Problems for designers in tolerance stackup analysis

AI Thread Summary
Designers face significant challenges in tolerance stackup analysis, particularly with existing software that struggles to incorporate all ASME 14.5 GD&T rules and relies heavily on user expertise. A major issue highlighted is the difficulty in obtaining reliable component data, as distributions are often unavailable, complicating yield predictions. Monte Carlo simulations are favored for yield prediction, but they require accurate statistical modeling of components, which is hindered by supplier reluctance to share distribution data. Additionally, errors in modeling can lead to biased results, necessitating corrections. Overall, improving access to component probability density functions is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of tolerance stackup analysis tools.
abhisuri
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I am writing a program for tolerance stackup analysis, and I wanted to know kind of problems designers face with respect to existing softwares currently.

For example, I found out that using GD&T and monte carlo simulations, many ASME 14.5 rules cannot be incorporated. Also the major problems with these packages are that the results depend on the expertise of the user, not just the GD&T specifications.

So what are other problems that need to be addressed.

Thanks a lot!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hello,

I work for a high volume manufacturer, so yield prediction is important. Most guesses can be made RSS, but final work must be based on something more substantial, like Monti-Carlo.
The single largest difficulty we face is having component data. Distributions are hard to come by, and we've spent a lot of time sampling and characterizing.
A tool to aid with the statistics of sampling would make things easier.

Best Regards,

Mike
 
Hey Mike,

Thanks a lot for replying!

I guess the best way for yield prediction is Monte Carlo. I will surely incorporate that in my program.

Can you please elaborate the difficulty you are specifying regarding component data? I mean can you give me an example of the problem you are stating, regarding sampling?

As far as distributions are concerned, I guess what we do now is try out various combinations to see which one fits the best. Another alternative is there could be a code which looks at all the data and decide the distribution from its own. Mostly there is a standard machine learning algorithm for it. I'll find out more about this.

Thanks again!

Regards,

Abhi
 
Yes,

Time and again, I've written MathCad routines or Excel files to find fits. When designing filters, this is especially handy. I also have a Nelder-Meade optimizer which calls upon a Spice package to solve complex relationships.

However, the most fundamental, day-to-day tools are based upon statistical modeling of the components. Given insight into the probability density function for any given parameter, the Monti-Carlo method can give a fair approximation of yield data.

In reality, it has two shortcomings:(1) suppliers are resistant to admitting distributions, and (2) errors in the modeling typically give biased results such that a correction often needs to be made.

Collecting a database of component PDFs is the most expensive aspect of using these techniques.

- Mike
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top