ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

Design and Tolerance Stack up Analysis

of Car Side Door Latch
1
1,3,4

Chethan H, 2Naveen Udupa, 3Ramakrishna Hegde, 4Girish kumar.R

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, R.V.College of Engineering, Bangalore, Karnataka India

2
IFB Automotive Private Ltd. Bangalore, Karnataka India

Abstract
Side door latch protects the vehicle occupants from being ejected
through the doors which have known to be opened during motion
or accidents. The intent of this work was to redesign an existing
passenger car side door latch to improve the manufacturability
using Design for Manufacture (DFM) guidelines and tear down
analysis. Tolerance stack up analysis is used to find the clearance
or interference between two features on a part and their assembly
variation. The check sheet clearly indicated that there was no
interference fit present between any features of assembled parts
which naturally simplifies the assembly process. The assembly
variation for inside release of the latch was found to be 1.5mm
compared to that of outside release of the latch which was
determined to be 1mm. The analysis opens opportunities for
reducing the assembly time significantly as the fastening process
is eliminated.

tolerance is known from the design requirements, whereas the

available assembly tolerance must be distributed or allocated
among the components in some rational way.

Keywords
Side Door Latch (SDL), DFM & A, Tear Down Analysis, Tolerance
Stack Up Analysis
I. Introduction
A car door latch refers to the mechanical device used to align the
door in a closed position relative to the vehicle body framework.
The major role of a latch is to perform lock/unlock and latch/
unlatch functions. A latch unit consists of several components.
The number of components varies according to the complexity
and the mechanical/electromechanical features specified by the
customer [1].
Generally the side door latches of a car contain the following
components:
1. Striker 2.Catch 3.Pawl 4.Detent lever 5.Inside release lever
6.Outside operating lever 7.Intermittent lever 8.Inside locking
lever
Maintaining government safety standards and satisfying the
different Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) design
specifications in a cost-effective, timely manner is a major challenge
for a automobile latch manufacturer. Latch manufacturers have
to meet the standards set by governments. At the same time each
manufacture has its own testing requirements.
Tolerance analysis is used to estimate the effects of manufacturing
variation on the finished products. Either design tolerances or
manufacturing process data may be used to define the any variation.
Conventional methods used for tolerance stack up analysis are
worst-case statistical analysis [2].
Manual construction of tolerance check sheet is a commonly used
tool for tolerance analysis. Tolerance check list is used in the
industry by draftsmen and designers to calculate the maximum
or minimum distances (clearance or interference) between two
features on a part or assembly.
The tolerance analysis is different from tolerance allocation.
In tolerance analysis the component tolerances are known and
the resulting assembly variation is calculated by summing the
component tolerances. In tolerance allocation, the assembly

192

Fig. 1(a): Tolerance Analysis

Fig. 1(b): Tolerance Allocation

II. Concept Development
The concept development consists of the following steps,
1. Tear down analysis
2. Component analysis
3. CAD models of the SDL
4. DFM & A of SDL

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

A. Tear Down and Component Analysis

Tear-down analysis and component analysis are the pre-stages of
the concept development which helps to understand the importance
of the functional parts, interaction between the parts, functional
features, etc.,

Feature comparison analysis of existing SDL with new SDL has

been carried out for the design verification process.

B. Cad Models of the SDL

The SDL was modelled using CATIA V5 R20 software. The
models were created from the customer requirements and the
existing side door and back door latch drawings. It provided the
complete data of the SDL and other profiles. All other dimensions
were measured by Vernier calliper.
C. DFM & A of SDL
The design for manufacturability and assembly guidelines were
directly and indirectly applied to redesign the SDL. The following
objectives were established for the redesign of SDL,
1. Fastening process was eliminated.
2. Stopper feature on the top plate was eliminated.
3. Double side riveting process was designed.
4. Functional improvement was achieved.

Fig. 2: Comparison Analysis of Existing SDL with New SDL

III. Concept Selection

The SDL has been selected based on the five important parameters
that are listed below,
1. Functionality 2.Manufacturability 3.Assembly 4.Package
5.Cost
A. Functionality
The functionality was captured from the existing SDL and it has
been implemented in the new SDL. All the concepts have been
worked on without any functional loss.
B. Manufacturability
The requirements for load conditions vary from one car
manufacturer to another. So the new SDL has been designed with
a special attention given on the load improvement.

Fig. 3: Comparison Analysis for Existing SDL With New SDL

C. Assembly
The assembly process was improved by eliminating the housing
part and fastening process.
D. Package
The package size is maintained the same as the existing SDL, and
some of the non-functional profiles has been modified. Hence, the
new SDL has been packaged in the existing door module.
E. Cost
The cost of the new SDL will be reduced, as the fastening assembly
process is eliminated. Bending feature in the top plate has been
eliminated along with three screws and a housing part.
IV. Design Verification
In general terms, Verification is a quality control process that is
used to evaluate the product that complies with the specifications
and conditions imposed at the start of a development phase.
Design verification is a process to examine design outputs and
to use objective evidence to confirm that output meets input
requirements. Verification activities are conducted at all the stages
and levels of product design. The verification can be determined
by inspection, demonstration, test and analysis [3].
w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

Fig. 4: Existing SDL

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology 193

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

V. Tolerance Stack Up Analysis

A. Tolerance Check Sheet
Manual construction of tolerance check sheet is a popular technique
for analyzing tolerance accumulation in parts.

Fig. 5: Modified SDL

For SDL assembly, tolerance check sheets were developed for

all parts listed below.
1. Base plate vs. Catch / Pawl rivet
2. Catch vs. Catch rivet
3. Pawl vs. Pawl rivet
4. Top plate vs. Catch / Pawl rivet
5. Top plate vs. Inside release lever rivet
6. Inside release lever vs. Inside release lever rivet
7. Outside operating lever vs. Outside release lever rivet
8. Top plate vs. Outside release lever rivet
9. Outside operating lever vs. Outside operating lever rivet
10. ALH release lever vs. Outside operating lever rivet
The manual construction of tolerance check list only deals with
the worst-case analysis and it considers variation in only one
direction at a time, i.e. length or diameter. In Table 1 the length
was considered for the first direction. The catch and catch rivet is
indicated by A and B respectively. The basic dimensions and its
tolerances as per drawing are added in the check list. The values
of all the clearance fits are calculated and the same is tabulated.
(Table 1)

Table 1: Tolerance Stack Up Check Sheet- Catch vs. Catch Rivet

1. Calculations
Minimum condition:
= Bmin - Amax = 5.6 - 5.7
= 0.1 = Clearance

194

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

Nominal condition:
= B A= 5.6 5.4
= 0.2= Clearance
Maximum condition:
= Bmax - Amin
= 5.75 5.3
= 0.45 = Clearance
For the second direction, diameter was considered. Here the catch
and catch rivet diameter is identified by C and D respectively.
Minimum condition:
= Cmin Dmax =76.9
= 0.1 = Clearance
Nominal condition:
= C D= 7 6.9
= 0.1= Clearance
Maximum condition:
= Cmax Dmin
= 7.15 6.8
= 0.25= Clearance

Fig. 7: Inner Release Variation for Maximum Condition

(iii). Minimum Assembly Variation
The contributing dimensions for minimum variation condition was
identified and applied to the model to find the variations for inner
release of the latch. Fig. 8 shows the minimum variation.

B. Tolerance Analysis
Tolerance analysis is a method of predicting and analysing
assembly variation due to tolerance of individual components and
assembly operations. Tolerance analysis is carried out when the
tolerances of individual parts are known and the designer intends
to find out or allocate the dimensions for assembly.
This involves:
Gathering data on the individual component variations.
Creating an assembly model to identify which dimensions
contribute to the final assembly dimensions.
Applying the manufactured component variations to the
model to predict the variations in assembly dimension.
1. Assembly Variation for Inner Release of the Side Door
Latch
(i). Nominal Assembly Variation
The Free, Operating and Full length for inside release of the latch
is shown in fig. 6

Fig. 8: Inner Release Variation for Minimum Condition

2. Assembly Variation for Outer Release of the Side Door
Latch
(i). Nominal Variation
The Free, Operating and Full length for outer release of the latch
is showed in fig. 9.

Fig. 6: Inner Release Basic Dimensions for Nominal

Conditions
(ii). Maximum Assembly Variation
The contributing dimensions for maximum variation condition
was identified and applied to the model to find the variations for
inner release of the latch. Fig. 6 shows the maximum variation.
Fig. 9: Outer Release Basic Dimensions for Nominal Conditions
w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology 195

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

(ii). Maximum Variation

The contributing dimensions for maximum variation condition
was identified and applied to the model to find the variations for
outer release of the latch. Fig. 10 shows the minimum variation.

1.1mm, 1.1mm and 1.3mm. Therefore, the total variation for inner
release is computed to be 1.5mm. The total variation of the
outer release assembly from the tolerance analysis was revealed
to be 1mm.
VII. Conclusion
A redesign of an existing passenger car side door latch has been
carried out to improve manufacturability using Design For
Manufacture (DFM) guidelines and tear down analysis. This
helped in improving the design as double side riveting is achieved
compared to the single side riveting in the older design. This
eliminates the fastening process in the assembly which previously
consisted of inserting three screws and a housing part. In order to
determine the clearance or interference between two features on
a part and their assembly variation, tolerance stack up analysis
was done. The check sheet clearly indicated that there was no
interference fit present between any features of assembled parts
which naturally simplifies the assembly process. The assembly
variation for inside release of the latch was found to be 1.5mm
compared to that of outside release of the latch which was
determined to be 1mm.

Fig. 10: Outer Release Variation for Maximum Condition

(ii). Minimum Variation
The contributing dimensions for minimum variation condition was
identified and applied to the model to find minimum variations for
outer release of the latch. Fig. 11 shows the minimum variation.

Fig. 11: Outer Release Variation for Minimum Condition

VI. Results
The tolerance analysis for inner release assembly variation from
maximum to mean for free length, operating length and full
length were found to be 1.1mm, 1.3mm and 1.2mm respectively.
Similarly, for the inner release assembly variation from mean to
minimum for free length, operating length and full length was

196

IX. Acknowledgement
I would like to thank IFB Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore for
providing me an opportunity to carry out the project in its
Organisation. I also would like to thank Mr. Sandeep Musti, Senior
Design Executive and all the team members for their support and
guidance
References
[1] Portillo, Oscar, Dobson, Kimberly,60g Inertia Load Analysis
of Automotive Door Latches F2008-SC-033".
[2] Suyash Y. Pawar, Harshal A. Chavan, Santhosh P. Chavan,
Tolerance Stack Up Analysis And Simulation Using
Visualization VSA, International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 169-175,
2011
[3] P.G.Maropoulos, D Ceglarek,Design Verification
and Validation in Product Lifecycle, CIRP Annals
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 54, Issue 2, pp. 607-622,
2010
[4] Rosan Lal Virdi, Kushdeep Goyal, Jatinder Madan,Concept
and Guidelines of Design for Manufacturability: A Shift
from Traditional Design Concept, National Conference
on Advancements and Futuristic Trends in Mechanical and
Materials Engineering, pp. 162 -164, 2010
[5] Ajith V Gokhale, Vithoba Saravate,Design of Door Latching
and Locking Systems for Crashworthiness, Technical Paper,
SAE 2008-28-0058, 2008
[6] Daniel I. Udriste, Eugen M. Negrus,Construction and
Kinematics of Automotive Side door Latch Mechanisms,
Technical Paper, SAE 2005-01-0881, 2005.
[7] Kenneth W. Chase,Tolerance Allocation Methods for
Designers, ADCATS Report No. 99-6, 1999
[8] T. Hussain, Z. Ali, J. Larik,A Study On Tolerance
Representation, Variation Propagation Analysis and Control
In Mechanical Assemblies, Sindh University Research
Journal (Science Series), Vol. 44, Issue 3, pp. 427 432,
2012

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

IJRMET Vol. 3, Issue 2, May - Oct 2013

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

Chethan H obtained his bachelors

degree in Mechanical Engineering from
Rajarajeshwari College of Engineering,
Bengaluru in 2011. He is now pursuing
his M.Tech degree in Product Design
and Manufacturing from R.V College
of Engineering, Bengaluru. His areas of
interest lies in Design Engineering.

Ramakrishna Hegde received his

bachelors degree in Mechanical
Engineering from Malnad College of
Engineering, Hassan, Karnataka in
1998. He then obtained his M.Tech
degree in Production Engineering
from National Institute of Engineering,
Mysore in 2003. Since then he has
worked as a Senior Lecturer in the
Dept of Mechanical Engineering, PGP
College of Engineering and Technology,
Namakkal, Tamil Nadu. He is currently serving as Assistant
Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, R.V
College of Engineering, Bengaluru. His area of interests include
Manufacturing and Experimental Fatigue and Fractures.
Girish Kumar R obtained his B.E degree
in Mechanical Engineering from PES
Institute of Technology, Bengaluru in
2008. After working for a Multinational
Manufacturing Industry for two years,
he went on pursue his M.Tech in Product
Design & Manufacturing from R.V
College of Engineering, Bengaluru and
obtained his M.Tech degree in 2012. He is
currently working as Assistant Professor
in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, R.V College of Engineering, Bengaluru. His areas
of interests include Manufacturing Methods and Materials.

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology 197