This paper presents the methods to move assembly variation analysis into early stages of aircraft development where critical partitioning, sourcing, and production decisions are often made for component parts that have not yet been designed. Our goal is to identify and develop variation prediction methods that can precede detailed geometric design and make estimates accurate enough to uncover major assembly risks. With this information in hand, design and/or manufacturing modifications can be made prior to major supplier and production commitments. In addition to estimation of the overall variation, the most significant contributors to assembly variation are also identified. In this paper, a generic framework for prediction of assembly variation has been developed. An efficient, top-down approach has been adopted. Instead of taking measurement everywhere, the variation analysis starts with airplane level requirements (e.g., load capabilities and orientation of horizontal/vertical stabilizers), and then assembly requirements (mainly geometric dimensioning and tolerancing callouts, quantifiable in quality control) are derived. Next the contributors to a particular assembly requirement are identified through data flow chain analysis. Finally, the major contributors are further characterized through a sensitivity study of metamodels or 3D variation analysis models. A case study of a vertical fin has been used to demonstrate the validity of the proposed framework. Multiple prediction methods have been studied and their applicability to variation analysis discussed. Simplified design simulation method and metamodel methods have been tested and the results are reported. Comparisons between methods have been made to demonstrate the flexibility of the analysis framework, as well as the utility of the prediction methods. The results of a demonstration test case study for vertical fin design were encouraging with modeling methods coming within 15% of deviation compared with the detailed design simulation.

1.
Department of the Navy
, 1993, NAVSO P-3679, Producibility Measurement Guidelines, Aug.
2.
Voelcker
,
H. B.
, 1998, “
The Current State of Affairs in Dimensional Tolerancing: 1997
,”
Integr. Manuf. Syst.
0957-6061,
9
, pp.
205
217
.
3.
Hong
,
Y. S.
, and
Chang
,
T. C.
, 2002, “
A Comprehensive Review of Tolerancing Research
,”
Int. J. Prod. Res.
0020-7543,
40
(
11
), pp.
2425
2459
.
4.
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.
1530-9827,
5
(
3
), pp.
247
256
.
5.
Whitney
,
D. E.
, 2004,
Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development
,
Oxford University Press
,
Oxford
.
6.
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Peplinski
,
J.
,
Koch
,
P. N.
, and
Allen
,
J. K.
, 1997, “
On the Use of Statistics in Design and the Implications for Deterministic Computer Experiments
,” ASME Paper No. DETC-97/DTM3881.
7.
Jin
,
R.
,
Chen
,
W.
, and
Simpson
,
T. W.
, 2001, “
Comparative Studies of Metamodeling Techniques Under Multiple Modeling Criteria
,”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
1615-147X,
23
(
1
), pp.
1
13
.
8.
Wang
,
G. G.
, and
Shan
,
S.
, 2007, “
Review of Metamodeling Techniques in Support of Engineering Design Optimization
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
0161-8458,
129
, pp.
370
380
.
You do not currently have access to this content.