Author:
Genc Suat,Messler Robert W.,Gabriele Gary A.
Abstract
Once alternative attachment concepts for a specific application have been generated, an evaluation tool needs to be used to select the “best” attachment concept based on given design objectives. Part 6 of this series presents a quantitative evaluation tool to select the optimal attachment concept based on structural performance, ease of manufacture, or ease of assembly as primary design objectives. Ways to consider secondary objectives in the evaluation process to handle design problems with multiple objectives are also presented.
Subject
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Control and Systems Engineering
Reference8 articles.
1. Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P. (1983, Design for Assembly ‐ A Designer’s Handbook, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, MA.
2. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, W. (1994, Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, M. Dekker, New York, NY.
3. Dixon, J.R. and Poli, C. (1995, Engineering Design and Design for Manufacturing: A Structured Approach, Field Stone Publishers, Conway, MA.
4. Genc, S., Messler, R.W. Jr and Gabriele, G.A. (1998, “Integral attachment using snap‐fits: a key to assembly automation, part 5 ‐ a procedure to fully constrain parts and generate alternative attachment concepts”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 68‐74.
5. Messler, R.W. Jr, Genc, S. and Gabriele, G.A. (1997, “Integral attachment using snap‐fits: a key to assembly automation, part 3 ‐ an attachment‐level design methodology”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 239‐48.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献