Detailed Design Process and Assembly Considerations For Snap-Fit Joints
Detailed Design Process and Assembly Considerations For Snap-Fit Joints
Detailed Design Process and Assembly Considerations For Snap-Fit Joints
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Abstract
The use of additive manufacturing (AM) technology has been widely adopted due to the facility to produce highly complex elements compared
to conventional fabrication processes. Additionally, AM technology is rapidly developing straightforward systems enabling designers to make
products faster, despite current technology limitations (i.e. processing defects, materials properties, etc.). However, not only AM technology or
products must be analyzed to have concrete solutions to all existing limitations. This means, it is necessary to take into account AM design
process to propose simpler solutions. Elements manufactured by AM technology have dimension limitations on build size regarding printers
building capabilities, especially when the elements are more volumetric than the building chamber. In those cases, AM design process takes a
significant role and a potential solution is to divide big elements in sections, which are later 3D-printed and joined using snap-fits, as the cheapest
and fastest connectors available. Thus, the present work explores the detail design stages of a proposed design methodology for elements´ coupling
by snap-fit joints using AM technology. The design methodology is tested on the assembly of parts from a 1-gallon plastic container. A finite
element simulation for the parts coupling scenarios is presented and the effects of part’s deflection on the detail design stages are analyzed. In
addition, a final design validation regarding assembly ergonomics and retention forces are discussed in order to avoid part decoupling problems
or material failure.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 681
Nomenclature
𝛼𝛼 Mounting angle
𝛼𝛼 " Corrected mounting angle
𝛽𝛽 Dismounting angle
𝛽𝛽" Corrected dismounting angle
𝛿𝛿% Part A deflection
𝛿𝛿& Part B deflection
𝛿𝛿'()*+, Deflection correction factor
𝛿𝛿-./ Simulated joining deflection
𝜀𝜀)(1) Calculated strain
𝐸𝐸- Secant Modulus
𝐹𝐹( Assembly force
𝐹𝐹4 Disassembly force
𝐹𝐹5 Deflection force
𝐹𝐹5" Corrected deflection force
𝐾𝐾 Stress concentration factor
𝐿𝐿8 Deflection beam length
𝜇𝜇 Material friction coefficient
𝑄𝑄 Feature location factor
𝑅𝑅8 Base radius
𝑇𝑇8 Feature thickness
𝑇𝑇= Wall thickness
𝑊𝑊8 Deflection beam width
𝑦𝑦 Retention mechanism height
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
682 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687
the Design Specifications stage which ultimately defines the corresponding design constraints and process limitations. The
joint performance conditions and design parameters. following subsections describes the three process considered in
The Conceptual Design stages starts with the calculation of this preliminary design.
printing material strain limits, followed by the partitioning
mating design and the snap-fit systems type selection and 2.2.1. Material Strain Limits
location. In contrast with the previous methodology, the Detail The initial step in the conceptual design stages corresponds
Design stages now is formed by two procedures, i.e. the to the calculation of the printing material strain limits. This
deflection mechanism dimensioning and the retention deformation restriction is mainly influenced by the presence of
mechanism dimensioning. a definite yield point in the printing material stress-strain curve
The first step of the Design Validation stages is a and the number of cycles of frequent assemblies and
preliminary evaluation of the joint strain, followed by a finite dismounting motions for the mating parts. The need of material
element simulation of the joint in order to verify expected characterization data in this stage is crucial as it can affect the
strains when applying a certain deflection force. Furthermore, posterior joint deformation validation.
the validation stages now considers a parallel evaluation of
assembly and disassembly forces in order to assess joint 2.2.2. Part Mating Design
ergonomics and retention forces, respectively. A primary partitioning method can be selected based on the
The final stage of the process corresponds to the 3D printing general model configuration, and the printing building chamber
manufacturing of the pieces with the added designed and volume. As previous studies suggest, this model subdivision
validated snap-fit joints. As stated in previous studies, the stage can be further optimized according to an efficient
design process could be linear from an ideal standpoint but is partitioning approach, which depends on support material
iterative in most cases. Considering that the iterative condition utilization and printing times, and offers a quantitative
could occur in the detail design or design validation stages, the validation. Both considerations of the efficient partitioning
initial design is subject to change [4]. approach can be competing measures, as one orientation can
use less support material but complete in a greater printing
2.1. Performance conditions & parameters time.
The anisotropy of the parts associated with the 3D-printer
The present study is focused on previous defined design building directions could be a considerable restriction;
considerations or process limitations, which are AM therefore, the printing approach, as well as model wall
technology, printing material, model geometry and snap-fit thickness and model overhangs, can also affect the selected
retention conditions. These restrictions are considered as input partitioning method and the posterior snap-fit features location.
variables to the methodology and will not change during the
design process. 2.2.3. Snap-fit System Type & Location
AM technology considerations refers to machinery specific The snap-fit system, as an assembly mechanism, consists on
constraints. Parameters such as printing layer thickness, locking features, locating features and enhancement features
limitations on small features printing, need of support [10]. The locking features, consisting of the deflection and
structures, and building chamber dimensions affect directly to retention mechanisms, are responsible for restricting the
the model partitioning in the part mating design stage and movement between mating parts in the assembly direction. The
posterior feature dimensioning. most common types of locking features are the cantilever,
Regarding printing material, mechanical properties torsional and annular snap-fit joints. According to the snap-fit
characterization is needed for the detail design stages such as joint type, the location of the locking feature should be oriented
in material deformation limits calculation and deflection and in order to distribute the principal stresses along the most
retention mechanisms dimensioning. resistant building direction.
Overall model geometry needs to be accounted as it can
limit the partitioning approach and the location of the snap-fit 2.3. Detail Design
features due to aesthetic or functional requirements. Model
wall thickness and weight could also influence the final joining Two simultaneous processes regarding the dimensioning of
design. deflection mechanism and the retention mechanism of the
The last design specification considered in the proposed locking features are mainly considered at the detail design
design process corresponds to the retention condition of the stages. For the following subsections, general guidelines and
snap-fit system, which refers to operational restraints such as calculations are shown based on the available literature
in the need of a permanent joint, or if the joint will be subject regarding general snap-fit features design for cantilever snap-
to frequent assembly and disassembly motions. These fit joints [6 – 8]. The variables and geometry to be used in this
requirements can influence both conceptual and detail design subsections are shown on Fig. 2.
stages.
2.3.1. Deflection Mechanism Dimensioning
2.2. Conceptual Design The geometry of the deflection mechanism can be defined
as a function of the snap-fit feature thickness 𝑇𝑇8 , which can be
The conceptual design stages establishes a framework for selected based on the positioning of the feature relatively to the
the posterior joining features dimensioning, based on the part wall where it is mounted.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 683
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
684 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687
𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹5" = 𝐹𝐹5 (3)
𝛿𝛿% + 𝛿𝛿&
𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿%
𝛿𝛿-./ = (4)
𝛿𝛿% + 𝛿𝛿&
Fig. 3. Graphical correction for part deflection using finite element simulation
results. Part A: having deflection features, and Part B: with retention features.
In addition, the simulation results are used to define a
If the strain on the features is greater than the permissible deformation corrector factor 𝛿𝛿'()*+, , which is employed to
strain limits, corrections should be made on the conceptual adjust the calculated strain values, and find the effective
design stages or in the snap-fit feature geometry values, mounting and dismounting angles. This deflection correction
depending on the amount of the difference. factor is equal to the ratio of the joining deflection and the
For small deviations, a simple feature dimension correction retention feature height 𝛿𝛿-./ /𝑦𝑦.
can be sufficient, but for greater values a more in-depth
analysis of the feature location and/or part mating orientation 2.4.3. Assembly Forces calculation and Ergonomics
is needed. In the flowchart, the unacceptable condition is validation
connected to the part mating design as it corresponds to the Joint system assembly forces are a function of the corrected
worst-case scenario. deflection force 𝐹𝐹5" , material friction coefficient and a corrected
mounting angle 𝛼𝛼 " . Equations 5 and 6 shows the corresponding
2.4.2. Finite Element Simulation formulae for mounting angle correction and assembly forces
In order to verify the deformation scenarios for the part calculation, respectively.
joints, a stage of finite element simulation is considered to
include the part-specific rigidity effects during the joint 𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿'()*+,
deflection. For the simulations, the needed deflection force 𝐹𝐹5 𝛼𝛼 " = 𝛼𝛼 + tanab c d (5)
𝐿𝐿8
is calculated as a function of the previous defined geometry,
the calculated strain 𝜀𝜀)(1) , and the material secant Modulus 𝐸𝐸Z , 𝜇𝜇 + tan 𝛼𝛼′
as shown on Eq. 2. 𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎 = 𝐹𝐹′𝑃𝑃 (6)
1 − 𝜇𝜇 tan 𝛼𝛼′
𝑊𝑊8 𝑇𝑇8X 𝐸𝐸Z 𝜀𝜀)(1) The ergonomics validation is made with the results from the
𝐹𝐹5 = (2)
6𝐿𝐿8 assembly forces calculation multiplied by the number of snap-
fit features. This validation consists on the comparison of the
As stated before, snap-fit modeling is based on beam theory force needed to join the parts and acceptable forces for manual
calculations considering a rigid support and the force acting in assembly.
the free end. However, the rigidity of the joint base will depend Lee and Gu [11] reported a mean value of roughly 81 N for
on the parts configurations. The finite element simulation stage acceptable insertion forces in manual assembly of small
ultimately shows a more accurate feature deformation when connectors, and a mean maximum force of 141 N. It is also
applying a certain deflection force. With the simulation results, noted that acceptable and maximum coupling forces depend on
a feature deflection correction can be graphically determined, the posture and size of the mating parts.
thus accounting for the lack of rigidity on the features support If the assembly forces surpass the acceptable insertion
and refining the posterior assembly and disassembly forces. forces, the proposed methodology suggest the revision of
In order to estimate the deflection during joining deflection mechanism dimensions. A possible correction
procedures, both mating parts are considered to have a linear approach is to vary the feature width 𝑊𝑊8 , as it does not affect
behavior and the individual deflections results are plotted, as the feature deflection results, but lowers the required deflection
show on Fig. 3. Part A is defined as the part with the deflection forces.
features, and Part B having the retention features.
As shown in the graph, for a calculated 𝐹𝐹5 , the model 2.4.4. Disassembly Forces calculation and Retention
considers a deflection 𝛿𝛿% greater than the retention feature evaluation
height 𝑦𝑦 for Part A, to account for greater joint base flexibility Having similar considerations as in the assembly forces
effects. For the Part B curve, the intersection with the X axis is calculations, the formulae for dismounting angle correction and
located at 𝑦𝑦, and the part deflection 𝛿𝛿& is subtracted, so that the disassembly forces calculation are shown on Eq. 7 and 8,
operational point can be graphically determined. A dotted line, respectively.
corresponding to a rigid behavior for Part B, has also been
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 685
𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿'()*+,
𝛽𝛽" = 𝛽𝛽 − tanab c d (7)
𝐿𝐿8
𝜇𝜇 + tan 𝛽𝛽"
𝐹𝐹4 = 𝐹𝐹5" (8)
1 − 𝜇𝜇 tan 𝛽𝛽"
Once the detail design has been validated, the final stage of
the proposed methodology is the 3D-printing of the model parts
and physical assembly and testing procedures.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
686 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 687
References
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.