4.5 Article

Towards non-FEA-based deformation methods for evaluating perceived quality of split-lines

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 623-639

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2013.803218

Keywords

virtual evaluation; perceived quality; split-lines; non-rigid; geometry assurance

Funding

  1. Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA)
  2. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, through the research program ProViking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the automotive industry, the evaluation of Perceived Quality of split-lines is strongly dependent on simulation and visualisation activities to analyse consequences of geometrical variation. A truthful representation of the part behaviour is therefore essential. Moreover, variation simulation of non-rigid parts is today performed by finite element analysis (FEA). FEA-based methods demand meshed models that correspond to the final engineering design to calculate the correct stiffness matrix. However, geometrical models in early phases have significantly lower level of detail. Approximate methods are therefore considered as options to better deal with this restriction. In this paper, an approximate non-FEA-based simulation method, based on a mesh morphing approach, has been the subject of a case study to evaluate its acceptance and applicability. It involved a focus group and individual interviews with engineers and project managers from two companies within the automotive industry. The study shows that providing the possibility to perform visualisation activities in the early phases is highly sought after, both on an engineering level and on a management level. Furthermore, a number of application scenarios for this type of approximate method were proposed. The study also identified strengths and risks of visualising the effects of geometrical variation in this way.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available