Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:14:34.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assembly synthesis with subassembly partitioning for optimal in-process dimensional adjustability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2007

BYUNGWOO LEE
Affiliation:
Product Realization Laboratory, GE Global Research, Niskayuna, New York, USA
KAZUHIRO SAITOU
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Achieving the dimensional integrity for a complex structural assembly is a demanding task due to the manufacturing variations of parts and the tolerance relationship between them. Although assigning tight tolerances to all parts would solve the problem, an economical solution is taking advantage of small motions that joints allow, such that critical dimensions are adjusted during assembly processes. This paper presents a systematic method that decomposes product geometry at an early stage of design, selects joint types, and generates subassembly partitioning to achieve the adjustment of the critical dimensions during assembly processes. A genetic algorithm generates candidate assemblies based on a joint library specific for an application domain. Each candidate assembly is evaluated by an internal optimization routine that computes the subassembly partitioning for optimal in-process adjustability, by finding a series of minimum cuts on weighted graphs. A case study on a three-dimensional automotive space frame with the accompanying joint library is presented.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antonsson, E.K., & Cagan, J., Eds. (2001). Formal Engineering Design Synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourjault, A. (1984). Contribution a une approche methodologique de l'assemblage automatise: elaboration automatique des sequences operatoires. PhD Thesis. Universite de Franche-Comte.
Cagan, J., Campbell, M.I., Finger, S., & Tomiyama, T. (2005). A framework for computational design synthesis: model and applications. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 5(3), 171181.Google Scholar
Ceglarek, D., & Shi, J. (1998). Design evaluation of sheet metal joints for dimensional integrity. ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 120(2), 452460.Google Scholar
Cetin, O., & Saitou, K. (2001). Decomposition-based assembly synthesis for maximum structural strength and modularity. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 126(2), 244253.Google Scholar
De Fazio, T.L., & Whitney, D.E. (1987). Simplified generation of all mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation RA-3(6), 640658.Google Scholar
Foulds, L.R. (1991). Graph Theory Applications. New York: Springer.
Goldberg, A.V., & Tarjan, R.E. (1988). A new approach to the maximum-flow problem. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 35(4), 921940.Google Scholar
Homem de Mello, L.S., & Sanderson, A.C. (1990). AND/OR graph representation of assembly plans. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 6(2), 188199.Google Scholar
Homem de Mello, L.S., & Sanderson, A.C. (1991a). Representations of mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 7(2), 211227.Google Scholar
Homem de Mello, L.S., & Sanderson, A.C. (1991b). A correct and complete algorithm for the generation of mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 7(2), 228240.Google Scholar
Lee, B., & Saitou, K. (2003). Decomposition-based assembly synthesis for in-process dimensional adjustability. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 125(3), 464473.Google Scholar
Lee, D.J., & Thornton, A.C. (1996). The identification and use of key characteristics in the product development process. Proc. 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. 96-DETC/DTM-1506.
Liu, S.C., & Hu, S.J. (1998). Sheet metal joint configurations and their variation characteristics. ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 120(2), 461467.Google Scholar
Lyu, N., & Saitou, K. (2003). Decomposition-based assembly synthesis based on structural stiffness. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 125(3), 452463.Google Scholar
Malen, D.E. (2002). Fundamentals of Automotive Body Structures. Course Notes. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
Mantripragada, R., & Whitney, D.E. (1998). The datum flow chain. Research in Engineering Design 10(2), 150165.Google Scholar
Mantripragada, R., & Whitney, D.E. (1999). Modeling and controlling variation propagation in mechanical assemblies using state transition models. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 15(1), 124140.Google Scholar
Peysakhov, M., & Regli, W.C. (2003). Using assembly representations to enable evolutionary design of Lego structures. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 17(2), 155168.Google Scholar
Pollack, J., & Funes, P. (1997). Computer evolution of buildable objects. Fourth European Conf. Artificial Life (Husbands, P., & Harvey, I., Eds.), pp. 358367. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thornton, A.C. (2004). Variation Risk Management: Focusing Quality Improvements in Product Development and Production. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wang, C.-H. (1997). Manufacturability-driven decomposition of sheet metal products. PhD Thesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Whitney, D.E. (2004). Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whitney, D.E., Mantripragada, R., Adams, J.D., & Rhee, S.J. (1999). Designing assemblies. Research in Engineering Design 11(3), 229253.Google Scholar
Yetis, F.A., & Saitou, K. (2002). Decomposition-based assembly synthesis based on structural considerations. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 124(3), 593601.Google Scholar