
point-move is applied in negative z-direction and a two-point-
on the effective part length. This can be seen from Fig. 6, where
move is performed in negative x-direction resulting in three
it can be found, that the part length li∗ results from the total part
contact points between the respective cube and the clip and two
length li as li∗ ∈ (li − t(1,5) /2) ± (t(3,7) − t(2,6) ) with t(3,7) being the
contact points between the respective cube and the previous
value of the position tolerance ((3),(7)). Hence, the li∗ result to
cube or clip, respectively. The functional key characteristics
l0∗ ∈ 9.75 ± 0.5/2, l1∗ ∈ 49.75 ± 0.5/2, l2∗ ∈ 69.75 ± 0.5/2, and
are the position variation pos of the feature of interest with ref-
l3∗ ∈ 29.75 ± 0.5/2.
erence to the datums A and B on the clip and its parallelism
Similarly to the tolerance analysis based on tolerance stacks,
variation par with reference to A and B. In this regard, par
the length of the vector loop of an assembly in equation (4)
comprises only the orientation defects of the feature of interest
leads to the position deviation pos = 2 · |l∗ − l|.
with reference to the datum system and pos comprises also the
location defects (see Fig. 3).
Tolerance Analysis employing the SDT. As it has been men-
Tolerance Analysis using Tolerance Stacks. The tolerance anal- tioned, the tolerance analysis employing the SDT requires
ysis based on tolerance stacks starts with the definition of a firstly the expression of the specified tolerances as constraints
stack coordinate system and the formulation of the stack path, on the components of the deviation SDT for toleranced features
which can be seen from Fig. 4. The stack equation yields to: and then their propagation using Minkowksi sums and intersec-
l = l0 + l1 + l2 + l3 (2) tions. By doing so, the domain of possible deviations of a fea-
ture or point of interest is obtained. For this case study, a focus
The position deviation pos of every assembly can then be is laid upon the deviations of the feature of interest regarding
calculated from its actual length l and the nominal length l by: the rotations around the y- and z-axis (β and γ) to finally calcu-
 
pos = 2 · l − l (3) late the parallelism deviation par. In order to perform this, the
tolerances leading to rotational feature defects are expressed as
Since tolerance stacks traditionally do not consider geo- deviation domains considering the part positioning scheme.
metric part deviations, the position tolerances given in Fig. In this regard, the perpendicularity tolerances ((1) and (5))
2 ((3) and (7)) are converted to dimensional part deviations, influence the feature rotations of the respective features around
where each of the position tolerances is interpreted as a dimen- the y-axis (β), whereas the parallelism tolerances ((2) and (6))
sional tolerance lying symmetrically around the nominal part influence the feature rotations around the y- and the z-axis (β
dimension, leading to l0 ∈ 10.0 ± 1.0/2, l1 ∈ 50.0 ± 1.0/2, and γ). However, according to the positioning scheme, the fea-
l2 ∈ 70.0 ± 1.0/2, and l3 ∈ 30.0 ± 1.0/2. The stack equation is ture rotations around the y-axis (β) of the preceding parts and
then used to determine the worst-case and it is evaluated statis- features manifest in gaps between the parts without having an
tically, where the results are discussed in the last paragraph. effect on the rotational feature deviations of the feature of inter-
Tolerance Analysis using Vector Loops. In contrast to the toler- est (the feature rotation of the feature of interest around the y-
ance analysis based on tolerance stacks, gaps between the parts axis is solely influenced by the parallelism tolerance (4)). Thus,
due to their geometric deviations are considered in the vector the perpendicularity tolerances ((1) and (5)) have no effect on
loop approach. Thus, with the gaps gi→i+1 between the parts i the rotational feature deviations of the feature of interest around
and i + 1, the vector loop (1D) is obtained as (see Fig. 5): the analysed axes. In contrast to that, the parallelism tolerances
((2) and (6)) affect the rotation of the feature of interest around
l∗ = gStart→0 + l0∗ + g0→1 + l1∗ + g1→2 + l2∗ the z-direction, where the deviation domains of the parallelism
(4)
+g2→3 + l3∗ + g3→End tolerances ((2) and (6)) can be simplified as can seen from Fig.
 Benjamin Schleich and Sandro Wartzack / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177 175

10 50 70 30

50 par A B

B pos A B
Feature of Interest

60 10

z 60
y A 170
x
d

0.1
0.1
0.1 (2) 0.1
0.5 A B 0.1 (6)
(1) (5) 0.5 A B
0.5 A (3) (4) 0.5 A
1.0 A B 0.5 A (7)
1.0 A B
B B

0.1
A
A 0.1

Fig. 2. Case Study

7. Moreover, the rotation of the feature of interest around the y- Start End
l∗
axis is solely influenced by the parallelism tolerance (4). How-
ever, as the effect of the parallelism tolerance (4) on the feature l0∗ l1∗ l2∗ l3∗
rotation around the x-axis is not analysed, the deviation domain
of tolerance (4) can be simplified as can be seen from Fig. 7.
z
As the deviation domains of all relevant tolerances have been
identified, they can be propagated to obtain the deviation do- x
main of the feature of interest with respect to the β and γ devi-
ations, which can be seen from Fig. 8. Fig. 5. Vector Loop (1D) of the Assembly

160 t(1,5) /2 t(2,6) /2

l∗
h

B A l
par
A pos Fig. 6. Conversion of the Position Tolerances to Part Lengths for the Vector
Loop Approach
Fig. 3. Explanation of the Functional Key Characteristics of the Case Study

magnified form deviations. The nominal surface meshes of the

l parts have been generated using proprietary finite-element soft-
l0 l1 l2 l3 ware, where mesh refinement has been applied to the mating
surfaces (see Fig. 10).

Results of the Tolerance Analysis Approaches. The tolerance

analysis approaches have been used to determine the FKCs of
the study case, where worst-case as well as statistical evalu-
Fig. 4. Tolerance Stack of the Assembly ations of the tolerance analysis models have been performed.
Table 1 highlights the considered tolerances in each approach.

Tolerance Analysis by Skin Model Shapes. In order to analyse

Table 1. Considered Tolerances in the different Tolerance Analysis Approaches.
the effects of part tolerances on the assembly behaviour em-
ploying Skin Model Shapes, deviated surface meshes of the sin- Approach Tolerances Explanation
gle parts are generated, which are then scaled to be conform to
Stacks (3),(7) Conversion to Dim. Tolerances
the specified tolerances. Thereafter, these part representatives Vector Loop (1)–(3),(5)–(7) Conversion to Gaps & Dim. Tolerances
are assembled according to the positioning scheme. Finally, the SDT (1),(2),(4)–(6) Evaluation of Orientation Defects
key characteristics are measured from the obtained assemblies. SMS (1)–(7) (+ Form) With & without Form Tolerances
Fig. 9 shows an exemplary assembly with coarsened mesh and
176 Benjamin Schleich and Sandro Wartzack / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00

α
γ

-0.01 -0.01

-0.010 0.00 0.010 -0.005 0 0.005 -0.005 0 0.005 Fig. 9. Resulting Assembly for the Tolerance Analysis based on Skin Model
β β β Shapes with coarsened Mesh and magnified Form Deviations: Initial Part De-
viations (left), Accumulated Deviations through the Assembly (right)
Fig. 7. Simplification of the Deviation Domains: Left: Simplification of the
Parallelism Tolerances ((2),(6)) – as the Feature Rotations around the y-axis
(β) manifest in Gaps between the Parts, only the Rotations around the z-axis
(γ) have to be considered. Right: Resulting Effect of the Parallelism Tolerance
of the Clip (4) – since only the Feature Rotations around the y- and z-axis are
considered, the Deviation Domain of the Parallelism Tolerance (4) is simplified.

(4) (2) (6) Cube 1

Resulting Domain

Fig. 10. Surface Meshes of the Parts: coarse Mesh for Visualization (left), dense
γ

Mesh with Mesh Refinement on Mating Surfaces for Computation (right).

β β β
γ been performed, where Gaussian input probability densities
(6) Cube 2 (6) Cube 3 have been chosen with μ = 0.05, σ = 0.1/6 for the form tol-
erances, μ = 0.3, σ = 0.4/6 for the orientation tolerances, and
μ = 0.75, σ = 0.5/6 for the location tolerances. These Gaussian
distributions have been chosen due to their broad application in
γ

industry and implementation in proprietary CAT tools. How-

ever, other probability distributions, for example based on ob-
β
servations from manufacturing processes, could also have been
β β
used. The results of the statistical tolerance analysis are shown
Fig. 8. Relevant Feature Deviation Domains and resulting Deviation Domain in Fig. 11, where posG∗ & paraG∗ denote the results of the tol-
(β and γ) for the Orientation Defects of the Feature of Interest erance analysis based on Skin Model Shapes with and posG &
paraG without consideration of form deviations, posG† are the
position deviations calculated by tolerance stacks, and posG‡ us-
In this regard, the worst-case results for the tolerance anal- ing the vector loop approach. It can be found, that tolerance
ysis using tolerance stacks can be calculated as min(l) = stacks underestimate the position deviation pos, since gaps be-
3 3
i=0 min(li ) = 158; max(l) = i=0 max(li ) = 162 and conse- tween the parts as a result of the orientation defects are not con-
quently max(pos) = 2 · max(|l − l|) = 4 with l = 160. In contrast sidered. Furthermore, it can be seen, that the consideration of
to that, the worst-case limits for the length of the vector loop form deviations leads to a slight negative shift of the probabil-
in equation (4) result as min(l∗ ) = 158.5 and max(l∗ ) = 162.0 ity densities for the parallelism deviation par. This is because
and hence again max(pos) = 4.0. The difference in the min- the form deviations decrease the possible feature rotations and
imum length between the tolerance stack and the vector loop hence result in a decreased parallelism deviation of the feature
arises from the joint consideration of orientation and location of interest.
tolerances. In contrast to that, the tolerance analysis based
on Skin Model Shapes without consideration of form devia- paraG posG
Probability Density

tions gives max(pos) = 4.26. This is because also the effect 1.5 para∗G 1 pos∗G
of the parallelism tolerance (4) is considered, which leads to pos†G
a rotation of the assembly around the y-axis and hence to an 1 pos‡G
increased position deviation of the feature of interest. In con- 0.5
trast to that, the consideration of form deviations leads up to 0.5
max(pos) = 5.35, which can be explained by irregular contact
points between the parts due to form deviations, that accumu- 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 2 4
late through the assembly and lead to additional position de- Parallelism Position
viations of the feature of interest. Furthermore, based on the
results of the SDT approach for the worst possible feature rota- Fig. 11. Results of the Case Study: Probability Densities of the FKCs
tions, the maximum parallelism deviation can be calculated as
max(par) = 2.07, where it results from the tolerance analysis Moreover, the β and γ deviations of the feature of interest
based on Skin Model Shapes as max(par) = 2.07 without and calculated by the approach based on Skin Model Shapes can be
as max(par) = 1.76 with consideration of form deviations. seen from Fig. 12, where WCSDT indicates the deviation do-
Beside the worst-case analysis, statistical evaluations have main calculated by the SDT approach, devWC indicates the re-
 Benjamin Schleich and Sandro Wartzack / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 172 – 177 177

·10−2
4 References
WCSDT
3 devWC [1] Mathieu, L., Ballu, A.. A model for a coherent and complete tolerancing
devG process. In: Davidson, J., editor. Models for Computer Aided Tolerancing
2 dev∗G in Design and Manufacturing. Springer Netherlands. 2007, p. 35-44.
[2] Dantan, J.Y., Qureshi, A.J.. Worst-case and statistical tolerance analy-
1 sis based on quantified constraint satisfaction problems and monte carlo
simulation. Comput.-Aided Des. 2009;41(1):1-12.
0 [3] Söderberg, R., Lindkvist, L., Dahlström, S.. Computer-aided robustness
γ

analysis for compliant assemblies. J. Eng. Des. 2006;17(5):411-428.

−1 [4] Schleich, B., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L., Wartzack, S.. Skin model shapes:
A new paradigm shift for geometric variations modelling in mechanical
−2 engineering. Comput.-Aided Des. 2014;50:1-15.
[5] Anwer, N., Schleich, B., Mathieu, L., Wartzack, S.. From solid mod-
−3 elling to skin model shapes: Shifting paradigms in computer-aided toler-
ancing. CIRP Ann. 2014;63(1):137-140.
−4 [6] Anwer, N., Ballu, A., Mathieu, L.. The skin model, a comprehensive
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 geometric model for engineering design. CIRP Ann. 2013;62(1):143-146.
β ·10−2 [7] Srinivasan, V.. Computational metrology for the design and manufacture
of product geometry: A classification and synthesis. J. Comput. Inf. Sci.
Fig. 12. Results of the Case Study: Rotation Defects of the Feature of Interest Eng. 2006;7(1):3-9.
[8] Weill, R., Clément, A., Hocken, R., Farmer, L., Gladman, C., Wirtz,
A., et al. Tolerancing for function. CIRP Ann. 1988;37(2):603-610.
sults of the worst-case analysis employing Skin Model Shapes, [9] Shen, Z., Ameta, G., Shah, J.J., Davidson, J.K.. A comparative study of
devG∗ the results of the statistical tolerance analysis with, and
tolerance analysis methods. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2005;5(3):247-256.
[10] Dantan, J.Y., Gayton, N., Dumas, A., Etienne, A., Qureshi, A.J.. Math-
devG without consideration of form deviations. It can be seen, ematical issues in mechanical tolerance analysis. In: Proceedings of the
that the tolerance analysis based on Skin Model Shapes also al- 13th Colloque National AIP PRIMECA. 2012.
lows the worst-case analysis of orientation deviations and that [11] Shah, J.J., Ameta, G., Shen, Z., Davidson, J.. Navigating the tolerance
the consideration of form deviations in the statistical tolerance analysis maze. Comput.-Aided Des. Applic. 2007;4(5):705-718.
[12] Requicha, A.A.G.. Toward a theory of geometric tolerancing. The Inter-
analysis results in a slightly decreased spread of the orientation national Journal of Robotics Research 1983;2(45):45-60.
defects of the feature of interest due to irregular contact points [13] Gao, J., Chase, K.W., Magleby, S.P.. Generalized 3-d tolerance analysis
compared to the case where the form deviations are nil. of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. IIE Transac-
In summary, it can be found, that the tolerance analysis tions 1998;30(4):367-377.
based on Skin Model Shapes leads to comparable results as [14] Wittwer, J.W., Chase, K.W., Howell, L.L.. The direct linearization
method applied to position error in kinematic linkages. Mech. Mach. The-
the three established tolerance analysis approaches for the case ory 2004;39(7):681-693.
where the form deviations are considered to be nil. However, [15] Bourdet, P., Mathieu, L., Lartigue, C., Ballu, A.. The concept of the small
this novel approach also allows the consideration of form de- displacement torsor in metrology. In: Ciarlini, P., Cox, M.G., Pavese, F.,
viations in conformance to international GPS standards, which Richter, D., editors. Advanced Mathematical Tools in Metrology II. World
have, as it has been shown, distinct effects on the quality of Scientific Publishing Company; 1996, p. 110-122.
[16] Li, H., Zhu, H., Li, P., He, F.. Tolerance analysis of mechanical assem-
mechanical assemblies. Thus, the tolerance analysis based on blies based on small displacement torsor and deviation propagation theo-
Skin Model Shapes allows a more realistic prediction of assem- ries. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014;72(1-4):89-99.
bly characteristics in virtual product development and a hence [17] Ameta, G., Serge, S., Giordano, M.. Comparison of spatial math mod-
supports holistic geometric variations management. els for tolerance analysis: Tolerance-maps, deviation domain, and ttrs. J.
Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2011;11(2):021004-021004.
5. Conclusion and Outlook [18] Giordano, M., Samper, S., Petit, J.. Tolerance analysis and synthesis by
means of deviation domains, axi-symmetric cases. In: Davidson, J., editor.
Models for Computer Aided Tolerancing in Design and Manufacturing.
Tolerance analysis is a key tool to predict the effects of in- Springer Netherlands. 2007, p. 85–94.
evitable part deviations on assembly characteristics. In this con- [19] Homri, L., Teissandier, D., Ballu, A.. Tolerance analysis by polytopes:
tribution, a novel approach for the computer-aided tolerance Taking into account degrees of freedom with cap half-spaces. Comput.-
analysis, namely the tolerance analysis based on Skin Model Aided Des. 2015;62:112 – 130.
[20] Prisco, U., Giorleo, G.. Overview of current cat systems. Integrated
Shapes, has been compared to three established tolerance anal-
Computer-Aided Engineering 2002;9:373–387.
ysis methods considering a typical case study of tolerancing re- [21] Farmer, L., Gladman, C.. Tolerance technology — computer-based anal-
search. Based on the obtained results, it can be found, that the ysis. CIRP Ann. 1986;35(1):7 – 10.
consideration of form tolerances in conformance to GPS stan- [22] Chase, K., Parkinson, A.. A survey of research in the application of
dards, which is enabled by Skin Model Shapes, leads to more tolerance analysis to the design of mechanical assemblies. Res. Eng. Des.
1991;3(1):23–37.
realistic predictions of assembly characteristics.
[23] Nigam, S.D., Turner, J.U.. Review of statistical approaches to tolerance
However, works covering related tolerance analysis prob- analysis. Comput.-Aided Des. 1995;27(1):6 – 15.
lems, such as over-constrained assemblies or case studies con- [24] Polini, W.. Geometric tolerance analysis. In: Colosimo, B.M., Senin, N.,
sidering thermal expansion and part deformations, are to be per- editors. Geometric Tolerances. Springer London. 2011, p. 39–68.
formed in the future. [25] Schleich, B., Wartzack, S.. A discrete geometry approach for tolerance
analysis of mechanism. Mech. Mach. Theory 2014;77:148 – 163.
[26] Schleich, B., Wartzack, S.. Evaluation of geometric tolerances and gener-
Acknowledgements ation of variational part representatives for tolerance analysis. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2015;79(5-8):959–983.
The authors thankfully acknowledge a funding of the Ger- [27] Schleich, B., Wartzack, S.. Approaches for the assembly simulation of
man Research Foundation (DFG, grant number WA 2913/15-1). skin model shapes. Comput.-Aided Des. 2015;65:18 – 33.