Abstract The design of exact, also referred to as minimal, constraints means applying just enough constraints between the various components of a mechanical assembly, in order to unambiguously define their positions in six degrees of freedom (3 translations, 3 rotations), their desired motions respectively. To ensure a predictable and reliable product performance, a systematic design of the corresponding elementary mechanical interfaces between components is of utmost importance. Over constraints, i. e. part-to-part connections with redundant interfaces which constrain one single degree of freedom, are largely susceptible to variation and therefore result in design solutions which frequently experience production/ assembly issues, reduced performance, excessive and non-predictable wear-rates, etc. Being a basic rule of embodiment design, literature provides various well-know and widely applied approaches for Exact Constraint Design. Examples are the calculation of a mechanisms’ mobility using the Grubler-Kutzbach criterion, the analysis of statically determinate assemblies by means of the screw theory or so called Schlussartenmatrizen, as well as the analysis of engaging surfaces in terms of location schemes or interface ambiguity. However, despite the various existing approaches, workshops with practitioners and academics have shown that the systematic design of optimal constraints appears to be cumbersome for many engineers. Based on an overview of the most relevant approaches for Exact Constraint design, this contribution therefore reviews the challenges experienced by the workshop participants, discusses the necessity of kinematically correct constraints for robustness, and derives an initial prescriptive procedure for a coherent design of constraints throughout the embodiment design phase, which, despite a variety of available approaches, seems to be still missing.
[1]
Yvonne Koch.
Mechanical Assemblies Their Design Manufacture And Role In Product Development
,
2016
.
[2]
Daniel D. Frey,et al.
Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness
,
2007
.
[3]
Kenneth W. Chase,et al.
An introduction to smart assemblies for robust design
,
2003
.
[4]
Peder Andersson,et al.
On Robust Design in the Conceptual Design Phase: A Qualitative Approach
,
1997
.
[5]
James G. Skakoon.
The elements of mechanical design
,
2008
.
[6]
Julian D Booker,et al.
A survey-based methodology for prioritising the industrial implementation qualities of design tools
,
2012
.
[7]
Daniel E. Whitney.
Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development [Book Review]
,
2005,
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.
[8]
S. K. Krishnan.
Increasing the visibility of hidden failure costs
,
2006
.
[9]
Martin Ebro,et al.
Robust Design Impact Metrics: Measuring the effect of implementing and using Robust Design
,
2014
.
[10]
Brigitte Moench,et al.
Engineering Design A Systematic Approach
,
2016
.
[11]
Alisha M. Hammond.
Establishing A Quantitative Foundation for Exactly Constrained Design
,
2003
.
[12]
Martin Ebro,et al.
The Foundation for Robust Design: Enabling Robustness Through Kinematic Design and Design Clarity
,
2012
.
[13]
J. Douglas Barrett,et al.
Taguchi's Quality Engineering Handbook
,
2007,
Technometrics.
[14]
Tobias EIFLER,et al.
A classification of the industrial relevance of robust design methods
,
2013
.
[15]
Rikard Söderberg,et al.
Managing physical dependencies through location system design
,
2006
.
[16]
Madhan Shridhar Phadke,et al.
Quality Engineering Using Robust Design
,
1989
.