Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

DOI:10.5545/sv-jme.2011.268

Paper received: 2011-12-16, paper accepted: 2012-05-10

2012 Journal of Mechanical Engineering. All rights reserved.

A Method to Determine the Impact of Geometrical Deviations on

Product Performance
Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.
Frdric Vignat1 Dinh Son Nguyen2 Daniel Brissaud1
1 University of Grenoble, G-SCOP Laboratory, France
2 Danang University of Technology, The University of Danang, Vietnam

Robustness is the key to successful product design when many variation sources exist throughout the product lifecycle. Variations are of
many sources such as material defects, machining errors, and use conditions of the product. Most of product performance simulations are
traditionally carried out using the numerical model created in the CAD system. This model only represents the nominal information about the
product. Thus, it is difficult to take these variations into account in product performance prediction. A method is proposed in this paper to
allow integrating the effect of these variation sources into the product performance simulation. This method is based on a random design of
experiment method. As a result, an image of the real performance of the product is determined.
Keywords: product life cycle, product performance, geometrical deviations

0 INTRODUCTION
Robustness is a key factor of product design under
uncertainty from material properties, manufacturing
operations and practical environment. Actually, from
designers brain to users hands, the product must pass
through many stages of its life cycle. The variability
generated at each stage obviously has an influence
on the performances of the product. It can be the
cause of the designed product not fully meeting the
requirements of the customers and users.
Each part of making up the product is
manufactured from raw material in the manufacturing
stage using processes such as forging, cutting or
grinding. Geometrical deviations are generated and
accumulated on each part over the successive setup of the manufacturing process due to inherent
imperfections of raw material, tooling and machine.
Then, the parts with deviations are assembled at the
assembly stage. The deviations of the surfaces of the
assembled parts generated at manufacturing stage
affect the assemblability and the final geometry of
the product. The geometry of the final product is,
therefore, different from the nominal one at the end
of these two production stages. On the other hand, the
current product modelling technology is not capable
of taking into account these deviations. Most of the
simulations performed to predict the behaviour and
the performance of a product (kinematics, dynamics,
aerodynamics, etc.) are based on the nominal model
of the product. Since this model cannot deal with
geometrical deviations generated throughout the
product life cycle, the variation of product behaviour
and performance cannot be predicted. Thus, the real
performance of the product, which is different from
the designed one (nominal performance), cannot be
*Corr. Authors Address: Danang University of Technology, Danang, Vietnam, ndson@dut.udn.vn

verified. The risk is then that the designed product

fails to fully meet customers and users requirements
in which situation, the product-process design has to
be considered as not good or at least not robust.
Many methods and tools are proposed in the
academic research in order to manage the effects of
geometrical variability on a product design. However,
only mentioned manufacturing or assembly stage
of the product life cycle is mentioned. In [1], the
authors addressed the impact of the manufacturing
errors on the performance of the product. They
defined the Manufacturing Variation Pattern (MVP)
to represent the manufacturing characteristics and
investigated its effects on the performance of the
product. In [2], the authors presented the theory that
offers an analytical and geometrical description of
the performance sensitivity distribution of a product
in the variation space. The theory can be applied to
find the robust design less sensitive to the dimensional
variation due to manufacturing errors or product
wear. The authors in [3] proposed a new Probabilistic
Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) approach for the design
under uncertainty based on the concept of relative
entropy. This approach allows providing the valuable
information about the impact of the design variables
on the performance of the product and the whole range
or a partial range of the performance distribution.
In [4], the authors proposed a statistical approach in
order to evaluate the impact of geometrical variations
on the angular rotational velocity between two bevel
gears. The Monte-Carlo simulation method is used
to consider the geometrical behaviour simulation and
tooth contact analysis. The authors in [5] proposed a
methodology for quantifying the kinematic position
errors due to manufacturing and assembly tolerances.
517

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

Based on this method, a kinematic amplitude variation

for bodies position is calculated.
In [6], the authors proposed to integrate material
and manufacturing process uncertainties in the design
in order to consider their impacts on the performance
of the product. They developed a procedure for
uncertainty propagation from the material random
field to the end product performance based on the
product finite-element mesh. In mechanical assembly,
there are several statistical approaches to determine the
effect of geometrical deviation introduced in [7]. The
authors in [8] proposed a tolerancing model, called
Proportioned Assembly Clearance Volume (PACV),
based on the Small Displacements Torsor (SDT)
concept. This model aims to determine the effect of
geometrical deviation of surfaces on an assembly. In
[9], the authors proposed a new calculation method
to analyse the geometrical deviations stack-up in the
assembly line (parallel and serial assembly line) on
the product designed. The authors in [10] introduced
a model of geometrical product specifications
for product life cycle. This model allows the
communication of geometrical information which can
come from design, manufacturing or inspection.
These studies examine the impact of geometrical
variations in manufacturing or assembly stage on
the designed product. However, the effects of the
variation sources during the product life cycle on
the performance of the product are not mentioned.
Especially, the mathematical relationship between
the performance of the product and the parameters
of variation sources is unknown. In many cases,
this relationship is not established and numerical
resolutions using tools such as finite elements used
to determine the performance for one specific set of
values of the product parameters. One numerical
solution thus determines one point on the response
surface of the relationship between the performance
of the product and the product parameters. In order to
establish an approximation of the required relationship,
this paper proposes to use a set of numerical solution
combined with a design of experiment.
In order to study the effect of geometrical
variability on product performance, there are
important issues that have to be considered:
How to establish the relationship between the
performance and the geometrical deviations of
the product?
How to manage the causes and consequences of
these deviations at design stage?
This paper proposes, as an answer to the first
question, a method that allows establishing the
relationship between performance and geometrical
518

deviations. The geometrical deviations generated

and accumulated are modelled by the geometrical
deviation model presented in [11] and reminded at the
beginning of Section 3. A partial answer to the second
question has been proposed in [12] for identification
and classification of the influence of the deviation
parameters.
1 INCLUDING GEOMETRICAL DEVIATIONS IN PRODUCT
PERFORMANCE SIMULATION
There are many kinds of disturbances, during the
product lifecycle, which may influence product
quality and functionality [13]. In order to investigate
their effect on the product performance, a method
that allows taking them into account in the product
performance simulation is proposed in this section.
The overview of the proposed method is shown in Fig.
1.

Fig. 1. Performance simulation of the product with geometrical

deviations

In the manufacturing and assembly stages, the

geometrical deviations of each surface of the final
product are caused by the effects of variation sources,
such as tooling deformation, thermal deformation,
material property of the part, etc. These deviations are
modelled by the geometrical deviation model (GDM)
that will be detailed in the next section. Monte-Carlo
simulation method is then used to create an image
of the real product population with geometrical
deviations. The integration of these deviations into
the product performance simulation is based on a
design of the experiment (DOE) method. This DOE
establishes the mathematical relationship between the
product performance and the parameters of deviation.

Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

This relationship is used to generate an image of

the product population performance from the real
product population with geometrical deviations.
1.1 Geometrical Deviation Model
As presented above, the nominal model of a product
created in CAD/CAM systems can only represent
nominal product information and cannot handle
geometrical deviations generated and accumulated
during the product life cycle and especially at
manufacturing and assembly stage. The GDM, as
presented in [11], can model them based on small
displacement torsor. A small displacement torsor T at
a point O in the Cartesian coordinate system (O, X, Y,
Z) is described by rotational vector R and translational
vector D as shown in equation as follows:

T = {R, D}{O , X ,Y , Z } .

A surface deviation torsor is a small displacement

torsor describing the deviation between an associated
surface and a nominal surface. The associated surface
is an ideal surface associated with the real surface
using a minimum distance criterion such as the least
square. For example, the deviation torsor of the
associated plane relative to its nominal position is
described by the SDT TSurface at a point O in the local
coordinate system (O, X, Y, Z), as shown in equation
as follows:

TSurface

rx 0

= ry 0
,
0 tz

{O , X ,Y , Z }

where rx, ry are rotational and tz translational

components regarding X, Y, Z axis, respectively. The
plan, in this case, has three degrees of freedom, so
three positioning deviations of the plan are invariant
(i.e. cannot be measured due to the surface class)
relative to their nominal position and their values are
arbitrarily fixed. Thus, the 0 value is chosen in order
to hide the notion of invariance.
The GDM model, for the manufacturing stage, is
based on the model of the manufactured part (MMP)
proposed by [14]. The geometrical deviations
generated by a manufacturing process are considered
to be the result of two independent phenomena:
positioning and machining, and are accumulated over
the successive set-ups. The manufactured deviations
of the part surfaces are expressed relative to their
nominal position by a SDT TPi , Pi .
j

TPi , Pi = TSj , Pi + TSj , Pi , (1)

where TSj , Pi models the positioning deviation of

workpiece in set-up Sj. This deviation is a function of
the MMP surfaces deviation generated by the previous
set-ups, the part-holder surfaces deviations and the
links part-holder/part surfaces.
TSj , Pi models the deviation of the machined
j

surface j realised in set-up Sj. This deviation is

expressed relatively to the nominal machine. This
torsor merges deviations of the surface swept by the
tool and cutting local deformations.
A product is made up of parts assembled by the
way of connections. Each part has already passed
through the manufacturing stage where geometrical
deviations were generated. Then, the product passes
through assembly stage of its life cycle. The assembly
stage brings its share of deviations to the product. The
GDM for the assembly stage is based on the model of
the assembled part (MAP). The positioning deviations
of each part relative to its nominal position in the
global coordinate system of the product are modelled
by a SDT TP , P .
i

TP , Pi = TP , Pk + TPk , Pk + TPk , Pi + TPi , Pi , (2)

n

where TPk , Pi
n

is the link torsor between surface m of

MMP i (part i) and surface n of MMP k (part k). TP , Pk

is the positioning deviation torsor of part k, it models
the positioning deviation of the part k (a subassembled
part coming from the previous set-up of the assembly
process) relative to their nominal position in the global
frame of the product.
The GDM establishes the mathematical relation
between the deviation sources from the manufacturing
and assembly stage and product surfaces deviations.
A Monte-Carlo simulation method is then used to
create a set of M products with geometrical deviations
(M generally chosen between 10,000 and 1 million).
As a result, the product designers can be aware of the
distribution of the product surfaces deviation [15].
1.2 Design of Experiment
Simulations to predict product performance
(kinematics, dynamics, behaviour, failure, etc.) are
usually carried out based on the numerical model
of the product. This numerical model is created
using the current product modelling technology
such as CAD software and the simulation, which are
performed using current simulation technologies such

A Method to Determine the Impact of Geometrical Deviations on Product Performance

519

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

as finite element, computing fluid dynamics, etc. For

a complex product system, it is, however, difficult
to create M models of the product with geometrical
deviations and to calculate the performance of M
products because performance simulations can be
time consuming (several hours for one simulation).
Thus, it is not possible to perform simulation for the M
products. In order to overcome this limitation, a DOE
approach is proposed to determine an approximated
mathematical relationship between the performance
of the product and the product parameters deviation.
Then, it is possible to determine the performance of
the M products by using this relationship.
Considering that each simulation is CPU
time intensive, it is necessary to limit the number
of simulations to be performed. The number of
simulations increases with the number of factors taken
into account for the design of experiment. It is thus
necessary to limit this number of factors. These factors
are geometrical deviation parameters and are defined
based on expert knowledge. These key parameters are
measured on the virtual product and are functions of
the elementary deviation parameters. The value of
these factors can be calculated by using the result of
Monte-Carlo simulation of the M products.
The design of the experiment requires a defining
level for these factors. The number of levels for these
factors is chosen based on a compromise between the
desired precision and the calculation time. The values
of the factor levels are then calculated according
to the factor range of variation. Depending on the
number of factors n, the number of levels k and the
chosen strategy, the number of deviated products N
are determined. The corresponding N values of the
n factors are gathered in a matrix P named design
matrix, as shown in Eq. 3.

p11
p
P = 12
...

p1N

p21
p22
...
p2 N

...
...
...
...

pn1
pn 2
. (3)
...

pnN

Next, simulation tools as FEA, CFD, etc., are

used to calculate the performance of the N products.
A set of N deviated models of the product has to be
created in the CAD system. Each deviated model of
the product j is modelled according to the value pij
of the factors. The performance of each product is
then calculated and finally, the performance of the
N products is gathered in a vector R called response
vector as expressed in Eq. (4).
520

r1
r

R = 2 . (4)
...
rN

The relationship between the performance of the

product and the selected factors {p1, p2, p3, ..., pn}
is established using a regression model and can be
expressed by Eq. (5).

Performance = f (p1, p2, p3, ..., pn). (5)

For example, the linear least square fit model [16]

can be used to establish the relationship in the case of n
factors and 2 levels. From the result of 2n simulations,
the relationship is expressed by a function as given in
Eq. (6).
p + , (6)
f =

where is the residual vector, p = {p1, p2, p3, ..., pn}T

is a coefficient
is a vector gathering the n factors,

vector of the model. It is calculated by Eq. (7).

= ( PT P ) 1 PT R, (7)

where R = {r1, r2, r3, ..., rN}T is a response vector

including N simulation responses.
The performance for the population of M products
is then calculated by replacing the value of the selected
factors {p1, p2, p3, ..., pn} with the collected data from
the Monte-Carlo simulation into Eq. (5).
1.2.1 Factorial Design
As mentioned before, the number of simulations
to be performed depends on the number of factors,
the number of levels and the chosen strategies. In
this paper, three strategies are proposed and can be
chosen depending on the required precision, expert
knowledge, the number of factors and calculation
time. Two strategies, full factorial and Taguchi design,
are commonly used while the last one, while random
design is original.
A full factorial design of the experiment is an
experiment that takes on all possible combinations of
levels across all factors. The number of experimental
to run is thus equal to kn for n factors and k levels.
To limit the number of factors, key geometrical
parameters are defined based on expert knowledge.
Then, the number of levels for these factors has to
be defined depending on a compromise between
the desired precision and the calculation time. The
values of the key parameters are measured on the

Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

virtual product and are functions of the elementary

deviation parameters. The variation range of these
factors can be determined based on the M results from
the Monte-Carlo simulation. The value assigned to
the levels of these factors is determined according
to these ranges of variation. The kn values of the n
parameters are then gathered in the design matrix P.
An extended description of the use of full factorial
design of experiment has been presented in [18]. With
full factorial design of the experiment, the number of
numerical simulations increases dramatically with the
numbers of selected factors and levels. For example,
23=8 simulations are necessary in the case of three
factors and two levels (see Fig. 2). It is then necessary
to find some alternatives to this method.

defined from the results of the geometrical deviation

Monte-Carlo simulation. Then, the number of
experimental to run is selected based on the Taguchis
orthogonal arrays, as shown in Table 1. In the case of
n factors and k levels, there are Ln experimental runs
that must be realized according to Taguchi table. For
example, it is necessary to create 4 deviated models of
the product for the performance simulation in the case
of 3 factors and 2 levels. The design matrix P in this
case is different from the one from factorial design. It
is defined according to Taguchi table for each factor
and level, as given in Eq. (8).

+1
+1
P=
1

+1 1
1 +1
. (8)
+1 +1

1 1

An extended description of the use of Taguchis

orthogonal arrays has been presented in [17] and [18].
1.2.3 Random Design

Fig. 2. Full factorial design with three factors, two levels

1.2.2 Taguchi Design

One alternative method is Taguchis orthogonal arrays.
This method has been designed in order to reduce the
number of simulations to be performed.

Number of levels (k)

Table 1. Table of Taguchi design

2
3
4
5

2
L4
L9
L16
L25

3
L4
L9
L16
L25

4
L8
L9
L16
L25

Number of factors (n)

5
6
7
8
9
L8 L8 L8 L12 L12
L18 L18 L18 L18 L27
L16 L32 L32 L32 L32
L25 L25 L50 L50 L50

10
L12
L27
L32
L50

11
L12
L27

L50

12
L16
L27

L50

Taguchis orthogonal arrays are highly fractional

orthogonal designs proposed by Taguchi. They are
used to estimate the main effects with only a few
experiments. This approach is also suitable to apply
for certain mixed level experiments where the factors
included do not have the same number of levels.
The number of factors is selected from expert
knowledge in order to eliminate the factors that have
few effects on the performance of the product. The
value associated with the levels of each factor is also

In case of increasing complexity alongside with

the number of factors, the number of necessary
simulations to determine the relationship between
performance and deviations can become too large and
thus time consuming even when using Taguchi design.
Moreover, the use of expert knowledge to determine
key factors filters the deviation sources and can reach
the list of some influential factors. Factorial design
and Taguchis orthogonal arrays are not effective in
this case. Thus, a random design of the experiment
method is proposed in order to address these issues.
All product geometrical deviations parameters, called
factors {pi} (i = 1, ..., n) that have small effects on the
performance of the product are taken into account.
The random design approach is realized in four
steps (see Fig. 3):

Fig. 3. Algorithm diagram of random design

Step 1. Draw randomly a product with geometrical

deviations in the set of product collected from the
Monte-Carlo simulation.

A Method to Determine the Impact of Geometrical Deviations on Product Performance

521

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

A kth product with geometrical deviations is

randomly drawn in a set of M products collected
from results of geometrical deviation simulation.
The value of each factor { pi } (i = 1,.., n) is
calculated based on the drawn
product deviation parameters values. The set of
values of the factors {pi} (i = 1, ..., n) is added
into the kth row of the design matrix P.
Step 2. Create the deviated CAD model.
The deviated model of kth product will be created
in the CAD software corresponding to the value
of each geometrical deviation parameters {pi}
(i = 1, ..., n).
Step 3. Simulate the performance of the product.
The deviated model created in Step 2 is used to
simulate the performance of the product in order
to determine the performance of the representative
product. The result is appended into the response
vector R.
Step 4. Eliminate the drawn product in the set of
M products.

Repeat from Step 1 until the number of the drawn
product reach the desired number N.
The main limitation of this method is the
definition of the number N of simulations to be
run. The number N of products drawn is defined
considering the balance between the required
precision and the expected calculation time. However,
the problem is similar to that of every stochastic
method were the size of the sample is a key parameter.
2 A CASE STUDY

f =

k
1
, (9)

m
2

where m is the mass of the load which depends on its

density and its volume. Thus, the load mass deviation
depends on the geometrical deviations of the load
surfaces. For example, the deviations of the cylinder
radius and of the position of the two boundary planes
(rotation and translation) affect the mass m. The mass
is calculated by Eq. (10).
m = V, (10)

k is the spring constant or spring stiffness and it is

calculated by Eq. (11).
k=

G=

Gd 4
, (11)
8nD 3
E
, (12)
2(1 + )

where E is Youngs modulus, d spring wire diameter,

D spring mean diameter, n number of active windings
and n a Poisson ratio.
From Eqs. (10) to (12), the variation of the
frequency is obviously affected by geometrical
deviations of the surfaces of the mass and the spring.
Deviation torsor parameters of each surface, given in
Table 2, influence the natural frequency of the massspring system.
Table 2. Geometrical deviation paramaters

The DOE method to integrate geometrical deviation

in product performance simulation has already been
applied to the complex example of a centrifugal
pump [19]. In this application Factorial and Taguchi
strategies have been used. In the present paper, the
three strategies are applied to the same case for the
purpose of comparison and evaluation. Thus, a simple
example, a harmonic oscillator, is proposed in order to
save calculation time (less than 1 ms per simulation)
and to compare the three strategies to the analytical
result which is known in the present case.
2.1 A harmonic Oscillator
The harmonic oscillator system includes a spring and
a mass (see Fig. 4). The performance considered in
this case is the natural frequency of the oscillator. The
natural frequency of the oscillator is expressed by Eq.
(9).
522

Component Geometry
Plan 1

Deviation
parameters
Rx1, Ry1, Tz1
Rx2, Ry2 Tx2, Ty2

Mass

Cylinder 2
dr

Spring

Plan 3

Rx3, Ry3, Tz3

Spire

Description
Parameters of deviation
torsor of plan P1
Parameters of deviation
torsor of cylinder C2
Radius deviation
of cylinder C2
Parameters of deviation
torsor of plan P3
Deviation of spring outer
and wire diameter

The geometrical deviations of each surface of

the mass-spring system are modeled by a GDM as
presented in Section 1 and the Monte-Carlo simulation
method is then used to give an image of the real
production of the mass-spring systems.
For example, the distributions of the cylinders
deviations of 100,000 virtually produced loads are
described in Fig. 5. The histogram of the translational

Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

deviation (Tx2, Ty2) of cylinder C2 relative to X and

Y axis are shown in Figs. 6a and b. These deviations
can be included in the volume V calculation and by
using Eq. (10) the mass deviation can be determined
as shown in Fig. 6c.

From the expert knowledge presented above,

the relationship between the frequency of the
spring system and its geometrical deviations can be
determined and expressed by Eq. (13).
f =

G (d + ) 4

4 2

2h R 2 + h (dr + R) 2 +
n ( D + )3

2
2
+ R (h + Tz1 ) + R (h + Tz 3 )

, (13)

where h, R and r are respectively nominal height,

radius and density of cylinder C2 of the load.
In fact, the frequency simulation of this system
can be realized using the Eq. (13) directly. A
population of 100,000 frequencies is generated from
the results of the Monte-Carlo simulation mentioned
in [15]. The histogram of the 100,000 frequencies
calculated is shown in Fig. 6. An approximated
relationship between the frequency and the
geometrical deviation parameters is then established

Fig. 4. Mass-spring system

Fig. 5. Monte-Carlo simulation results

using a linear regression model with the 100,000

frequencies data. This equation given in Eq. (14) is the
most precise possible linear regression approximation.
It will be used for the purpose of comparison with the
other approximations.

Fig. 6. The distribution of frequency

f = 4.79048 0.0547296Tz1 0.155346dr

0.0545993Tz3 + 2.48972 0.149673. (14)

The three other DOE strategies will then be

applied to this simple example to compare accuracy
among them. The results will also be compared to this
first approach that will be used as a benchmark.
2.1.1 Factorial Design
From expert knowledge as given in Eq. (13),
geometrical deviation parameters of the load and the
spring that have a strong influence on the natural
frequency of the oscillator are defined as factors.
These factors are selected as follows for the factorial
design study:
Tz1, Tz3: translational deviation of the two planes
of the load P1, P3,
D,d: deviation of the spring mean and wire
diameter,
dr: radius deviation of the load cylinder.

A Method to Determine the Impact of Geometrical Deviations on Product Performance

523

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

The number of levels for the five factors is chosen

as two and the number of runs is thus 32. The levels
for the factors are calculated from the results of the
Monte-Carlo simulation. The low and high levels are
respectively selected at 3s and +3s of each factor
distribution. The relationship between the frequency
and selected factors is established by using a linear
regression model from the 32 runs results. This
function is expressed by Eq. (15).

A population of 100,000 frequencies is generated

by the collected data in the Monte-Carlo simulation
and the Eq. (16). The histogram of the population is
represented in Fig. 8.

f = 4.82605 0.0560401Tz1 0.16062dr

0.0560471Tz3 + 2.51307d 0.152286D . (15)

Fig. 8. The distribution of frequency by Taguchi Design

2.1.3 Random Design

Fig. 7. The distribution of frequency by Factorial Design

The population of the frequency is generated

from the results of Monte-Carlo simulation and Eq.
(15). The distribution of the frequency is shown in
Fig. 7.
2.1.2 Taguchi Design
The selected factors include all parameters of
geometrical deviations of the spring system. There are
thus 15 parameters as follows:
6 parameters of deviation torsor of two plans of
the load,
4 parameters of deviation torsor of the loads
cylinder,
2 parameters of deviation of the springs wire and
mean diameter,
3 parameters of dimensional deviation of the base
plate (obviously not to influence the frequency).
The number of levels is chosen as two and,
as indicated in the table of Taguchis orthogonal
arrays, it is necessary to make 16 runs in this
case. The relationship between the frequency and
selected factors is similarly established by using the
linear regression model from 32 runs results. The
mathematical relationship is described by Eq. (16).


524

f = 4.91592 0.0387945Tz1 0.201746dr

0.0448108Tz3 + 2.53885 0.1232 . (16)

This method is realized by the four steps as presented

in Section 2. Ten oscillators are randomly drawn
from the 100,000 virtually produced oscillators.
Then, the relationship between the frequency and the
geometrical deviation parameters is established from
10 runs results. This relationship is expressed by Eq.
(17).
f = 4.91592 0.0387945Tz1 0.201746dr

0.0448108Tz3 + 2.53885 0.1232 . (17)
Similarly, a population of 100000 frequencies
is produced by using the result of the Monte-Carlo
simulation and Eq. (17). The histogram of the
population is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. The distribution of frequency by Random Design

2.1.4 Comparison
In order to compare the three DOE strategies accuracy,
three points of view are proposed. First, the arithmetic
difference between the frequency calculated from
the approximated relationship obtained by each
of the three DOE strategies and the exact result is

Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

Factorial design
Taguchi design
Fig. 10. The distribution of error frequency

considered. The error distribution for each approach

(factorial, Taguchi, random design) is shown in Fig.
10. The three strategies are precise and the maximum
error is equal to 0.16 to be compared with the mean
natural frequency which is equal to 4.79. Among the
three strategies, the random design approach is the
less accurate. However, the number of runs is minimal
for this strategy and the number of factors is maximal.
Random design approach is the most effective when
the product system is complex and not well known
and when the performance calculation is timeconsuming. On the other hand, Factorial design is the
most accurate approach but supposes a good expertise
about the system behavior.
The second point of view, the main statistics
descriptors of the natural frequency distribution
obtained from the three proposed approaches are
compared as shown in Table 3. The results for the
three strategies and the first approach are very similar.
The three approaches are then accurate and similar in
terms of statistical results.
Table 3. Summary of the proposed methods
Factorial
design
5.03582

Mean of frequency
Standard deviation
0.594517
of frequency
Deviation
5
parameters
Number of runs
32

Taguchi
design
5.0719

Random
Design
5.00409

Exact
model
4.99506

0.59592

0.61488

0.589002

All

All

All

32

10

100,000

The third point of view, the coefficient of the

relationship between the natural frequency and the
geometrical deviation parameters approximated by
factorial, Taguchi and random design and the first
approach are compared. These coefficients are given
in Table 4. There is not much difference between
factorial, Taguchi and random design approach and
the first approach regarding these coefficients except
for Tz1 coefficient of Random Design. The three
strategies are then accurate for the determination

Random design

of an approximate relationship between deviation

parameters and performance except for the low
influence coefficient in the case of random design.
Table 4. Coefficient comparison among proposed methods
Variables
Constant
Tz1
dr
Tz3

Factorial
design
4.82605
-0.05604
-0.16062
-0.05605
2.51307
-0.152286

Taguchi
design
4.91592
-0.03879
-0.20174
-0.04481
2.53885
-0.1232

Random
Design
4.82709
0.02266
-0.18498
-0.11745
2.61698
-0.09892

Exact
model
4.79048
-0.05473
-0.15535
-0.05459
2.48972
-0.14967

The selection among the three approaches to

establish the relationship between the performance
and the geometrical deviations of a product depends on
the requirements concerning accuracy, time and cost.
The factorial and Taguchi design are chosen when
the expert knowledge is effective and the number of
factors is not too large. The random design is chosen
when it is difficult to determine the factors that have
a strong influence on the product performance, and
the number of factors is then considerably large and
when performance calculation is complex and time
consuming. Thus, random design is a new approach
for performance simulation of complex product
system, taking into account geometrical deviations
generated during its lifecycle that can be used as the
first approach to increase designers knowledge about
the designed product behavior ad robustness. The
three strategies are better than the first (full) approach
in terms of time and cost and are necessary when the
calculation time per simulation becomes long.
3 CONCLUSION
In this paper, a design of the experiment method is
proposed to take into account the effects of geometrical
deviations generated throughout the product lifecycle
into product performance simulation. Three different

A Method to Determine the Impact of Geometrical Deviations on Product Performance

525

Strojniki vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 58(2012)9, 517-526

strategies: factorial, Taguchi and random design,

are proposed for use depending on the complexity
of the product considered. Factorial and Taguchi
design of experiment are already well known but a
novel strategy is proposed based on random choice
of the design sample. This random design strategy
is effective when the number of factors and levels
and the time needed for performance simulation are
becoming high.
The relationship between the performance of the
product and the geometrical deviation parameters
is established by using one of the three different
strategies. An image of the population of the
manufactured product is calculated by the MonteCarlo simulation method, from a GDM. From the
result of the Monte Carlo simulation, using the
established relationship, an image of the performance
of the population of products virtually manufactured
is calculated. Then, the product designer can identify
and classify the effect of each parameter of variation
source on the product performance based on the result
of the Monte-Carlo simulation and the corresponding
performance for each virtual product.
In future work, the variance of product
performance relative to variation of the deviation
parameters can be determined. As a result, a robust
design can then be found by minimizing the variance
of the performance variation.
4 REFERENCES
[1] Yu, J.-C., Ishii, K. (1998). Design for robustness
based on manufacturing variation patterns. Journal
of Mechanical Design, vol. 120, no. 2, p. 196-202,
DOI:10.1115/1.2826959.
[2] Zhu,
J.,
Ting,
K.
(2001).
Performance
distribution analysis and robust design. Journal
of Mechanical Design, vol. 123, no. 1, p. 11-17,
DOI:10.1115/1.2826959.
[3] Liu, H., Chen, W. (2006). Relative entropy based
method for probabilistic sensitivity analysis in
engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, vol.
128, no. 2, p. 326-337, DOI:10.1115/1.2159025.
[4] Bruyre, J., Dantan, J.-Y., Bigot, R., Martin, P.
(2007). Statistical tolerance analysis of bevel gear by
tooth contact analysis and Monte Carlo simulation.
Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 42, p. 13261351, DOI:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2006.11.003.
[5] Flores, P. (2011). A methodology for quantifying the
kinematic position errors due to manufacturing and
assembly tolerances. Strojniki vestnik - Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 57, no. 6, p. 457-467,
DOI:10.5545/sv-jme.2009.159.
[6] Yin, X., Lee, S., Chen, W., Liu, W.K., Horstemeyer,
M.F. (2009). Efficient random field uncertainty

526

propagation in design using multiscale analysis.

Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 131, no. 2, p.
021006-021010, DOI:10.1115/1.3042159.
[7] Nigam, S.D., Turner, J.U. (1995). Review of statistical
approaches to tolerance analysis. Computer-Aided
Design, vol. 27, no. 1, p. 6-15, DOI:10.1016/00104485(95)90748-5.
[8] Teissandier, D., Coutard, Y., Grard, A. (1999).
A computer aided tolerancing model: proportioned
assembly
clearance
volume.
Computer-Aided
Design, vol. 31, p. 805-817, DOI:10.1016/S00104485(99)00055-X.
[9] Mansuy, M., Giordano, M., Hernandez, P. (2011). A
new calculation method for the worst case tolerance
analysis and synthesis in stack-type assemblies.
Computer-Aided Design, vol. 43, no. 9, p. 1118-1125,
DOI:10.1016/j.cad.2011.04.010.
[10] Dantan, J.-Y., Ballu, A., Mathieu, L. (2008).
Geometrical product specifications model for product
life cycle. Computer-Aided Design, vol. 40, p. 493-501,
DOI:10.1016/j.cad.2008.01.004.
[11] Nguyen, D.S., Vignat, F., Brissaud, D. (2011).
Geometrical Deviation Model of product throughout
its life cycle. International Journal of Manufacturing
Research, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 236-255, DOI:10.1504/
IJMR.2011.041128.
[12] Nguyen, D.S., Vignat, F., Brissaud, D. (2010).
Integration of multiphysical phenomena in robust
design methodology. Proceedings of the 20th CIRP
International Conference on Design, Springer, Berlin,
p. 167-182.
[13] Kimura, F.. Matoba, Y.. Mitsui, K. (2007). Designing
product reliability based on total product lifecycle
modelling. Annals of the CIRP, vol. 56, p. 163-166,
DOI:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.05.039.
[14] Vignat, F., Villeneuve, F. (2007). Simulation of the
manufacturing process, generation of a model of the
manufactured parts. Digital Enterprise Technology,
Springer, p. 545-552.
[15] Nguyen, D.S., Vignat, F., Brissaud, D. (2009).
Applying Monte-Carlo methods to geometric deviations
simulation within product life cycle. Proceedings of
the 11th CIRP International Conference on ComputerAided Tolerancing, Annecy, p. 1-10.
[16] Rao, C. R.; Toutenburg, H (1995). Linear Models:
Least squares and Alternatives. Springer, New York.
[17] Korkut, I. Kucuk, Y. (2010). Experimental analysis of
the deviation from circularity of bored hole based on
the Taguchi method. Strojniki vestnik - Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, vol 56, no. 5, p. 340-346.
[18] Nguyen, D.S., Vignat, F., Brissaud, D. (2010).
Integration of geometrical deviations thougout product
lifecycle into performance simulation. Proceedings
of the 10th Global Congres on Manufacturing and
Management, Bangkok, p. 624-631.
[19] Nguyen, D.S., Vignat, F., Brissaud, D. (2011). Taking
into account geometrical variation effect on product
performance. International Journal of Product
Lifecycle Management, vol. 5, no. 2/3/4, p. 102-121.

Vignat, F. Nguyen, D.S. Brissaud, D.