Research Papers

A Framework for Explicating Formal Geometrical and Dimensional Tolerances Schema From Manufacturing Process Plans for Three-Dimensional Conformance Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Payam Haghighi, Prashant Mohan, Jami J. Shah, Joseph K. Davidson

Design Automation Laboratory,
Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received November 26, 2014; final manuscript received December 9, 2014; published online April 8, 2015. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 15(2), 021003 (Jun 01, 2015) (13 pages) Paper No: JCISE-14-1434; doi: 10.1115/1.4029555 History: Received November 26, 2014; Revised December 09, 2014; Online April 08, 2015

A process plan is an instruction set for the manufacture of parts generated from detailed design drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) models. While these plans are highly detailed about machines, tools, fixtures, and operation parameters, tolerances typically show up in less formal manner, if at all. It is not uncommon to see only dimensional plus/minus values on rough sketches accompanying the instructions. On the other hand, design drawings use standard geometrical and dimensional tolerances (GD&T) symbols with datums and datum reference frames (DRFs) clearly specified. This is not to say that process planners do not consider tolerances; they are implied by way of choices of fixtures, tools, machines, and operations. Process planners do tolerance charting in converting design tolerances to the manufacturing datum flow based on operation sequence, but the resulting plans cannot be audited for conformance to design specification. In this paper, we present a framework for explicating the GD&T schema implied by machining process plans. The first step is to derive DRFs from the fixturing method in each setup. Then, basic dimensions for features machined in the setup are determined with respect to the extracted DRF. Using shop data for the machines and operations involved, the range of possible geometric variations are estimated for each type (form, size, orientation, and position). The sequence of operations determines the datum flow chain. Once we have a formal manufacturing GD&T schema, we can analyze and compare it to design specification using the T-map math model.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


ASME, 1994, “Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME Y14.5M-1994,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Shah, J., Ameta, G., Shen, Z., and Davidson, J., 2007, “Navigating the Tolerance Analysis Maze,” Comput.-Aided Des. Appl., 4(5), pp. 705–719. [CrossRef]
Shen, Z., Ameta, G., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J. K., 2005, “A Comparative Study of Tolerance Analysis Methods,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 5(3), pp. 247–256. [CrossRef]
Drozda, T. J., and Wick, C., 1982, Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Vol. 1, Society of Manufacturing, Chap. 2.
Ahluwalia, R. S., and Karolin, A. V., 1986, “CATC—A Computer Aided Tolerance Control System,” J. Manuf. Syst., 3(2), pp. 153–160. [CrossRef]
Li, J. K., Zhang, C., and Zhang, Y. Z., 1989, “Operational Dimensions and Tolerances Calculation in CAPP Systems for Precision Manufacturing,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol., 38(1), pp. 403–406. [CrossRef]
Whybrew, K., Britton, G. A., Robinson, D. F., and Sermsutianuwat, Y., 1990, “A Graph-Theoretic Approach to Tolerance Charting,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 5(2), pp. 175–183. [CrossRef]
Shen, Z., 2005, “Development of a Framework for a Set of Computer-Aided Tools for Tolerance Analysis,” Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Zhang, Y., Hu, W., Rong, Y., and Yen, D. W., 2001, “Graph-Based Set-Up Planning and Tolerance Decomposition for Computer-Aided Fixture Design,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 39(14), pp. 3109–3126. [CrossRef]
Shah, J. J., and Yan, Y., 1996, “Representation and Mapping of Geometric Dimensions From Design to Manufacturing,” Proceedings of ASME DETC/CIE Conferences, Irvine, CA, Aug. 18–22, Vol. 78.
Thimm, G., and Lin, J., 2005, “Redimensioning Parts for Manufacturability: A Design Rewriting System,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 26(4), pp. 399–404. [CrossRef]
Wilma, P., and Giovanni, M., 2015, “Manufacturing Signature for Tolerance Analysis,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 15(2), p. 021001. [CrossRef]
Vemulapalli, P., Mohan, P., Zhang, Z., Savaliya, S., and Shah, J., 2012, “Machining Plan Variability Analysis for iFAB,” DARPA-iFAB Project, Final Technical Report, Report No. ASU/DAL/ifab/2012-02-R1.
Rao, S. S., Haghighi, P., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J. K., 2014, “Library of T-Maps for Dimensional and Geometric Tolerances,” ASME Paper No. DETC2014-35273. [CrossRef]
Mohan, P., Haghighi, P., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J. K., 2014, “Automatic Detection of Directions of Dimensional Control in Mechanical Parts,” ASME Paper No. MSEC2014-4143. [CrossRef]
Wu, Y., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J. K., 2003, “Computer Modeling of Geometric Variations in Mechanical Parts and Assemblies,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 3(1), pp. 54–63. [CrossRef]
Shen, Z., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J. K., 2008, “Analysis Neutral Data Structure for GD&T,” J. Intell. Manuf., 19(4), pp. 455–472. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A Design drawing of a part with formal GD&T specifications

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

First step in the process plan of machining the connecting rod. (a) Process plan sample sheet and (b) process plan sample sketch.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Overview of computational procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Part design and process plan: (a) design GDT spec of a part and (b) partial plan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of 3-2-1 principle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

First two stages of machining a connecting rod: (a) first setup and (b) second setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Different fixturing methods for machining the same part (a) first fixturing method, (b) DRF extracted for the first fixturing method, (c) second fixturing method, and (d) DRF extracted for the second fixturing method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Different machines and the DRF derived with respect to their coordinate systems (a) turning machine and (b) milling machine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Annotated figures accompanying the first stage of connecting rod process plan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Process data for extracting errors in machining the connecting rod

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Process plan intent

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Process plan steps

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Manufacturing steps of machining the cap-cylinder assembly

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Design GD&T for Cap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Cylinder cap assembly, where rotational constraint is important

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Example PCTF graph for part in Fig. 14

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Example of a T-map: (a) T-map, (b) M-map, and (c) T-map versus M-map

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Cross-sections of the T-map and M-maps for comparison (a) cutting planes and cross sectioning and (b) 2D cross sections of the maps for comparison



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In