Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering

Manufacture
http://pib.sagepub.com/

A genetic algorithm based solution to optimum tolerance synthesis of mechanical assemblies with
alternate manufacturing processes−−benchmarking with the exhaustive search method using the
Lagrange multiplier
P K Singh, S C Jain and P K Jain
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2004 218: 765
DOI: 10.1177/095440540421800709

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pib.sagepub.com/content/218/7/765

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pib.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pib.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pib.sagepub.com/content/218/7/765.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2004

What is This?

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014

 765

A genetic algorithm based solution to optimum

tolerance synthesis of mechanical assemblies with
alternate manufacturing processes—benchmarking
with the exhaustive search method using the
Lagrange multiplier

P K Singh1 *, S C Jain2 and P K Jain2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SHSL Central Institute of Engineering and Technology Longowal,
Longowal, India
2
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

Abstract: Product development process involves tolerance specification on the individual component
dimensions. The impact of tolerance specification on manufacturing cost has drawn the attention of
product designers towards the economical tolerance synthesis using various optimization
techniques. Simultaneous selection of manufacturing processes (machines) from among the
alternatives for producing a toleranced feature has also been considered. The solution surface for
such a problem becomes a combinatorial and multimodal function involving several local minima.
In this paper a genetic algorithm based solution to this advanced tolerancing problem has been
reported. The proposed algorithm is quite simple and straightforward and automatically takes care
of the process selection constraints. The application of the new approach has been demonstrated
with the help of a few case studies involving both linear and non-linear assemblies. Results obtained
using this approach are almost similar to those obtained in closed form using the exhaustive search
method based on the Lagrange multiplier. The study establishes the fact that the genetic algorithm
is a promising optimization tool, which can be applied to complex tolerance synthesis problems,
such as those involving interrelated dimension chains, complex cost functions and complex stack-up
conditions, where traditional optimization techniques are not applicable.

Keywords: tolerance synthesis, alternative manufacturing processes, genetic algorithm, exhaustive

search based on the Lagrange multiplier, set-up reduction constraints

NOTATION l length of chromosome

ltij length of substring corresponding to
a, b, c matrices of constant parameters representing tolerance tij
cost functions mi number of available alternative processes for
Casm assembly manufacturing cost producing dimension Xi
Cij ðtij Þ cost of producing dimension Xi by process j, ^i
m revised number of manufacturing processes
maintaining tolerance tij (to fulfil the requirement of the algorithm) for
DVðstij Þ decoded value of substring corresponding to producing dimension Xi
tolerance tij n number of component dimensions
DVðsxi Þ decoded value of substring corresponding to Neval minimum number of objective function
the process selection variable associated with evaluations to reach the near-global solution
dimension Xi Nmin minimum number of generations to reach the
near-global solution
The MS was received on 23 July 2003 and was accepted after revision for pc probability of crossover
publication on 2 March 2004. pm probability of mutation
*Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247 667, P population size
India. E-mail: pkschauhan@yahoo.com Sp pth chromosome in the population structure
B14603 # IMechE 2004 Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
766 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN
tij tolerance on dimension Xi produced by
manufacturing process j
tixi tolerance obtained on dimension Xi using the
selected manufacturing process
T tolerance specified on assembly dimension
xij binary process selection coefficient
x vector of discrete process selection variables
X vector of individual dimensions

Lagrange multiplier
i precision of representation of tolerance tij as a
binary substring in chromosome
1 INTRODUCTION
Tolerance synthesis is closely tied to the overall product
and process development because of the increasing
demand for quality products and the growing require-
ments for automation in manufacturing. It is an important
link between the design and manufacturing phases. Speci-
fication of tolerances on the dimensions of manufactured
parts has significant impact on production cost. Unneces-
sarily tight tolerances result in excessive manufacturing
cost while loose tolerances may lead to malfunctioning
of the product assembly.
A systematic approach to tolerance synthesis involves
consideration of the manufacturing cost as a function of
tolerance. Control of tolerances and reduction in manu-
facturing cost are the two conflicting issues, and hence
obtaining an optimal solution is a matter of rigorous
research. Work has been carried out for systematic
tolerance synthesis considering various aspects over the
decades. Availability of the alternative manufacturing
processes for manufacture of the individual part features
makes the problem more complicated for the search of
an optimal solution, because of the multi-modal and
combinatorial nature of the search space. Here it is
important to mention that the manufacturing cost–
tolerance characteristics are used to formulate the
assembly manufacturing cost; the characteristics are
machine specific, and therefore the terms manufacturing
processes and machines have been used interchangeably
in this paper. Traditional optimization techniques
normally fail to yield the global solution to the aforemen-
tioned advanced tolerance synthesis problem. The
problem has been the centre of attention of a large
number of researchers in the last decade. The focus of
this research is on the application of genetic algorithms
(GAs), a powerful non-traditional approach, for obtain-
ing the global optimal solution to the advanced tolerance
synthesis problem. A GA is capable of handling such com-
plex search spaces as those encountered in this problem, to
yield a near-global optimal solution and seems to be an
excellent approach for the following reasons:
1. Solution of the tolerance synthesis problem becomes
easier, as the process selection constraints are taken
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
care of by proper representation of the process selec-
tion variables.
2. The algorithm can handle objective function involving
any type of cost function irrespective of its complexity.
3. The algorithm can be applied to all types of con-
straints resulting from tolerance stack-up conditions,
regardless of their complexity. Even those resulting
from a non-linear assembly response function can
be considered directly without linearization.
4. Assemblies involving interrelated dimension chains
can be handled without any trouble.
5. Process precision limits (valid process tolerance
ranges) can be considered.
The distinguishing features of this research are:
(a) consideration of alternative machines for manufac-
ture of part features,
(b) a set of case studies involving both linear and non-
linear assemblies,
(c) introduction of set-up reduction constraints to
ensure manufacture of identical features using the
same process, machine or set-up and
(d) solution using the GA and benchmarking with the
exact global solution obtained using an exhaustive
search based on the Lagrange multiplier (ESLM)
approach.
The results of the study indiate that the GA is robust
enough to handle the complexities of the tolerance
synthesis problem. By virtue of the inherent flexibility,
the proposed solution methodology can be successfully
extended to more complex tolerance synthesis problems
for which traditional approaches are not applicable.
This paper has been organized as follows. The next
section presents a brief literature review on the topic.
Formulation of tolerance synthesis problem has been
presented in section 3. Optimization methodology has
briefly been given in section 4. Section 5 deals with the
application of proposed methodology with the help of
a few case studies. The results of the study have been
analysed in section 6. The entire work has been summar-
ized and future scope has been identified in the last
section.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The history of tolerance synthesis dates back to the
inception of mass production, when for the first time
the standards for limits, fits and tolerances were estab-
lished to ensure interchangeability of parts. Traditional
approaches to tolerance synthesis are based on past
designs, standards, handbooks, and the skill and experi-
ence of the designers. Rules of thumb based on the
principles of equal tolerances, proportional scaling,
constant precision factor, complexity factors, etc., have
also been quite popular. These methods do not consider
B14603 # IMechE 2004
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM
the impact of manufacturing cost and hence do not
necessarily lead to an optimum design.
The importance of tolerance synthesis led to detailed
research on the topic. Mathematical theory for systematic
tolerance synthesis considering its impact on manufac-
turing cost has been developed. The quest for a mini-
mum-cost set of tolerances led to the application of
different optimization techniques. A large number of
workers attempted to solve the problem with this
approach considering various aspects. Application of
the Lagrange multiplier and other non-linear program-
ming approaches has been quite popular for the purpose.
Research reviews presented by several workers [1–5] have
indicated the state of the art of the topic.
A number of researchers attempted to solve the toler-
ance synthesis problem by incorporating an important
feature of simultaneous process selection, in the case
when more than one process is available for the manu-
facture of part features. Here the search space becomes
complicated, involving several local minima. Most
workers considered discrete functions for modelling the
manufacturing cost–tolerance relationship. Precise
approximation of cost functions in this manner requires
several closely spaced points, resulting in a large and
computationally expensive problem. Moy [6] attempted
to solve a simple problem using dynamic programming.
For the first time, Ostwald and Huang [7] seem to have
presented a mathematical formulation as a zero-one
integer-programming problem and made use of the
Balas algorithm for solution of the problem. Kim and
Knott [8] made an attempt to reduce the number of vari-
ables and constraints by reformulating the problem and
solved it using a pseudo-Boolean approach. Lee and
Woo [9] presented an alternative integer programming
formulation based on the concept of reliability index
and applied a branch and bound algorithm for optimal
solution. Feng and Kusiak [10] considered the quality
loss in addition to manufacturing cost and solved the
problem with the help of stochastic integer programming.
Chase et al. [11] considered continuous functions for
modelling manufacturing cost–tolerance relationships.
These workers researched the problem in detail using
exhaustive search, univariate search, zero-one integer pro-
gramming and sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
techniques as optimization tools. In this study, the exhaus-
tive search and the univariate search methods make use of
the Lagrange multiplier approach to determine the opti-
mum tolerances, combined with discrete search techniques
to find the optimum processes from a set of alternatives.
SQP is a non-linear programming approach that makes
use of continuous process selection coefficients varying
between zero and one. The zero-one discrete search
method is applicable to the cost functions represented
using discrete data points. Among the aforementioned
four methods, the ESLM is the most reliable approach
for finding the global minimum in closed form. However,
this approach suffers from the following drawbacks:
B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
767
1. The closed-form solution is limited to only simple
problems, i.e. those involving simple cost functions,
such as the ‘reciprocal power function’ (reciprocal,
and reciprocal square functions are special cases of
this function) and the ‘exponential function’, subjected
to only traditional tolerance stack-up constraints
(based on the worst-case and root sum square criteria).
2. It is not applicable to discontinuous and/or non-
differentiable cost functions, as it requires a continu-
ous first derivative.
3. The cost functions with preferred process precision
limits cannot be handled using this method.
4. Assemblies involving interrelated dimension chains
(more than one assembly function with some
common dimensions) are difficult to handle.
Zhang and Wang [12] attempted to solve this class of
tolerance synthesis problems. They proposed application
of simulated annealing (SA), a non-traditional optimiza-
tion technique based on the principle of heat treatment
of metals. This technique is useful for obtaining the near-
global optimal solution in a combinatorial and/or multi-
modal search space. Comparison of the results obtained
using this approach and those with SQP indicates, firstly,
that SA presents a better performance for robust beha-
viour in most of the test cases but is more computationally
expensive and, secondly, that SQP is incapable of dealing
with the wide and the non-overlapping process limits for
global solutions. Moiz et al. [13] proposed a new method-
ology, called a slope-based method for solution of this
class of problems, and concluded that the method yields
better results than those obtained using the univariate
and the simulated annealing approaches.
The state of the art on the optimal tolerance synthesis
with alternative manufacturing processes indicates that,
in spite of the in-depth study carried out in the past,
more research is required to obtain the much-needed
global solution.
GAs have also been used in tolerance design research.
Lee and Johnson [14] seem to have explored the approach
for the first time in their research to take care of the trun-
cation error resulting from the limited sample size, while
estimating tolerance accumulation using Monte Carlo
simulation. Carpinetti and Chetwynd [15] focused on the
assessment of tolerance specifications of geometric fea-
tures in the context of computer aided inspection. Innuzzi
and Sandgren [16] combined the accumulated tolerance
estimation using Monte Carlo simulation, and the optimal
solution based on maximization of the tolerance zone
associated with the individual feature. Kanai et al. [17]
addressed the assignment of geometric tolerances, as a
combinatorial optimization problem. Al-ansari and
Deiab [18] attempted the simultaneous optimal selection
of design and machining tolerances considering the
worst-case design tolerance stack-up criteria. Ji et al. [19]
solved the tolerance allocation problem by estimating
machinability factors using fuzzy set theory. Li et al.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
768 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN

[20] focused on simultaneous optimal selection of machin- The objective function is given by
ing datum set and machining tolerances in computer aided n X
X mi
process planning for machining of rotational parts. min Casm ¼ min xij Cij ðtij Þ
Singh et al. [21] addressed the problem of simultaneous i¼1 j¼1
optimal selection of design and manufacturing tolerances
considering both the traditional (worst-case and root sum The constraints corresponding to the stack-up condi-
square) and non-traditional (the Spotts modified and the tions using the worst-case criteria are represented by

  
Greenwood–Chase estimated mean shift) design tolerance Xn X mi  @Y 
xij  t 4 T
stack-up conditions.
i¼1 j¼1
@Xi  ij
Optimal tolerance synthesis with alternative manufac-
turing processes results in a combinatorial and multi- The process precision limits are
modal search space. The problem becomes a good
candidate for obtaining a global solution using a GA. tmin max
ij 4 tij 4 tij 8i ¼ 1, . . . , n, j ¼ 1, . . . , mi
The work reported in this paper can be a useful
The process selection constraints to ensure selection of
contribution to the subject.
only one of the mi processes are jointly given by
X
mi
3 PROBLEM FORMULATION xij ¼ 1
j¼1

The tolerance synthesis problem with alternative manu- and

facturing processes has been symbolically represented
in Fig. 1.
Formulation of the optimal tolerance synthesis
problem involves framing of the objective function and
the constraints. Minimization of the assembly manufac-
turing cost (summation of manufacturing costs involved
in the manufacture of all the toleranced dimensions)
constitutes the objective function. Functional require-
ments of the assembly function (stack-up conditions),
process precision limits and process selection form the
constraints of the problem. Decision variables to be
obtained are the tolerances tij and the binary process
selection coefficient xij . The number of variables in the
formulation depends on the number of component
dimensions.
A general problem for optimal tolerance synthesis
involving alternative manufacturing processes is
formulated as follows:

1 if process j is selected for dimension i
xij ¼
0 otherwise
4 GENETIC ALGORITHMS—A BRIEF
OVERVIEW
GAs are very simple, straightforward, yet a powerful
approach for global search and optimization of complex
multi-modal and combinatorial functions. The approach
combines the characteristics of direct search methods
and probabilistic selection and is based on the mechanics
of natural genetics and natural selection. It makes use of
the inherent characteristics of biological systems, such
as the robustness, efficiency and flexibility in artificial
systems. The working principle of GAs is very different
from that of most classical optimization techniques.

Fig. 1 Tolerance synthesis problem with alternative manufacturing processes

Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM
Fig. 2 Scheme of optimization using GAs
The distinguishing characteristics of the GAs are as
follows:
1. GAs work with a coding of the parameter set, instead
of the parameters themselves.
2. GAs search from a population of points.
3. GAs use pay-off (objective function) information,
and not derivative or other auxiliary knowledge.
4. GAs use probabilistic transition rules.
A general scheme for implementing simple GAs for
optimization problem is presented in Fig. 2. The scheme
can appropriately be modified depending on the type
and complexity of the problem and the knowledge and
experience of the user. The relevant details are further
given in Appendix 1 for the benefit of beginners in the
subject area.
5 EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
A few example case studies involving both linear and
non-linear assemblies have been presented to explain
the proposed methodology. The same problems have
further been solved using the ESLM method. The
assemblies involving only a simple dimension chain
have been considered to make a comparison of the
results obtained by the two methods possible.
5.1 Problem description
Details of example assemblies (number of dimensions,
number of processes available for manufacture of each
B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
769
dimension, revised number of processes for manufacture
of each dimension as applicable to the algorithm, param-
eters of cost functions, stack-up conditions, etc.) have
been given in Appendix 2. Example assembly B, which
is simply assembly A doubled, has been considered to
study the effect of the problem size. Assemblies C, D
and E have also been represented through figures.
Assemblies A, B, C and D are linear assemblies, while
assembly E is a non-linear assembly. Processes marked
with an asterisk are fictitious processes, added to fulfil
the requirements of the algorithm.
Assemblies C and D involve a few dimensions that can
be produced on the same machine and hence it is desirable
to have the same value of associated tolerances for
reducing the number of set-ups. Formulation of the set-
up reduction constraints based on this condition reduces
the effective number of decision variables in chromosome
representation while implementing the GA. However, the
impact of all the toleranced dimensions must be consid-
ered in the formulation of the assembly manufacturing
cost and the stack-up condition. Assemblies D and E
involve a few vendor supplied components, the tolerances
of which are considered fixed and do not count as decision
variables.
5.2 Formulation of the optimization problem
5.2.1 Objective function
An objective function based on minimization of the
assembly manufacturing cost is formulated. The assembly
manufacturing cost is obtained by adding the cost of all
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
770 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN

the processes involved in the manufacture of different Table 1 Parameters of the GAs
features. Each manufactured feature involving a set of
Example assembly P pc pm
manufacturing processes is associated with a discrete
process selection variable that assumes only the integer Assembly A 50 0.65 0.01
values 1 to m^ i . The process selection scheme using the Assembly B 50 0.65 0.01
Assembly C (gearbox assembly) 40 0.65 0.02
GA has been explained in Appendix 1. The manufacturing Assembly D (shaft and housing assembly) 40 0.65 0.02
cost of an individual process is represented as a mono- Assembly E (one-way clutch assembly) 40 0.65 0.02
tonically decreasing relationship between tolerance and
the associated manufacturing cost [22]. Although non-
The scheme of simple GAs explained in the previous
traditional cost functions model the characteristics of
section is used as the optimization strategy. Binary repre-
the manufacturing processes more accurately and also
sentation with the appropriate number of bits for each
the proposed algorithm is capable of handling any type
variable, process selection (based on the total number
of cost function irrespective of its complexity, yet, for a
of alternative processes) and tolerances (based on the
balance between modelling accuracy and computational
accuracy required) is made. Reproduction using roulette
efficiency, the exponential cost function is considered the
wheel selection together with linear fitness scaling, single-
most appropriate. The objective function of the tolerance
point crossover and bitwise mutation as per the control
synthesis problem with the exponential cost function can
parameters given in Table 1 was adopted. These param-
be represented as follows:
eters were selected by tuning the algorithm based on the
X
n guidelines given in the literature [23]. The constraints
Casm ¼ ðaixi þ bixi e
cixi tixi Þ ð1Þ were handled using the penalty function approach [21,
i¼1 24, 25]. The simulation for each case was carried out
5.2.2 Constraints for a sufficiently large number of generations on a P-IV
personal computer using MATLAB.
The constraints are formulated on the basis of:
(a) the tolerance stack-up conditions, 5.4 ESLM-based optimization
(b) process precision limits and
(c) process selection constraints. With this approach all the possible combinations of
dimensions and manufacturing processes are explored.
The proposed algorithm is able to handle all these
No fictitious processes are considered here. Optimal
constraints. The constraints arising from the tolerance
solution for each combination is obtained in the closed
stack-up conditions are considered in their original
form using the Lagrange multiplier, and the minimum
form; the process precision limits are applied simply by
of all these solutions is taken as the overall optimum
representing the tolerance variable in the given range;
solution. A closed-form optimal solution for each of
the process selection is taken care of by the discrete
these combinations for the tolerance synthesis problem
process selection variable. Thus the tolerance stack-up
formulated in the manner explained above can be
conditions are the only constraints; the others are auto-
obtained using the following equation, which is based
matically taken care of by the algorithm. Considering
on reference [26]:
the worst-case criteria, a tolerance stack-up condition


in linearized form for a non-linear assembly is repre- 1

sented by tij ¼
ln ð4Þ
cij bij cij
Xn  

 @Y tix 4 T ð2Þ where
¼ eA such that
 @X  i P
i¼1 i
½lnðbij cij Þ=cij 
T
A¼ P
which further reduces to 1=cij

X
n 8i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , n, j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , mi
tixi 4 T ð3Þ
i¼1
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
for a linear assembly.
The results of optimization (process combination, set of
5.3 GA-based optimization tolerances, tolerance accumulated on assembly dimension
and least possible manufacturing cost) obtained using
Finally the total manufacturing cost of the assembly as the proposed methodology and those obtained in closed
represented by equation (1) is optimized subject to the form using the ESLM have been listed in Tables 2 to 6.
constraints [equation (2) or (3), as the case may be]. The CPU time for the GA-based solution is exclusive
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM 771

Table 2 Comparison of results for assembly A

GA approach ESLM approach

Process Tolerance Process Tolerance

Dimensions
X1 1 0.0014 1 0.0014
X2 1 0.0018 1 0.0018
X3 1 0.0018 1 0.0018
Accumulated tolerance 0.005 0.005
Minimum manufacturing cost 43.40 43.33
CPU time 47.34 s 0.16 s

Table 3 Comparison of results for assembly B

GA approach ESLM approach

Process Tolerance Process Tolerance

Dimensions
X1 1 0.0014 1 0.0014
X2 1 0.0018 1 0.0018
X3 1 0.0017 1 0.0018
X4 1 0.0014 1 0.0014
X5 1 0.0018 1 0.0018
X6 1 0.0017 1 0.0018
Accumulated tolerance 0.0098 0.0100
Minimum manufacturing cost 86.80 86.67
CPU time 748.47 s 13.62 s

Table 4 Comparison of results for assembly C (gearbox assembly)

GA approach ESLM approach

Process Tolerance Process Tolerance

Dimensions
X 1 , X2 4 0.0319 4 0.0319
X3 3 0.0678 3 0.0666
X 4 , X5 3 0.0641 3 0.0648
Accumulated tolerance 0.2598 0.2600
Minimum manufacturing cost 131.45 131.45
CPU time 159.07 s 2.86 s

Table 5 Comparison of results for assembly D (shaft and housing assembly)

GA approach ESLM approach

Process Tolerance Process Tolerance

Dimensions
X1 — 0.0381 — 0.0381
X2 2 0.0336 2 0.0346
X 3 , X7 — 0.0635 — 0.0635
X 4 , X6 2 0.0551 2 0.0547
X5 2 0.0742 2 0.0739
Accumulated tolerance 0.3831 0.3831
Minimum manufacturing cost 381.00 381.00
CPU time 143.08 s 0.11 s

B14603 # IMechE 2004 Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
772 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN

Table 6 Comparison of results for assembly E (one-way clutch assembly)

GA approach ESLM approach

Process Tolerance Process Tolerance

Dimensions
X1 4 0.0477 4 0.0472
X2 — 0.0102 — 0.0102
X3 1 0.1005 1 0.1010
Accumulated tolerance 0.0174 0.0174
Minimum manufacturing cost 137.45 137.45
CPU time 32.79 s 0.06 s

Table 7 Summary of GA-based optimization

Assembly Nmin Neval ¼ Nmin P Remarks

A 389 19 450 —
B 3806 190 300 —
C 845 33 800 Two set-up reduction constraints
D 1408 56 320 One set-up reduction constraint
E 376 15 040 —

of the time required to set the control parameters.
Further, a brief summary of GA-based optimization
representing the minimum number of generations and
the minimum number of objective function evaluations
required to yield the optimal solution has been presented
in Table 7. Variation in the stored minimum manu-
facturing cost associated with the feasible population,
with progress in the GA for different assemblies has
also been plotted (Fig. 3). The following points are
observed:
1. There is complete agreement in the economical set of
manufacturing processes selected. This seems to be
because the relative position of the cost functions
does not make abrupt appreciable changes; i.e. the
cost functions remain more or less stable in a suffi-
ciently large portion of the tolerance range encom-
passing the optimal solution.
2. Sets of optimal tolerances obtained by the two
methods are also almost similar. Individual toler-
ances in a set may slightly differ, particularly in

Fig. 3 Variation in the stored least manufacturing cost associated with the feasible population with progress
of the algorithm

Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM
larger problems, but the resulting optimal manufac-
turing cost is quite agreeable. This is because GAs
converge to a near-global solution and normally do
not yield the exact solution. The manufacturing
cost seems to be less sensitive to tolerances in the
optimal region, which makes the GA-based mini-
mum manufacturing cost quite similar even with
slightly differing sets of tolerances obtained with
the two methods.
3. The resulting accumulated tolerances obtained by
the two methods are also almost similar. The
accumulated tolerance obtained using the GA is
equal to or slightly less than that obtained using
the ESLM approach.
4. The minimum manufacturing costs obtained by the
two methods are also in almost agreement. The mini-
mum manufacturing cost obtained using the GA is
equal to or slightly greater than that obtained
using the ESLM approach.
5. In general, GAs do not converge to the exact global
solution; they yield only a near-global solution.
However, for all practical purposes the results are
almost identical with the global solution, and the
minute difference can be ignored.
6. The CPU time taken to reach the optimal solution is
much greater for the application of the GA than that
for the ESLM. This indicates that the GA is highly
computationally expensive compared with the
ESLM because, firstly, the GA follows the iterative
approach, secondly, the GA is based on a random
search, which makes a great many function evalua-
tions non-useful, and, thirdly, the presence of
fictitious manufacturing processes further widen
the search space.
7. Application of the set-up reduction constraints results
in the same value of tolerances associated with the
similar features (i.e. those which are produced using
the same process, machine or set-up).
8. The algorithm is applicable to non-linear assemblies
equally well. It is possible to consider a non-linear con-
straint directly without linearization, for the worst-
case tolerance stack-up, using the proposed methodol-
ogy. However, this study makes use of linearized
stack-up constraints for comparison of the results
with those obtained using the ESLM approach.
9. The minimum number of generations required for the
near-global solution seem to depend on the search
space, which in turn depends on theQnumber of
process combinations, represented by ni¼ 1 m ^ i , the
tolerance range and the accuracy level required. The
larger the search space, the more generations are
required to scan the search space properly. Although
the set-up reduction constraints reduce the number of
decision variables in coding the set of variables as a
chromosome while implementing the GA, all the
decision variables seem to affect the performance of
the algorithm perhaps because they all govern the
B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
773
manufacturing cost and the accumulated tolerance,
which are the basis of optimization. This is the
reason why the algorithm converges to the optimal
solution for assembly E in a small number of genera-
tions, while it takes much longer for assemblies B and
D. The effect of the search space on the convergence
of the algorithm can be observed in Table 7.
10. Figure 3 shows the variation in the stored minimum
manufacturing cost associated with the feasible
population, with progress of the algorithm. The
curves become almost flat near the optimal solution.
The flat portion of curves is important for the
optimal tolerance synthesis point of view. Except
for the curve corresponding to assembly B, all
assume an almost stable value of the minimum
manufacturing cost beyond 150 generations, while
assembly B still presents a significant reduction.
This also indicates the effect of the search space on
the rate of convergence of the algorithm.
The ESLM is the best approach to yield the exact global
solution in a closed form. It is highly computationally effi-
cient because it is non-iterative in nature. However, the
approach is applicable to only the simple tolerancing
problems. On the other hand, the GA is comparatively
a much more computationally expensive approach and
yields only a near-global solution. Therefore application
of the GA is normally not recommended for the solution
of problems that can be solved effectively by other meth-
ods. In general, the real-world tolerance synthesis prob-
lems involve several complexities, such as complex cost
functions, complex stack-up conditions, interrelated
dimension chains and process precision limits. Traditional
iterative optimization techniques have been in use for the
solution of these problems. These techniques suffer from
several drawbacks and hence have limited application
[25]. Under these conditions, the GA, although computa-
tionally expensive, can yield sufficiently accurate results
and therefore can be considered a promising alternative
to the ESLM approach.
7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
Application of GAs to optimal tolerance synthesis for
minimum manufacturing cost with alternative manufac-
turing processes (machines) has been explored. The
proposed approach seems to be an ideal methodology
for solution of the problem because of its distinguishing
feature of automatic handling of process selection con-
straints. A set of examples involving both linear and
non-linear assemblies has been studied. Set-up reduction
constraints have also been introduced to ascertain the
manufacture of identical features using the same process,
machine or set-up. The results obtained have been found
to be almost in agreement with those obtained in a closed
form using the ESLM approach, which is the benchmark
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
774 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN
for testing the performance of all the iterative approaches.
However, the GA-based approach is quite computation-
ally expensive and, hence, is normally not recommended
for such simple problems that can satisfactorily be
handled using traditional counterparts. Notwithstanding,
the proposed methodology can be quite useful for real-
world tolerance synthesis problems involving features
such as complex cost functions, complex stack-up condi-
tions, interrelated dimension chains and process precision
limits, where traditional approaches are not satisfactorily
applicable. The solution of such complex problems may
require appropriate modification of the standard GA
explained here, especially with regard to representation
of variables as a coded chromosome, and choice of the
genetic operators.
The proposed method is simple and straighforward for
practical implementation for the majority of real-world
optimization problems. The present authors are working
to extend this research to incorporate additional features
frequently encountered in the real-world assembly toler-
ancing problem, where traditional approaches fail to
yield the global solution, and application of the GA is
justified. It is expected that the outcome of the research
will be useful and accepted by the engineering design
community for tolerance specifications on a rational
basis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very grateful to Professor Kalyanmoy
Deb (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India) for explaining
the scheme of application of GAs applicable to the
aforementioned advanced tolerance synthesis problem.
Sincere gratitude is also due to Professor K. W. Chase
and Professor R. J. Gerth in the international research
community for extending their cooperation by providing
useful literature.
REFERENCES
1 Chase, K. W. and Parkinson, A. R. A survey of research in
the application of tolerance analysis to the design of
mechanical assemblies. Res. Engng Des., 1991, 3, 23–37.
2 Zhang, H. C. and Huq, M. E. Tolerancing techniques: state-
of-the-art. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1992, 30(9), 2111–2135.
3 Gerth, R. J. Engineering tolerancing: a review of tolerance
analysis and allocation. Engng Des. Automn, 1996, 2(1), 3–22.
4 Singh, P. K., Jain, S. C., Jain, P. K. and Vaz, A. J. Tolerance
synthesis of mechanical assemblies: a survey. In Proceedings
of the 10th National Conference on Machines and
Mechanism (NaComm-01), Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India, December 2001, pp. 333–341.
5 Hong, Y. S. and Chang, T.-C. A comprehensive review of
tolerancing research. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2002, 40(11),
2425–2459.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
6 Moy, W. A. Assignment of tolerances by dynamic program-
ming. Product Engng, 21 May 1964, 215–218.
7 Ostwald, P. F. and Huang, J. A method for optimal toler-
ance selection. Trans. ASME, J. Engng for Industry, 1977,
99, 558–565.
8 Kim, S. H. and Knott, K. A pseudo-Boolean approach to
determining least cost tolerances. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1988,
26(1), 157–167.
9 Lee, W.-J. and Woo, T. C. Optimal selection of discrete
tolerances. Trans. ASME, J. Mechanisms, Transmission
Automn Des., 1989, 111, 243–251.
10 Feng, C.-X. and Kusiak, A. Robust tolerance design with
the integer programming approach. Trans. ASME, J. Mfg
Sci. Engng, 1997, 119, 603–610.
11 Chase, K. W., Greenwood, W. H., Loosli, B. G. and Hauglund,
L. F. Least cost tolerance allocation for mechanical assem-
blies with automated process selection. Mfg Rev., 1990,
3(1), 49–59.
12 Zhang, C. and Wang, H.-P. The discrete tolerance optimi-
zation problem. Mfg Rev., 1993, 6(1), 60–71.
13 Moiz, Y. N., Pulat, P. S. and Raman, S. A slope-based
method for least cost tolerance allocation. Concurrent
Engng: Res. Applic., 1995, 3(4), 319–328.
14 Lee, J. and Johnson, G. E. Optimal tolerance allotment
using a genetic algorithm and truncated Monte Carlo simu-
lation. Computer-Aided Des., 1993, 25(9), 601–611.
15 Carpinetti, L. C. R. and Chetwynd, D. G. Genetic search
methods for assessing geometric tolerances. Computer
Meth. Appl. Mechanics Engng, 1995, 122, 193–204.
16 Innuzzi, M. P. and Sandgren, E. Tolerance optimization
using genetic algorithms: benchmarking with manual
analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Design Seminar
on Computer Aided Tolerancing (Ed. F. Kimura), 1995,
pp. 219–234.
17 Kanai, S., Onozuka, M. and Takahashi, H. Optimal toler-
ance synthesis by genetic algorithm under the machining
and assembling constraints. In Proceedings of the 4th
CIRP Design Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing
(Ed. F. Kimura), 1995, pp. 234–250.
18 Al-ansari, M. D. and Deiab, I. M. Concurrent optimization
of design and machining tolerances using the genetic algo-
rithms method. Int. J. Mach. Tool Mf., 1997, 37, 1721–1731.
19 Ji, S., Li, X., Ma, Y. and Cai, H. Optimal tolerance alloca-
tion based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and genetic
algorithm. Int. J. Advd Mfg Technol., 2000, 16, 461–468.
20 Li, W., Bai, G., Zhang, C. and Wang, B. Optimization of
machining datum selection and machining tolerance alloca-
tion with genetic algorithms. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2000, 38(6),
1407–1424.
21 Singh, P. K., Jain, P. K. and Jain, S. C. Simultaneous
optimal selection of design and manufacturing tolerances
with different stack-up conditions using genetic algorithms.
Int. J. Prod. Res., 2003, 41(11), 2411–2429.
22 Singh, P. K., Jain, P. K. and Jain, S. C. Manufacturing cost
models in tolerance design of mechanical assemblies. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on CAD,
CAM, Robotics and Autonomous Factories (INCARF
2003), Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India, 11–13
August 2003.
23 Goldberg, D. E. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization
and Machine Learning, 1989 (Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts).
B14603 # IMechE 2004
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM
24 Deb, K. Optimization for Engineering Design: Algorithms
and Examples, 1995 (PHI, New Delhi).
25 Deb, K. An introduction to genetic algorithms. Sadhana,
1999, 24(4–5), 293–315.
26 Wu, Z., ElMaraghy, W. H. and ElMaraghy, H. A. Evalua-
tion of cost–tolerance algorithms for design tolerance
analysis and synthesis. Mfg Rev., 1988, 1(3), 168–179.
27 Singh, P. K., Jain, S. C. and Jain, P. K. Tolerance alloca-
tion with alternative manufacturing processes—suitability
of genetic algorithms. Int. J. Simulation Modelling, 2003,
2(1–2), 22–34.
28 Bjorke, O. Computer Aided Tolerancing, 1989 (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York).
29 Chase, K. W. and Greenwood, W. H. Design issues
in mechanical tolerance analysis. Mfg Rev., 1988, 1(1),
50–59.
30 Fortini, E. Dimensioning for Interchangeable Manufacture,
1967 (Industrial Press, New York).
APPENDIX 1
Implementation of the genetic algorithm
(a) Representation of variables (coding of the
chromosome)
The tolerance synthesis problem with alternative manu-
facturing processes involves both the continuous (toler-
ances) and the discrete (process/machine selection)
decision variables. Both the variables are coded in
some string structure, where each string represents a
discrete point in the continuous space domain. Binary
coded strings are mostly used. For representation of
tolerances, the length of the substrings is determined
according to the desired solution accuracy. The range
and the precision of the tolerance tij are controlled by
mapping of the decoded unsigned integer, linearly from
½0, 2ltij  to a specified interval ½tmin max
ij , tij . The precision
of variable tij through this mapping is represented by
l tij
i ¼ ðtmax ij
tmin
ij Þ=ð2
1Þ.
Each manufactured dimension is associated with a
discrete process selection variable xi . For the algorithm
to work, the number of the alternative processes for
manufacturing each feature must be equal to 2r (r is a
non-negative integer). If it is not so, a few fictitious
Fig. 4 Symbolic representation of population structure
B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
775
processes may be added, giving rise to the revised
number of alternative manufacturing processes, m ^i.
The process selection variable can assume only the
integer values from 1 to m ^ i . Careful manipulation is
carried out with the manufacturing cost information
for the fictitious processes so that they are rejected
outright by the algorithm. The length of substring corre-
sponding to the process selection variables is obtained by
direct binary conversion of the revised number of manu-
facturing processes including the fictitious processes for
the respective manufactured features.
A chromosome in the population structure consists
of a concatenated binary representation (substrings)
for both the tolerances and the process selection vari-
ables corresponding to all the manufactured features.
The population structure for this problem can be
represented as shown in Fig. 4 [27]. The variables can
be evaluated from the binary substring for further
processing using
xi ¼ DVðsxi Þ ð5Þ
and
tmax
ij
tmin
ij
tij ¼ tmin
ij þ l
DVðstij Þ ð6Þ
2 tij
1
(b) Fitness function
GAs do not consider the objective function as such, as
considered by the traditional optimization methods.
There are two reasons for this:
1. GAs handle only the maximization problems, as the
strings identified as ‘most fit’ have more chances to
reproduce children than the strings which are ‘less
fit’, during the reproduction operation.
2. A function, which is partially positive and partially
negative, is not suitable for application of GAs as
such.
Therefore, to handle minimization problems, as in the
case of optimal tolerance allocation, the objective func-
tion is suitably transformed to another function, called
the fitness function. For such an objective function
hðtÞ, the fitness function h^ðtÞ can be of the form
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
776 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN

h^ðtÞ ¼ u
hðtÞ or h^ðtÞ ¼ u=½hðtÞ þ v, where u and v are

the appropriately selected constants.

(c) Genetic operators

Several genetic operators have been proposed to simulate

the phenomena of natural genetics, and hence to yield
better results in successive generations. Reproductions,
crossover and mutation are the most commonly used
genetic operators. An algorithm involving these opera-
Fig. 5 Crossover and mutation operation
tors is called a simple GA.
Reproduction is normally the first operation applied
on the population. Reproduction selects a good string bitwise, changing 1 to 0, and vice versa, with specified
in the population and forms a mating pool for subse- mutation probability pm . As in case of crossover, the
quent operation. Several schemes of reproduction have new strings obtained after mutation may also be superior
been proposed over the decades. The most commonly or inferior to the original strings, but the inferior strings
used reproduction scheme is the roulette wheel selection will not survive too long and will be eliminated in the
scheme, where a string is selected for the mating pool subsequent generations during reproduction. Function-
with a probability proportional to its fitness. Thus the ing of the crossover and mutation operators is repre-
pth string in the population is selected with a probability sented in Fig. 5.
given by
APPENDIX 2
fitnessp
probjp ¼ PP ð7Þ
p ¼ 1 fitnessp
Example assemblies
In reproduction, good strings in the population The parameters for the example assemblies A, B, C, D
are probabilistically assigned a larger number of copies and E are listed in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively;
for the mating pool. Although the scheme is very the asterisks indicate fictitious processes.
simple and straightforward, yet it suffers from two
drawbacks, namely premature convergence at early
generations, and significant diversity within the popula- Table 8 Assembly A
tion at later generations with progress of the algorithm.
Parameters of cost function
To reduce this problem, the original fitness is modified
using the linear fitness scaling explained by Goldberg Dimensions Process a b c
[23].
X1 1 5.0 34.2245 765
Crossover is carried out on a pair of randomly selected 2 4.7 39.9819 782
strings from the mating pool. The operation is responsible 3 4.36 45.0974 790
for the search for new strings in the search space. The new 4* 500 41.5370 777
strings are obtained by exchanging information between X2 1 6.05 53.1921 975
the strings of the pair. Many crossover schemes have 2 5.62 60.0065 995
3 5.29 149.5845 986
been proposed in the literature. Single-point crossover is 4* 500 63.6541 981
the most common, where a crossing site is selected X3 1 5.38 72.6260 1386
randomly along the strings for each pair to perform a 2 5.31 96.5270 1412
crossover operation; all the bits on the right-hand side 3 5.22 82.8130 1400
4* 500 87.4149 1408
of the crossing site are exchanged between the strings of
the pair. The two strings resulting from the crossover Assembly function: Y ¼ X1 þ X2 þ X3 .
may be superior or inferior to the participating strings, Stack-up condition: t1 þ t2 þ t3 4 0:005.
but the inferior strings will not survive too long and will
die out in the subsequent generations during reproduc- Table 9 Assembly B
tion. Not all the strings undergo crossover; the strings
for the operation are selected with specified crossover Parameters of cost function
probability pc .
Dimensions Process a b c
Next is the mutation operator, which is used for the
purpose of searching for new points in the search space X1 , X2 , X3 Same as for assembly A
sparingly. It is to create a point in the neighbourhood X4 , X5 , X6 Same as for X1 , X2 , X3 respectively
of the current point, thereby applying a local search Assembly function: Y ¼ X1 þ X2 þ X3 þ X4 þ X5 þ X6 .
around the current solution. The mutation is performed Stack-up condition: t1 þ t2 þ t3 þ t4 þ t5 þ t6 4 0:01.

Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
 A GA BASED SOLUTION TO OPTIMUM TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS—BENCHMARKING WITH THE ESLM 777

Table 10 Assembly C: gear box assembly (Fig. 6)

Parameters of cost function

Dimensions Process a b c

X1 , X2 1 18.50 71.25 214.56

2 20.82 68.44 208.68
3 19.05 69.32 211.05
4 18.32 73.56 220.73
X3 1 42.50 30.254 82.566
2 39.20 33.443 86.688
3 38.05 34.322 79.005
4* 539.32 37.061 78.732
X4 , X5 1 32.50 28.25 82.45
2 29.20 30.43 86.70
3 28.05 31.42 80.05
4 29.32 34.16 78.82 Fig. 6 Gearbox assembly [28]
Assembly function: Y ¼ X1 þ X2
X3
X4
X5 .
Stack-up condition: t1 þ t2 þ t3 þ t4 þ t5 4 0:26.
Set-up reduction condition(s): t1 ¼ t2 and t4 ¼ t5 .

Table 11 Assembly D: shaft and housing assembly (Fig. 7)

Parameters of cost function

Dimensions Process a b c

X1 Vendor supplied (fixed tolerance t1 ¼ 0:0381; C1 ¼ 5:00)

X2 1 5.34 66.43 2.738
2 5.12 62.22 2.340
X3 , X7 Vendor supplied (fixed tolerance t3 ¼ 0:0635; C3 ¼ 50:00)
X 4 , X6 1 15.34 69.43 2.728
2 15.12 65.22 2.340
3 14.85 66.87 2.112
4* 500 70.62 2.985
X5 1 11.34 72.43 2.738
2 11.12 68.22 2.340
3 10.85 69.87 2.112
4* 500 73.62 2.985

Assembly function: Y ¼
X1 þ X2
X3 þ X4
X5 þ X6
X7 .

Stack-up condition: t1 þ t2 þ t3 þ t4 þ t5 þ t6 þ t7 4 0:3831.
Set-up reduction condition: t4 ¼ t6 .

Fig. 7 Shaft and housing assembly [29]

B14603 # IMechE 2004 Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014
778 P K SINGH, S C JAIN AND P K JAIN

Table 12 Assembly E: one-way clutch assembly (Fig. 8)

Parameters of cost function

Dimensions Process a b c

X1 (hub) ¼ 55.291 1 15.05 71.24 4.348

2 15.12 70.10 4.015
3 16.54 68.32 4.478
4 18.92 66.98 5.552
X2 (roll) ¼ 22.86 Vendor supplied (fixed tolerance t2 ¼ 0:0635; C2 ¼ 30:00)
X3 (cage) ¼ 101.6 1 21.55 98.87 18.39
2 21.02 98.12 17.81
3 23.14 99.78 18.94
4* 500 101.10 19.24

Assembly function: Y ¼ a cos½ðX1 þ X2 Þ=ðX3
X2 Þ.

Stack-up condition: j@Y=@X1 jt1 þ j@Y=@X2 jt2 þ j@Y=@X3 jt3 4 ðYmax
Ymin Þ=2, where Ymax ¼
0:139 84 and Ymin ¼ 0:104 94.

Fig. 8 One-way clutch assembly [30]

Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture B14603 # IMechE 2004
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on October 28, 2014