See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221460429

Dimensional Variation Analysis of Compliant Sheet Metal Assembly

Conference Paper · August 2011

DOI: 10.1109/ICDMA.2011.112 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
5 666

2 authors:

Na Cai Lihong Qiao

Beihang University (BUAA) Beihang University (BUAA)
21 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   297 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ergonomic assessment of collaborative manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Na Cai on 18 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing & Automation

Dimensional Variation Analysis of Compliant Sheet Metal Assembly

Na Cai and Lihong Qiao

Advanced Manufacturing Technology and Systems Research Center
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering
Beihang University
37 Xueyuan Road, Beijing 100191, China
evacai1984@yahoo.com.cn, lhqiao@buaa.edu.cn

Abstract—In order to assure the dimensional quality of
compliant sheet metal assembly, it is quite necessary to use the
numerical method to simulate and analyze the assembly
process before real assembly. In this paper, the finite element
analysis of the whole compliant sheet metal assembly process is
realized in two steps: clamping force calculation and joining
and springing back simulation. Clamping force is optimized so
that the initial gap between parts can be closed. The joints of
the two parts are simulated by DOF coupling in ANSYS.
Spring-back force, which is assumed to be equal to the
optimum clamping force, is applied on the joint points. Large
displacement static analysis is run in ANSYS to calculate the
displacement distribution of both clamped part and compliant
sheet metal assembly. An example of compliant sheet metal
assembly by lap joints is studied to demonstrate the finite
element analysis process in this paper.
Keywords-Dimensional variation; Compliant sheet metal
assembly; Finite element analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
Compliant metal sheet is widely used as the skin on
automobiles and airplanes. Meanwhile, the dimensional
quality of sheet metal assembly is very vital for the function,
stability and appearance of automobiles and airplanes.
However, because of the compliant feature of metal sheet,
the dimensional quality of sheet metal assembly can be
easily affected by many factors like manufacturing variation,
fixture and clamping scheme as well as joint method [1,2].
Therefore, simulation and analysis of the assembly process is
quite important and necessary for enhancing the dimensional
quality of sheet metal assembly so as to improve the overall
performance of automobiles and airplanes.
Traditional variation analysis approach mainly includes
the worst case, the statistical analysis, the Monte Carlo
simulation and so on [3]. These methods are proved to be
applicable in analyzing non-rigid assembly, but not enough
for compliant assembly which involves deformation during
assembly process. The dimensional variation analysis for
non-rigid assembly is an emerging and challenging area [4].
Liu and Hu [5] proposed mechanistic variation simulation
models for deformable sheet metal parts with complex two
or three dimensional free form surfaces by using finite
element methods. Dahlstrom and Lindkvist [6] studied
variation simulation of sheet metal assemblies by
implementing a contact modeling technique in to the method
of influence coefficients to avoid penetrations. Liao and
Wang [7] studied the non-linear dimensional variation
analysis for the sheet metal assemblies by using the contact
finite element method and considering friction force between
the assembly surfaces. Ungemach and Mantwill [8] extended
the method of springback calculation and coupled it with
numerical contact mechanics method to analyze compliant
assembly variation. Xing [9] proposed a hybrid algorithm of
the heuristic algorithm and the orthogonal design to optimize
welding points of compliant assembly. Franciosa, Gerbino
and Patalano [10] simulated variational shape of parts
through a morphing mesh procedure and then used the so-
morphed parts to accomplish the variational assembly
analysis.
In this paper, the assembly process is simulated in two
steps: clamping force calculation and joining and springing
back simulation. The optimum clamping force is obtained by
the design optimization module of ANSYS. An example of
compliant sheet metal assembly by lap joints is studied to
demonstrate the finite element analysis (FEA) process and
results.
II. FEA MODEL OF COMPLIANT SHEET METAL
ASSEMBLY PROCESS
A typical compliant sheet metal assembly process can be
modeled as: locating parts, clamping parts, joining parts,
releasing clamp and assembly spring back according to the
mechanistic variation simulation methodology developed by
Liu and Hu [5]. The corresponding FEA process can be
realized in two steps: clamping force calculation and joining
and springing back simulation, shown in the figure 1. The
FEA process is performed according to the assembly scheme
and then the acquired FEA results can guide the real
assembly process so as to assure the dimensional quality of
compliant sheet metal assembly. The figure 2 illustrates the
specific FEA process of assembly variation for compliant
sheet metal assembly by lap joints.
A. Clamping Force Calculation
The figure 2(a) shows the FEA boundary conditions for
clamping force calculation. In order to assemble part 1 and
part 2 together by lap joints, the two parts are located in the
assembly station by fixture at first. So in the FEA process the
displacement constraints are applied on the fixture points
according to the fixture scheme.

978-0-7695-4455-7/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE 429

DOI 10.1109/ICDMA.2011.112
 Figure 1. Assembly and finite element analysis process

Displacement constraint points Clamping force Fu Displacement constraint points

Joint points

Part variation
Part 1 Vu Part 2

Up warped surface Nominal position

(a)
Displacement constraint points Spring-back force Fw Joint points Displacement constraint points

Part 1 Part 2

(b)
Figure 2. FEA process of assembly variation (a) Clamping force calculation (b) Joining and springing back simulation

It is assumed that the surface of part 1 is up warped due
to manufacturing variation and part 2 is perfectly fabricated
without manufacturing variation, so the initial variation at
the joint points between part 1 and part 2 is Vu. In order to
close the initial gap Vu, proper clamping force should be
applied at the joint points to clamp part 1 to the nominal
position, shown as the red dash line in the figure 2(a). The
clamping force Fu is assumed to be applied on the five joint
points in the same way simultaneously.
In order to optimize the clamping force Fu, random initial
clamping force Fu0 is applied to finish parametric FEA
process by APDL code in ANSYS at first, and then the
clamping force Fu is set as design variable. The optimization
objective is to minimize the matching gap at the five joint
points. Sub-problem is selected as the optimization method
and then the design optimization module is run to acquire
optimum clamping force Fu’.
B. Joining and Springing Back Simulation
The figure 2(b) shows the FEA boundary conditions for
joining and springing back simulation. When part 1 is
clamped to the nominal position and the initial matching gap
is eliminated, the two parts are joined together by five lap
joint points. After joining parts, clamping tool is released and
the assembly springs back to release the stored strain energy.
In the FEA process the joints of the two parts are
simulated by DOF coupling in ANSYS. The spring-back
force Fw is applied on the five joint points. Meanwhile, the
spring-back force Fw is assumed to be equal to the optimum
clamping force Fu’ acquired in the first step with opposite
direction. The displacement constraints of the two parts are

430
applied on the fixture points according to the fixture scheme.
Finally, the large displacement static analysis is run in
ANSYS to calculate the variation distribution of the sheet Deformed shape Undeformed edge
metal assembly.
III. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

A. Example Conditions
An example of compliant sheet metal assembly by five
lap joints is studied to demonstrate the FEA process and
results. The FEA process of assembly variation is shown in
the figure 2. The dimension of the metal sheet used in this
case study is 120 mmh100 mmh2 mm. Moreover, it is
assumed that the material of the parts is mild sheet metal
with Young’s modulus E = 2.07h105 N/mm2 and Poisson’s
ratio ν = 0.3.
B. Clamping Force Calculation
The figure 3 shows the finite element model of part 1
created in ANSYS. The surface of part 1 is up warped so the
initial variation at the joint points Vu is 1.8 mm. Since the
deformation of the up warped surface will be greater during
clamping, the meshing of the up warped surface is finer to
improve the calculation precision. The element type is
SHELL63. The recommended N-2-1(N>3) fixture scheme
[11] is adopted here and the displacement constraint is
applied according to the fixture scheme. Clamping force is
assumed to be applied on the five joint points
simultaneously. Initial clamping force is applied as 500 N,
and then the design optimization module is used to find
optimum clamping force Fu’= 626.1 N.
Optimum clamping force Fu’= 626.1 N is applied on the
five joint points and large displacement static analysis is run
in ANSYS to calculate the displacement distribution of part
1. The figure 4 shows the displacement vector sum of the
deformed shape with undeformed edge. It is shown that the
displacement is mainly focus on the clamping edge of part 1.
The maximum displacement is 2.495 mm and the minimum
displacement is 0mm.
The figure 5 shows the displacement in z direction of the
deformed shape with undeformed edge. It is shown that the
displacement of the surface near the clamping edge is mainly
in –z direction with greater magnitude, and the displacement
of the surface in the middle is in z direction with smaller
magnitude. The minimum displacement is -2.493 mm and
the maximum displacement is 0.6455 mm.
Displacement constraint points Clamping points
Figure 3. The finite element model of part 1
Figure 4. The displacement vector sum of the deformed shape with
undeformed edge
Deformed shape Undeformed edge
Figure 5. The displacement in z direction of the deformed shape with
undeformed edge
C. Joining and Springing Back Simulation
The figure 6 shows the finite element model of compliant
sheet metal assembly by lap joints created in ANSYS. The
element type is SHELL63. The recommended N-2-1(N>3)
fixture scheme [11] is adopted here and displacement
constraint is applied according to the fixture scheme. Spring-
back force Fw is applied on the five joint points. Moreover,
spring-back force Fw is assumed to be equal to the optimum
clamping force Fu’ with opposite direction, so Fw = -626.1 N.
The joint points of both the two parts are DOF coupled to
simulate the joining process.
Large displacement static analysis is run in ANSYS to
calculate the displacement distribution of the sheet metal
assembly. The figure 7 shows the displacement vector sum
of the compliant sheet metal assembly. It is shown that the
displacement is mainly focus on the center area and
overlapping area. The maximum displacement is 0.4187 mm
and the minimum displacement is 0mm.
The figure 8 shows the displacement in z direction of the
compliant sheet metal assembly. It is shown that the
displacement of the center area and overlapping area of the
compliant sheet metal assembly is mainly in z direction with
greater magnitude, and the displacement of the left and right
sides of the compliant sheet metal assembly is in –z direction
with smaller magnitude. The minimum displacement is –
0.1304 mm and the maximum displacement is 0.4187 mm.

431
 Through the simulation of an example compliant sheet
metal assembly by five lap joints, it can be seen that the
Part 2 initial manufacturing variation of the part causes the
Joint points
Part 1
dimensional variation of the compliant sheet metal assembly
and the dimensional variation is mainly focus on the center
area and overlapping area of the compliant sheet metal
assembly. Therefore, proper measures like improving the
part manufacturing precision and changing fixture scheme or
joint method should be taken to decrease or eliminate the
dimensional variation of the compliant sheet metal assembly.
Displacement constraint points ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is partially supported by the National Natural
Figure 6. The finite element model of the compliant sheet metal assembly
by lap joints
Science Foundation of China (Grant 51075022). The authors
would also like to thank the support from Beijing Municipal
Education Commission (Build a Project).

Part 2
Overlapping area REFERENCES
Part 1 [1] R. Mantripragada and D.E. Whiteney, “Modeling and controlling
variation in mechanical assemblies using state transition models,”
Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation
IEEE Press, May 1998, pp. 219-226
[2] Kuigang Yu, Sun Jin, Xinming Lai and Yanfeng Xing, “Modeling
and analysis of compliant sheet metal assembly variation,” Assembly
Automation, vol. 28, 2008, pp. 225-234
[3] U. Roy, C.R. Liu and T.C. Woo, “Review of dimensioning and
tolerencing: representation and processing,” Computer-Aided Design,
vol. 23, Sept. 1991, pp. 466-483
[4] S.J. Hu, R. Webbink, J. Lee and Y. Long, “Robustness evaluation for
Figure 7. The displacement vector sum of the compliant sheet metal compliant assembly systems,” Journal of Mechanical Design –
assembly Transactions of the ASME, vol. 125, Jun. 2003, pp. 262-267.
[5] S.C. Liu and S.J. Hu, “Variation simulation for deformable sheet
metal assemblies using finite element methods,” Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering – Transactions of the ASME,
Part 2 vol. 119, Aug. 1997, pp. 368̄374.
Overlapping area
[6] S. Dahlstrom and L. Lindkvist, “Variation simulation of sheet metal
Part 1 assemblies using the method of influence coefficients with contact
modeling,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering –
Transactions of the ASME, vol. 129, Jun. 2007, pp. 615-622.
[7] Xiaoyun Liao and G. Gary Wang, “Non-linear dimensional variation
analysis for sheet metal assemblies by contact modeling,” Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design, vol. 44, 2007, pp. 34-44
[8] G. Ungemach and F. Mantwill, “Efficient consideration of contact in
compliant assembly variation analysis,” Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering – Transactions of the ASME, vol. 131, Feb.
2009, pp. 1-9
[9] Xing Yan-Feng, “A hybrid algorithm for optimizing welding points
Figure 8. The displacement in z direction of the compliant sheet metal of compliant assemblies,” Assembly Automation, vol. 29, 2009, pp.
assembly 167-173
[10] P. Franciosa, S. Gerbino and S. Patalano, “Simulation of variational
compliant assemblies with shape errors based on morping mesh
IV. CONCLUSIONS approach,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol, vol. 53, 2011, pp. 47-61
A typical compliant sheet metal assembly process is [11] W. Cai, S.J. Hu, J.X. Yuan, “Deformable sheet metal fixturing:
analyzed using finite element analysis based on two steps: Principles, algorithms, and simulations,” Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering – Transactions of the ASME, vol. 118, Aug.
clamping force calculation and joining and springing back 1996, pp.318-324
simulation. Optimum clamping force at the joint points
between parts is obtained. The joints of the two parts are
simulated by DOF coupling in ANSYS. Spring-back force
Fw, which is assumed to be equal to the optimum clamping
force, is applied on the joint points.

432

View publication stats