The process of determining the cumulative effect of dimensional variations on an assembly is a critical aspect of engineering design. This process assesses the permissible range of variation for individual components and predicts the overall variation that can be expected in a final product. For instance, when assembling multiple parts with specified dimensions and tolerances, the total variation in a key dimension of the assembly is determined by considering the tolerances of each contributing part. This determination helps engineers anticipate potential fit issues, performance problems, or manufacturing challenges.
Accurate prediction of assembly variation is essential for ensuring product functionality, reliability, and manufacturability. It can lead to significant cost savings by reducing the need for rework, scrap, and field failures. Historically, these calculations were performed manually, a time-consuming and error-prone process. Modern techniques leverage software tools and statistical methods to improve accuracy and efficiency, enabling engineers to optimize designs for both performance and cost.
Therefore, understanding methodologies for determining assembly variation and implementing appropriate tolerance analysis techniques are crucial for successful product development. The following discussion will delve into specific methods, explore their applications, and highlight best practices for implementation across various engineering disciplines.
1. Dimensional Variation
Dimensional variation, the inevitable deviation from nominal dimensions during manufacturing, is a core driver behind the necessity for tolerance accumulation analysis. Understanding and managing these variations are fundamental to predicting assembly performance and ensuring product reliability. Without accounting for dimensional variation, designs risk functional failure and increased manufacturing costs.
-
Manufacturing Process Capability
The inherent capability of a manufacturing process dictates the range of dimensional variation that can be expected. Processes with higher precision, like machining on a CNC mill, generally exhibit tighter tolerances than processes like molding or casting. This capability must be accurately assessed and considered in tolerance analysis, influencing the choice of tolerance analysis method and the predicted assembly variation. For example, a tolerance analysis performed on an assembly made from stamped parts must account for the greater variability inherent in that process compared to parts produced by laser cutting.
-
Part Geometry and Material Properties
The shape and material properties of individual parts significantly impact their susceptibility to dimensional variation. Thin-walled components, for instance, may exhibit greater variation due to flexibility and susceptibility to distortion during manufacturing or handling. Similarly, materials with high thermal expansion coefficients may introduce variations due to temperature fluctuations. These factors must be incorporated into tolerance analysis to accurately reflect the true assembly variation. Consider an assembly containing a plastic housing and a metal insert; variations in the plastic housing’s dimensions due to molding and thermal expansion must be considered relative to the metal insert’s tighter tolerances.
-
Datum Selection and Feature Control Frames
The choice of datums, or reference points, and the application of feature control frames (FCFs) in geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) directly influence how dimensional variation is controlled and propagated through an assembly. Incorrectly chosen datums or inappropriately applied FCFs can lead to larger accumulated tolerances and increased risk of assembly issues. Clear and unambiguous specification of datums and FCFs is critical for effective tolerance analysis and for ensuring that manufacturing adheres to the design intent. Proper GD&T ensures that critical features are controlled with respect to their functional requirements, minimizing the impact of variation on assembly performance.
-
Measurement System Variation (Gage R&R)
The measurement system used to verify part dimensions also contributes to the overall uncertainty in tolerance analysis. Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (Gage R&R) studies quantify the variation introduced by the measurement system itself. This variation must be considered when interpreting measurement data and performing tolerance analysis. Ignoring Gage R&R can lead to an underestimation of the true dimensional variation and inaccurate predictions of assembly performance. Before implementing tolerance analysis, ensure the measurement systems used for inspection are sufficiently accurate and repeatable.
In conclusion, dimensional variation is a fundamental concept in the determination of tolerance accumulation. Understanding the sources of dimensional variation, including manufacturing process capability, part geometry, datum selection, and measurement system variation, is crucial for conducting accurate and effective tolerance analyses. By carefully considering these factors, engineers can minimize the risk of assembly failures and ensure the robust performance of their designs.
2. Tolerance Analysis Methods
Tolerance analysis methods are essential components in determining assembly variation. These methods provide the analytical framework to predict the cumulative effect of individual part tolerances on a final assembly’s critical dimensions or performance characteristics. Without employing a systematic tolerance analysis method, predicting the suitability of a design for its intended function becomes significantly more challenging, potentially leading to costly rework or failure. For instance, consider a mechanism requiring precise alignment. A tolerance analysis, using either worst-case or statistical methods, would reveal whether the combined tolerances of its constituent parts allow the alignment to fall within acceptable limits.
Several established tolerance analysis methods exist, each offering varying degrees of accuracy and complexity. Worst-case analysis provides a conservative estimate by assuming all parts deviate from their nominal dimensions in the direction that maximizes the overall variation. Statistical analysis, such as root sum square (RSS), accounts for the probability of parts deviating from their nominal dimensions and generally provides a more realistic estimate of assembly variation. Simulation-based methods, such as Monte Carlo analysis, generate a large number of virtual assemblies based on specified tolerance distributions, providing detailed insights into the potential range of assembly variation and identifying critical contributors. The selection of an appropriate method depends on the complexity of the assembly, the desired level of accuracy, and the available computational resources. GD&T is used to ensure the correct tolerances are applied.
In summary, tolerance analysis methods are integral to effective assembly variation. They provide the means to understand, predict, and manage the impact of individual part tolerances on the final assembly, enabling designers to optimize designs for performance, manufacturability, and cost. Choosing the right tolerance analysis method, implementing it correctly, and interpreting the results effectively are crucial for ensuring a robust and reliable product. A poor estimation or an inadequate selection of the method may lead to unnecessary costs due to the incorrect design.
3. Worst-Case Scenario
The worst-case scenario is a foundational method employed in determining assembly variation. It represents a conservative approach to tolerance analysis, aimed at establishing the absolute limits of dimensional variation in an assembly. By assuming the most unfavorable combination of individual part tolerances, the worst-case scenario ensures that the design will function within specified limits, even under the most extreme conditions.
-
Definition and Application
The worst-case scenario method involves summing the absolute values of the tolerances for each component in an assembly that contributes to a specific dimension or performance characteristic. This approach assumes that each component will deviate from its nominal dimension in the direction that maximizes the overall variation. For example, if an assembly consists of three parts with tolerances of 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, and 0.15 mm, the worst-case variation would be (0.1 + 0.2 + 0.15) = 0.45 mm. This result represents the maximum possible deviation from the nominal dimension under the most unfavorable conditions. This method is applied to guarantee interchangeability of components and reliable operation of the assembly in all circumstances.
-
Advantages and Limitations
The primary advantage of the worst-case scenario method is its simplicity and ease of implementation. It provides a clear and straightforward assessment of the maximum possible variation, making it suitable for applications where safety or functional reliability is paramount. However, this method is inherently conservative and often leads to overly restrictive tolerance requirements. Because it assumes that all parts simultaneously deviate to their extreme limits, a highly improbable event, the worst-case scenario may result in designs that are unnecessarily expensive or difficult to manufacture. This can lead to increased production costs and longer lead times without a commensurate increase in product performance or reliability.
-
Relationship to Statistical Tolerancing
In contrast to the worst-case scenario, statistical tolerancing methods offer a more realistic assessment of assembly variation. Statistical methods, such as root sum square (RSS) or Monte Carlo simulation, consider the probability distribution of individual part tolerances. These methods recognize that it is unlikely that all parts will simultaneously deviate to their extreme limits and, therefore, provide a less conservative estimate of assembly variation. While statistical tolerancing can allow for looser tolerances and reduced manufacturing costs, it also requires a more thorough understanding of the statistical properties of the manufacturing processes and carries a slightly higher risk of exceeding the specified limits in rare cases. The choice between the worst-case scenario and statistical tolerancing depends on the specific requirements of the application and the acceptable level of risk.
-
Application in Critical Systems
Despite its conservatism, the worst-case scenario remains a valuable tool for the design of critical systems where failure is not an option. In industries such as aerospace, medical devices, and military applications, the potential consequences of a functional failure outweigh the economic benefits of looser tolerances. In these cases, the worst-case scenario provides a necessary margin of safety to ensure reliable performance under all operating conditions. For example, in the design of a critical component for an aircraft engine, the worst-case scenario would be used to ensure that the component will not fail, even under the most extreme combination of thermal stress, vibration, and dimensional variation.
In summary, the worst-case scenario is a fundamental approach to determining assembly variation, providing a conservative estimate of the maximum possible deviation from nominal dimensions. While it may lead to overly restrictive tolerances in some cases, it remains an essential tool for the design of critical systems where reliability is paramount. The methods simplicity and ease of implementation make it a valuable starting point for tolerance analysis, particularly when combined with more sophisticated statistical methods to refine tolerance requirements and optimize manufacturing processes.
4. Statistical Tolerancing
Statistical tolerancing represents a probabilistic approach to determining assembly variation, a process also referred to as tolerance stack-up analysis. Unlike worst-case analysis, which assumes all components deviate simultaneously to their tolerance limits, statistical tolerancing acknowledges the inherent variability in manufacturing processes and uses statistical distributions to model these variations. The underlying premise is that it is statistically improbable for all parts to be at their extreme tolerance limits concurrently. This approach provides a more realistic assessment of the expected assembly variation. For example, consider an assembly of ten components, each with a normally distributed tolerance of 0.1mm. A worst-case analysis would predict a total variation of 1.0mm. However, statistical tolerancing, employing a method such as Root Sum Square (RSS), might predict a variation closer to 0.32mm, reflecting the likelihood that individual variations will partially offset each other.
The application of statistical tolerancing in tolerance stack-up analysis offers several practical benefits. It often allows for the specification of wider, less restrictive tolerances on individual components, which can lead to significant cost reductions in manufacturing. This is because wider tolerances typically translate to easier manufacturing processes, reduced scrap rates, and the possibility of using less precise (and less expensive) equipment. Furthermore, statistical tolerancing provides a more accurate prediction of assembly variation, enabling engineers to optimize designs for performance and reliability. For instance, in the automotive industry, statistical tolerancing is routinely used in the design of engine components to ensure proper fit and function, while minimizing manufacturing costs. This involves modeling the tolerances of various components, such as pistons, connecting rods, and crankshafts, and predicting the overall variation in engine performance metrics like compression ratio and power output. Accurate statistical tolerance analysis allows engineers to achieve optimal performance without unnecessarily tightening tolerances and driving up costs.
In conclusion, statistical tolerancing is a crucial component of modern tolerance stack-up analysis. Its ability to model and predict assembly variation more realistically than worst-case analysis enables engineers to optimize designs for both performance and manufacturability. However, successful implementation requires a thorough understanding of statistical principles, accurate data on manufacturing process capabilities, and appropriate software tools for performing the analysis. Despite these challenges, the benefits of statistical tolerancing in terms of cost savings, improved product performance, and enhanced reliability make it an indispensable tool for engineers across a wide range of industries.
5. Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerance Stack-Up Analysis
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) is intrinsically linked to assembly variation analysis, providing a structured framework for defining, controlling, and communicating dimensional requirements in engineering designs. Its relevance stems from its ability to precisely specify allowable variations in form, orientation, and location of features, which are essential considerations for predicting assembly variation.
-
Feature Control Frames and Tolerance Zones
GD&T utilizes Feature Control Frames (FCFs) to specify tolerance requirements for specific features on a part. These FCFs define tolerance zones within which the feature must lie. The size and shape of these zones, as well as their relationship to datum features, directly impact the potential variation that can occur in an assembly. For instance, a position tolerance applied to a hole pattern will define the permissible variation in the location of each hole, which directly affects the ability of fasteners to align and the overall fit of mating parts. Therefore, a clear understanding of FCFs and their impact on tolerance zones is critical for accurate analysis.
-
Datum Selection and Tolerance Accumulation
The selection of datums in GD&T establishes a reference frame for dimensional measurements and directly influences how tolerances accumulate within an assembly. Datums represent theoretically perfect features from which other features are dimensioned. The choice of datums determines the order in which features are located and, consequently, how variations in one feature affect the location of subsequent features. For example, if a critical dimension is referenced to a datum that is itself subject to significant variation, the accumulated tolerance on that dimension will be larger. Proper datum selection minimizes tolerance accumulation and ensures that critical features are accurately located with respect to their functional requirements.
-
Material Condition Modifiers (MMC/LMC)
GD&T employs material condition modifiers, such as Maximum Material Condition (MMC) and Least Material Condition (LMC), to allow for increased tolerances when a feature departs from its maximum or minimum material condition. These modifiers can significantly impact assembly variation, particularly in applications involving clearance fits or interference fits. For example, an MMC modifier applied to a hole will allow for a larger position tolerance when the hole is at its smallest size. This can simplify manufacturing while still ensuring proper assembly and function. However, it is crucial to account for the effect of MMC/LMC modifiers in the determination of tolerance accumulation, as they can introduce non-linearities and complexities in the analysis.
-
Geometric Controls and Functional Requirements
GD&T provides a means to directly relate geometric controls, such as flatness, circularity, and cylindricity, to the functional requirements of an assembly. By specifying appropriate geometric tolerances, engineers can ensure that individual parts meet the necessary form and fit requirements for proper assembly and operation. For instance, controlling the flatness of a sealing surface is essential for preventing leaks, while controlling the cylindricity of a shaft is critical for ensuring smooth rotation in a bearing. By integrating geometric controls into the assembly analysis, engineers can accurately predict the impact of form variations on overall assembly performance and reliability.
In conclusion, GD&T provides the necessary tools and techniques to define and control dimensional variations in a manner that directly supports effective assembly variation analysis. By properly applying GD&T principles, engineers can minimize tolerance accumulation, optimize designs for manufacturability, and ensure that assemblies meet their functional requirements with confidence. The use of GD&T is essential for achieving accurate, reliable results in assembly variation analysis and for ensuring the overall quality and performance of manufactured products.
6. Simulation Tools
Simulation tools play a critical role in determining assembly variation by providing a means to model and analyze complex tolerance stack-ups that are difficult or impossible to evaluate using traditional methods. These tools leverage computational power to simulate the effects of dimensional variations on an assembly, allowing engineers to predict potential fit issues, performance problems, or manufacturing challenges before physical prototypes are built. A primary benefit of simulation is the ability to explore a wide range of tolerance scenarios and identify critical contributors to overall assembly variation. For instance, in the design of an automotive engine, simulation software can be used to model the tolerance stack-up of the piston-connecting rod-crankshaft assembly. By varying the tolerances of individual components within their specified ranges, the software can predict the resulting variation in critical engine parameters such as compression ratio and balance. This allows engineers to optimize tolerances to achieve desired performance while minimizing manufacturing costs. Simulation allows engineers to identify those tolerances that are most sensitive and require tighter control.
Furthermore, simulation tools offer capabilities beyond simple linear stack-up analysis. Many tools incorporate Monte Carlo simulation techniques, which involve generating a large number of virtual assemblies based on statistical distributions of component tolerances. This approach provides a more realistic assessment of assembly variation than worst-case or RSS methods, as it accounts for the probability of different tolerance combinations occurring in the actual manufacturing process. The results of Monte Carlo simulations can be used to generate histograms and statistical summaries of assembly variation, providing valuable insights into the expected range of variation and the likelihood of exceeding specified limits. Advanced simulation tools may also incorporate finite element analysis (FEA) capabilities, allowing engineers to assess the impact of dimensional variations on structural integrity and performance. For example, in the design of an aircraft wing, FEA can be used to simulate the effects of tolerance stack-up on stress distribution and deflection under load, ensuring that the wing meets its structural requirements. GD&T is incorporated to achieve optimal simulation result.
In conclusion, simulation tools are indispensable for effective assembly variation analysis. Their ability to model complex tolerance stack-ups, account for statistical variations, and integrate with FEA provides engineers with the insights needed to optimize designs for performance, manufacturability, and reliability. While the use of simulation tools requires specialized knowledge and expertise, the benefits in terms of reduced prototyping costs, improved product quality, and faster time-to-market make them an essential investment for manufacturers across a wide range of industries. The ongoing development of more powerful and user-friendly simulation software will continue to drive innovation and improve the efficiency of engineering design processes.
7. Manufacturing Processes
The selection and control of manufacturing processes directly influence the dimensional variation of individual components, thereby impacting the overall assembly variation predicted by tolerance accumulation analysis. Each manufacturing process possesses inherent capabilities and limitations in terms of achievable tolerances. Consequently, the chosen processes establish the baseline for potential variation, necessitating accurate assessment and integration into the tolerance analysis. For example, machining processes like milling and turning can achieve tighter tolerances than casting or molding. The tolerance analysis must account for these differences to generate realistic predictions of assembly fit and performance. If a design calls for a close-fitting assembly, the manufacturing processes selected for the constituent parts must be capable of consistently producing components within the specified tolerance limits. This interdependency underscores the critical relationship between manufacturing process selection and tolerance accumulation.
Furthermore, process control measures implemented during manufacturing significantly affect the actual variation observed in components. Statistical Process Control (SPC) techniques, such as control charts and capability studies, are employed to monitor and manage process variability. By tracking key process parameters and implementing corrective actions when deviations occur, manufacturers can maintain consistent dimensional control and minimize the risk of exceeding tolerance limits. The data collected through SPC provides valuable input for tolerance analysis, allowing engineers to refine tolerance assignments and optimize manufacturing processes. Consider a scenario where a plastic injection molding process is used to produce a housing for an electronic device. SPC data reveals that the molding process exhibits a tendency to produce parts slightly larger than the nominal dimensions. This information can be used to adjust the molding process parameters or modify the component design to compensate for the observed bias, ensuring that the final assembly meets its performance requirements.
In conclusion, manufacturing processes are inextricably linked to assembly variation analysis. The inherent capabilities of selected processes dictate the achievable tolerances for individual components, while process control measures mitigate variability during production. Accurate assessment and integration of manufacturing process information into the tolerance analysis are essential for generating realistic predictions, optimizing designs, and ensuring the successful assembly and performance of manufactured products. A failure to adequately consider the impact of manufacturing processes can lead to inaccurate tolerance predictions, costly rework, and ultimately, product failure.
8. Quality Control
Quality Control (QC) plays a vital, often indispensable, role in the effective application and validation of assembly variation analysis. It functions both as a provider of input data and as a means to verify the accuracy of predictions derived from these analyses. Dimensional data obtained through QC processes, such as Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) inspections and statistical process control, provides the empirical basis for defining the actual distributions of component dimensions. These distributions are critical for statistical tolerance methods. Without reliable QC data, tolerance analysis relies on potentially inaccurate assumptions about manufacturing process capabilities. For example, a tolerance stack-up may predict acceptable variation, but if QC reveals that a critical dimension frequently falls outside its specified tolerance range, the analysis becomes invalid, necessitating design or manufacturing process adjustments. Consider a situation where a component is produced in high volumes. The specified tolerance on that component is 0.1mm and is used in a stack-up analysis. However, quality data shows the variation is really 0.15mm. This difference results in the final product not meeting requirements for function.
Furthermore, QC serves as a crucial verification mechanism after tolerance analyses have been conducted. After a design has been finalized based on tolerance predictions, QC inspections are used to ensure that manufactured components conform to the specified tolerances and that the assembled product meets its performance requirements. Any discrepancies detected during QC testing can indicate errors in the tolerance analysis, manufacturing process deviations, or design flaws. For example, if a prototype assembly fails to function as predicted by the tolerance stack-up, QC inspections may reveal that the actual dimensions of certain components are consistently deviating from their nominal values in a manner not accounted for in the initial analysis. This feedback loop allows engineers to refine their tolerance models and improve the accuracy of future analyses. This might require further study.
In conclusion, the implementation of robust QC measures is not merely an adjunct to assembly variation analysis; it is an integral component of the process. It provides the factual basis for realistic tolerance modeling, validates the accuracy of analytical predictions, and facilitates continuous improvement in design and manufacturing processes. The absence of effective QC undermines the validity of stack-up estimations and increases the risk of assembly failures and product defects. The reliance on the analysis highlights the importance of a good, reliable, and repeatable quality process. Therefore, the investment in sophisticated QC equipment and well-trained personnel is essential for maximizing the benefits of assembly variation analysis and ensuring the production of high-quality, reliable products.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tolerance Accumulation Analysis
This section addresses common inquiries regarding tolerance accumulation analysis, aiming to clarify principles and best practices.
Question 1: What is the fundamental purpose of tolerance accumulation analysis?
The primary purpose is to predict the cumulative effect of dimensional variations on an assembly. This prediction helps ensure proper fit, function, and interchangeability of parts.
Question 2: How does statistical tolerancing differ from worst-case scenario analysis?
Statistical tolerancing uses probability distributions to model component variations, providing a more realistic estimate of assembly variation. Worst-case analysis assumes all components simultaneously deviate to their tolerance limits, resulting in a conservative estimate.
Question 3: Why is Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) important in assembly variation analysis?
GD&T precisely defines allowable variations in feature form, orientation, and location. This provides a structured framework for controlling and communicating dimensional requirements, which is essential for accurate analysis.
Question 4: What role do simulation tools play in assembly variation analysis?
Simulation tools model and analyze complex tolerance stack-ups, simulating the effects of dimensional variations on assembly performance. They allow engineers to explore various scenarios and identify critical contributors to assembly variation.
Question 5: How do manufacturing processes influence tolerance accumulation analysis?
Manufacturing processes dictate achievable tolerances for individual components. Understanding and accounting for these process capabilities are crucial for generating realistic predictions of assembly variation.
Question 6: How does quality control (QC) contribute to effective tolerance accumulation analysis?
QC provides empirical data for tolerance modeling and verifies the accuracy of analytical predictions. It ensures that manufactured components conform to specified tolerances and that assemblies meet performance requirements.
In summary, tolerance accumulation analysis is a critical engineering practice. A thorough understanding of these methods and considerations is paramount for successful product development.
The following discussion will transition to exploring tolerance analysis best practices across different industries.
Effective Strategies for Assembly Variation Analysis
This section outlines practical guidelines to enhance precision and reliability in assembly variation analysis.
Tip 1: Define Critical Functional Requirements Explicitly: Assembly variation analysis should begin with a clear understanding of the assembly’s functional requirements. Identify the key dimensions or performance characteristics that are most sensitive to dimensional variation. This targeted approach ensures that analysis efforts are focused on the most critical areas.
Tip 2: Employ GD&T to Establish Clear Tolerance Zones: Utilize Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) to unambiguously define tolerance zones and datum reference frames. Proper application of GD&T minimizes tolerance accumulation and ensures that all stakeholders share a common understanding of the design intent.
Tip 3: Collect Empirical Data on Manufacturing Process Capabilities: Gather data on the actual dimensional variation exhibited by manufacturing processes. This information should be based on statistical process control (SPC) data and measurement system analysis (MSA) studies. Do not rely solely on nominal tolerance values; actual process capability data provides a more realistic basis for analysis.
Tip 4: Select Appropriate Analysis Methods Based on Complexity and Risk: Choose the tolerance analysis method that best suits the complexity of the assembly and the acceptable level of risk. For critical applications where reliability is paramount, worst-case analysis may be appropriate. For less critical applications, statistical tolerancing or simulation methods can provide a more realistic assessment of assembly variation.
Tip 5: Utilize Simulation Tools to Model Complex Tolerance Stack-Ups: Employ simulation tools to model complex tolerance stack-ups and explore a wide range of tolerance scenarios. These tools can identify critical contributors to assembly variation and optimize designs for performance and manufacturability.
Tip 6: Validate Analysis Results with Physical Prototypes: Verify the results of tolerance analysis by building and testing physical prototypes. Compare the measured dimensions and performance characteristics of the prototypes to the predictions made by the analysis. This validation step helps identify any errors or inaccuracies in the analysis.
Tip 7: Document All Assumptions and Analysis Methods: Maintain thorough documentation of all assumptions, analysis methods, and data sources used in the assembly variation analysis. This documentation is essential for traceability and allows others to understand and reproduce the analysis results.
These strategies collectively contribute to a robust and reliable assembly variation analysis process, resulting in improved product quality and reduced manufacturing costs.
The subsequent section presents the article’s conclusion.
Stack Up Tolerance Calculation
This article has explored the methodologies and implications of stack up tolerance calculation. The discussion has emphasized the necessity of understanding dimensional variation, selecting appropriate analysis methods, and integrating manufacturing process capabilities. Furthermore, the importance of geometric dimensioning, simulation tools, and stringent quality control measures has been underscored to ensure accuracy and reliability in product design and assembly.
Effective implementation of stack up tolerance calculation is not merely a procedural exercise, but a cornerstone of robust engineering practice. A commitment to meticulous analysis and continuous improvement is critical for achieving optimal performance, minimizing manufacturing costs, and ultimately, delivering products that meet or exceed customer expectations. Further research and application of these principles are encouraged to advance the field and foster innovation.
