Tolerance Analysis

UNIT 9 TOLERANCE ANALYSIS

Structure
9.1 Introduction
Objectives

9.2 Tolerance Concepts

9.3 Geometric Tolerancing
9.4 Tolerance/Cost Relationship
9.5 Tolerance Analysis
9.5.1 Worst-case (Arithmetic) Method
9.5.2 Statistical Tolerancing Method

9.6 Summary

9.1 INTRODUCTION
It is impossible to produce parts conforming exactly to the nominal (ideal) dimensions. A
variety of physical limitations on manufacturing processes (such as cutting conditions,
hardware accuracy, skills of machine operators, etc.), as well as material properties,
contribute to limiting the precision with which we can manufacture parts. To account for
this variability of dimensions, we assign a tolerance at the design phase or a range of
acceptable values to required (not every dimension requires a tolerance) dimension of the
part. If a part size and shape are not within the maximum and minimum dimensional
limits defined by the part tolerances, the part is not acceptable. The assignment of actual
values to the tolerance limits has a major influence on the overall cost and quality of an
assembly or a product. If the tolerances are too small (tight), the individual parts will cost
more to manufacture. If the tolerances are too wide (loose), a large percentage of
assemblies may be scrapped (rejected) or would require rework.
Objectives
After studying this unit, you should be able to
understand the different types of tolerances,
apply the concept of tolerances,
use the concept tolerance and cost relation while designing a product, and
know the importance of tolerance analysis.

9.2 TOLERANCE CONCEPTS

Normal size is the designation used for the purpose of general identification. It is
usually expressed in common fractions. Basic size is the theoretical (ideal) size from
which limits of size are specified by the application of tolerances. The basic size is the
decimal equivalence of the nominal size. The number of decimal places determines the
precision or accuracy required. For example, if the nominal width of a slot is 1 cm and
we require accuracy to three decimal places, its basic size becomes 1.750 cm. Actual
size is the measured size of the finished part. Tolerance is the amount by which a
dimension is permitted to vary. It is used to determine the permissible limits (maximum
and minimum) of the dimension.
Tolerance can be expressed in either of two ways. A bilateral tolerance is specified as
plus or minus deviation from the basic size, for example, 1.750 + 0.002 cm. A unilateral
tolerance is a tolerance in which variation is permitted only in one direction from the
5
CAPP Analysis
basic size, for example, 1.750 +- 0.000
0.004
or 1.750 - 0.004
0.003
. Allowance is the difference
between the maximum material limits of mating parts, e.g. a shaft and a hole. It is the
minimum clearance (positive allowance) or maximum interference (negative allowance)
between the two mating parts.
The foregoing definitions are usually applied by design engineers (designers) to
determine the proper dimensions of mating features so that parts can be manufactured
and can be interchangeable. Let us consider, for example, a shaft transmitting power.
After the designer has performed the necessary calculations, a nominal (ideal) size of the
shaft diameter is obtained as 50 mm. If a flywheel is mounted on this shaft, the nominal
size of the hole in the flywheel is as shown in the Figure 9.1(a). Assuming that allowance
and tolerances are specified to (make up to 3 places of decimals. No one manufactures
below 1 mm) decimal places, the precision required is then the same and the basic size is
expressed as 50.0000 as shown in Figure 9.1(b). From the functional and assembly
requirements between the flywheel and the shaft (power is transmitted between the
flywheel and shaft via a key), a clearance fit between the two parts is adequate. Let us
assume an allowance a of 0.0750 mm, a tolerance h for the hole in the flywheel of
value 0.0750 mm, and a shaft tolerance s of 0.0750 mm.
In order to determine the diameters of the hole and the shaft, given the above values for
a, h and s, let us consider all the possible variations in the dimensions of these diameters
relative to the basic size. Ten possibilities exist. Five of them are shown as bar diagrams
in Figures 9.1(c) to (g). The other five possibilities are complements (reverse the location
of the bar adjacent to the basic size datum) of those shown in the figure. The hatched
bars are the tolerance zones. The relative locations of these zones with respect to the
basic size and the mean size determine the type of tolerance, and consequently the hole
and shaft diameters. To determine the maximum and minimum diameters for the shaft
(dsmax and dsmin) and the hole (dhmax and dhmin), a tolerance zone (s or h) is located relative
to the basic size, followed by the allowance a and the other tolerance zone. From the
definition of allowance (minimum clearance), h, s, and a do not overlap in the case of
clearance fit. In Figure 9.1(e), the hole has unilateral tolerance while the shaft has a
bilateral tolerance. Figure 9.1(f) shows the opposite case.
The calculations of the toleranced dimensions for the bar (Figures 9.1(c) to (g)) are
simple and are given below.
Figure 9.1(c)
dhmax = 50.000 + 0.075 dsmax = 50.000 0.075 = 49.925
dhmin = 50.000 dsmin = 49.925 0.075
+ 0.075 + 0.000
Hole dimension = 50.000 0.000 Shaft dimension = 49.925 0.075

Figure 9.1(d)
dhmin = 50.000 + 0.075 + 0.075 = 50.150 mm
dhmax = 50.150 + 0.075 mm
+ 0.075 + 0.075
Hole dimension = 50.150 0.000 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.000

Figure 9.1(e)
dhmin = 50.000 mm dsmean = 50.000 0.075 0.0750/2
dhmax = 50.000 + 0.075 mm = 49.887 mm
+ 0.075 + 0.037
Hole dimension = 50.150 0.000 Shaft dimension = 49.887 0.037

Figure 9.1(f)
6
 dhmean = 50.000 + 0.075 + 0.075/2 dsmin = 50.000 mm Tolerance Analysis

= 50.187 dsmax = 50.000 + 0.075 mm

+ 0.037 + 0.075
Hole dimension = 50.187 0.037 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.000

Figure 9.1(g)
dhmin = 50.000 0.075/2 dsmean = 50.000 0.075/2 0.075 0.075/2
dhmax = 50.0000 + 0.0750/2
+ 0.037 + 0.037
Hole dimension = 50.000 0.037 Shaft dimension = 49.850 0.037

Figure 9.1 : Clearance Fit Calculations

7
CAPP Analysis

Figure 9.2 : Clearance Fit of Figure 9.1

Using these dimensions for both the shaft and the hole, the reader can easily verify that
the minimum clearance is equal to the allowance a. The other five cases that are shown in
Figures 9.3(c) to (g) are obtained from the cases shown in Figure 9.1 by flipping the
tolerance zone adjacent to the basic-size datum to the other side of the datum; except for
the case shown in Figure 9.1(g), the basic-size and mean-size datums are interchanged.
The toleranced dimensions of the hole for the complements of possibilities of
Figures 9.1(c) to (g) are calculated as below :
Figure 9.3(c)
dhmax = 50.000 mm dsmax = 50.000 0.075 0.075
dhmin = 50.000 0.075 mm = 49.850 mm
+ 0.000 + 0.000
Hole dimension = 50.000 0.075 Shaft dimension = 49.800 0.075

Figure 9.3(d)
dhmin = 50.000 + 0.075 = 50.075 mm dsmin = (50.000 0.075) mm
dhmax = (50.075 + 0.075) mm dsmax = 50.000 mm
+ 0.075 + 0.000
Hole dimension = 50.075 0.000 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.075

Figure 9.3(e)
dhmax = 50.000 mm dsmean = (50.000 0.075 0.075 0.075/2)
dhmin = (50.000 0.075) mm = 49.812 mm
+ 0.000 + 0.037
Hole dimension = 50.000 0.075 Shaft dimension = 49.812 0.037

Figure 9.3(f)
dhmean = (50.000 + 0.075 + 0.075/2) dsmax = 50.000 mm
= 50.112 mm dsmin = (50.000 0.075) mm
+ 0.037 + 0.000
Hole dimension = 50.112 0.037 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.075

Figure 9.3(g)
dhmin = (50.000 + 0.075 + 0.075/2) dsmax = (50.000 + 0.075/2) mm
= 50.112 mm dsmin = (50.000 0.075/2) mm
dhmax = (50.112 + 0.075) mm
+ 0.075 + 0.037
Hole dimension = 50.112 0.000 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.037

8
 Tolerance Analysis

Figure 9.3
Of the ten possibilities of the toleranced dimensions of both the shaft and the hole, what
is the best possibility? Practice shows that drawings made with unilateral tolerances are
usually easier to check than those made with bilateral tolerances. Thus, the six
possibilities that result from Figures 9.1(e) to (g) and their complements can be
eliminated. In addition, it is usually easier to machine shafts to any desired size. This
eliminates the possibility shown in Figure 9.1(c) is also eliminated as it is complement.
The complement possibility of Figure 9.1(c) is also eliminated as it is practically easier
for the machinist or workman to aim at minimum hole diameter equal to basic size (basic
size is usually a rounded number such as 2.000, 2.500, etc.) instead of a diameter equal to
basic size minus h. The clearance fit for the possibility of Figure 9.1(c) is shown in
Figure 9.2.
In some situations, the bilateral method of tolerancing is very appropriate. Examples
include the location of holes when the variation from the basic size is equally critical in
both directions, welded assemblies, and loosely toleranced dimensions (for large
tolerances, it is sometimes more convenient to give the mean dimension and the variation
each way). 9
CAPP Analysis Figures 9.4 and 9.5 show how to apply the clearance fit calculations shown in
Figures 9.1 and 9.2 to an interference fit. The key difference is that h, a, and s overlap,
based on the definition of allowance a (maximum interference) in the case of interference
fit. In this interference example we use h = 0.0080 mm, s = 0.0080 mm, and a = 0.0200
mm. For the five possibilities shown in Figures 9.4(c) to (g), the hole dimensions are
calculated as given below :

Figure 9.4 : Interference Fit Calculations

Figure 9.4(c)
dsmin = 50.000 + (0.020 0.008)
= 50.012 mm
+ 0.008 + 0.008
Hole dimensions = 50.000 0.000 Shaft dimension = 50.012 0.000

Figure 9.4(d)
dhmax = 50.000 (0.020 0.008 0.008)
= 49.996 mm
10
 + 0.000 + 0.008 Tolerance Analysis
Hole dimensions = 49.996 0.008 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.000

Figure 9.4(e)
dsmean = 50.000 + (0.020 0.008/2)
= 50.016 mm
+ 0.008 + 0.004
Hole dimensions = 50.000 0.000 Shaft dimension = 50.016 0.004

Figure 9.4(f)
dhmean = 50.000 (0.020 0.008 0.008/2)
= 49.992 mm
+ 0.004 + 0.008
Hole dimensions = 49.992 0.004 Shaft dimension = 50.000 0.000

Figure 9.4(g)
dsmean = 50.000 + (0.020 0.008/2 0.008/2)
= 50.012 mm
+ 0.004 + 0.004
Hole dimensions = 50.000 0.004 Shaft dimension = 50.012 0.004

Using these dimensions for both the shaft and the hole, the reader can easily verify that
the maximum interference is equal to the allowance a. The preferred interference fit of
Figure 9.4(c) is shown in Figure 9.5.

Figure 9.5 : Interference Fit of Figure 9.4

SAQ 1
(a) Define the following with examples :
(i) Allowance
(ii) Clearance
(iii) Interference
(iv) Upper deviation, Lower deviation and Fundamental deviation
(b) Compare the relative merits and demerits of unilateral and bilateral
tolerances with suitable applications.
(c) Find the values of allowance, hole tolerance and shaft tolerance for the
following dimensions of mated parts according to basic hole system.
Hole : 37.50 mm Shaft : 37.48 mm
37.52 mm 37.45 mm
(d) A 80 mm shaft rotates in a bearing. The tolerance for both shaft and bearing
is 0.075 mm and the required allowance is 0.10 mm. Determine the
dimensions of the shaft, and the bearing bore with the basic hole standard.
11
CAPP Analysis (e) A medium force fit on a 80 mm shaft requires a hole tolerance and shaft
tolerance each equal to 0.225 mm and an average interference of
0.0375 mm. Determine the proper hole and shaft dimensions with the basic
hole standard.
(f) Cylindrical fits are fits between shafts and holes as shown in Figures 9.1 to
9.4. For a nominal diameter d = 50 mm, calculate the toleranced and
preferred dimensions for :
(i) Clearance fit with class fit 2 (free fit) where h = 0.001 3d,
S = 0.001 3d and a = 0.0013 3d.
(ii) Transition fit with class fit 4 (snug fit) where h = 0.0005 3d and
S = 0.0003 3d and a = 0.
(iii) Interference fit with class fit 6 (tight fit) where h = 0.0005 3d,
S = 0.0005 3d and a = 0.0002 d.

9.3 GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING

The concept of conventional method of dimensioning only provides information
concerning size and surface condition.
Conventional tolerancing methods have three main short comings :
(a) They are incapable of controlling all aspects of the shape of a part. In
addition to the control of location, size and angle, control is also needed for
the form (shape) of features, such as straightness, flatness, parallelism or
angularity of specific portions of the part.
For example, in Figure 9.6 both components (b) and (c) satisfy the
dimension specified in (a), i.e., the diameter of components (b) and (c) is
10.01 mm over the entire length of component. Obviously, both (b) and (c)
are not desirable. However as specified, both (b) and (c) meet specification.

Figure 9.6

(b) Conventional tolerancing does not use the concept of datum which is an
important concept to manufacture and inspect the part. It does not explicitly
specify datums or their precedence. Datums are usually implied from the
12 way the part drawings are dimensioned. For example, Figure 9.7 implies that
 the bottom horizontal and the left vertical planes are used as datums. Tolerance Analysis
However, which plane is more important than the other (precedence of
datums) cannot be determined. In some cases, implied datums are too
ambiguous to identify easily.

Figure 9.7

(c) Extending the conventional tolerancing methods to control locations (i.e.

two or three dimensional control) described in rectangular candidates or
angular dimensions introduces undesirable result due to the variation in the
size of the tolerance zone. Consider, for example, the control of the location
of the center of the hole shown in Figure 9.8(a). Specifying a tolerance of
+ 0.02
8 - 0.00 Maximum Tolerance
Allowance 2 X 0.10

+ 0.10

10 + 0.05 10.00
0.05

10 + 0.05 0.10

10.00

(a) (b)
Figure 9.8 : Positional Control of the Center of a Hole
+ 0.05 mm on the coordinates of the center (10.00, 10.00) the 0.10 0.10 in
square tolerance zone shown in Figure 9.8(b) while the results in designer
might think that he/she is controlling the location of the center of the
10.00 mm hole within a 0.10 mm boundary, the center could actually vary
across the diagonal of the square tolerance zone, yielding a maximum
tolerance of 0.14 mm instead of 0.10 mm. Thus, conventional tolerancing
gives more freedom in the diagonal directions and may unnecessarily
constrain errors in the horizontal (or radial) and vertical (angular) directions.
9.3.1 Types of Geometric Tolerances
Geometric tolerancing specifies the tolerance of geometric characteristics. There are three
types of geometric tolerances.
(b) Size tolerance
(c) Location tolerance
(d) Form tolerance
13
CAPP Analysis Basic geometric characteristics as defined by the ANSI Y14.5 M 1982 standard include :
Geometric Tolerance

Form Tolerance Profile Tolerance Location Tolerance

Straightness Profile of a Line Position
Flatness Profile of a Surface Concentricity
Circularity (Roundness)
Cylindricity
Orientation Tolerance
Angularity Runout Tolerance
Perpendicularity Circular Runout
Parallelism Runout

Symbols that represent these features are shown in Table 9.1 below.
Table 9.1 : ANSI Symbols for Geometric Tolerancing

Feature Type of Tolerance Characteristic Symbol

For individual features Form Straightness

Flatness

Circularity (roundness)

Cylindricity

For individual or related Profile Profile of a line

features

Profile of a surface

For related features Orientation Angularity

Perpendicularity

Parallelism

Location Position

Concentricity

Runout Circular runout

Total runout

To specify the geometric tolerances, reference features either planes, lines, or

surfaces can be established. A datum is a plane, surface, points(s), line, axis, or other
source of information concerning an object. Datums are assumed to be exact, and from
them dimensions similar to the reference-location dimensions in the conventional

14
drawing system can be established. However, datums are used only for geometric Tolerance Analysis
dimensioning.
Symbolic modifiers are used to clarify implied tolerances. The maximum material
condition (MMC) can be used to constrain the tolerance of the produced dimension and
the maximum designed dimension. It can be defined as the condition of a part feature
where the maximum amount of material is contained. For example, maximum size of a
shaft or minimum size of a hole. Least material condition (LMC) specifies the opposite of
the maximum material condition. They can be applied only when both of the following
conditions hold :
(a) Two or more features are interrelated with respect to the location or form
(e.g., two holes). At least one of the features must refer to size.
(b) MMC or LMC must directly reference a size feature.
(c) ANSI modifying symbols are shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 : ANSI Modifying Symbols

Term Symbol

At maximum material condition M

Regardless of feature size S

At least material condition L

Projected tolerance zone P

Diameter

Spherical diameter S

Radius R

Spherical radius SR

Reference ( )

Arc length

When MMC or LMC are used to specify the tolerance of a hole or shaft, it implies that
the tolerance specified is constrained by the maximum or least material condition as well
as some other dimensional feature(s). The tolerance may increase when the actual
produced feature size is larger (for a hole) or smaller (for a shaft) than the MMC size.
Because the increase in the tolerance is compensated by the deviance of size in
production, the final combined hole-size error and geometric tolerance error will still be
larger than the anticipated smallest hole.
The third modifier is Regardless of feature size (RFS). It is the default modifier when
MMC or LMC is not specifically mentioned. When RFS is used, the geometric tolerance
specified is independent of the size of part.
Figure 9.9 illustrates the use of form geometry symbols and their meanings. In all of the
examples (except true position), RFS is assumed. The first drawing in each group of
drawings represents the original drawing. The second drawing illustrates the
interpretation of the geometric tolerance specified. All variations on surfaces have been
exaggerated.

15
CAPP Analysis

Figure 9.9 : Illustration of Form Geometry Symbols (Contd.)

16
 Tolerance Analysis

Figure 9.9 : Illustration of Form Geometry Symbols

In Figure 9.9(a) (where straightness is illustrated), straightness defines the maximum

deviation on the assumed center line over the entire length of a cylindrical component. It
is useful in specifying the fit of shaft and holes. A dial indicator moving along the ideal
line can be used to measure the deviation. Flatness (Figure 9.9(b)) is the maximum
deviation allowed on a flat surface. It is important for plane surface fit (e.g., gasket
surfaces). Flatness can be checked by taking a dial indicator reading over the surface in 17
CAPP Analysis both the X and Y directions. Roundness (Figure 9.9(c)) defines the irregularity of the
diameter at any given cross-sectional location of a cylindrical component. Roundness can
be checked by using a V-block and a dial indicator. The cylinder is set in the
V-block and a dial indicator measures the deviation over one complete 360 turn.
Cylindricity (Figure 9.9(d)) is similar to roundness except that it defines the irregularity
over the entire length. It is the diameter difference between two cylinders sandwiching
the cylinder being measured. Again, these symbols are useful in specifying the fit for
shafts and holes. The inspection of cylindricity is similar to that of roundness except
measurement is taken over the entire length of the cylinder.
Profile of a line (Figure 9.9(e)) and profile of a surface (Figure 9.9(f)) both describe the
deviation on the profile except that profile of a line focuses on any cross-sectional
location and profile of a surface looks at the entire surface. They can be checked by
comparing the readings of an actual profile with the limits of the ideal profile. Any
feature of a component can be specified as being parallel to any given datum.
Figure 9.9(g) shows the use of the parallelism symbol.
Perpendicularity (Figure 9.9(h)) defines the tolerance of a feature that is 90 to a given
datum. Angularity (Figure 9.9(i)) is similar to perpendicularity except that the
relationship of a feature to a given datum need not be 90. The axis of a hole or
cylindrical object can also be dimensioned with angularity. Concentricity (Figure 9.9(j))
is used to establish a relationship between the axes of two or more cylindrical parts of
component. Runout (Figure 9.9(k)) is the composite deviation from the desired form of a
rotational part during full rotation (360) of the part on a datum axis.
True position (Figure 9.9(l)) expresses the location of the center line with respect to a
feature. Conventional tolerancing methods produce a tolerance area that is greater than
the round tolerance area that true position (O) specifies.
Thus far, basic drafting methods and symbols have been discussed. By using this
knowledge of basic engineering geometry, dimensioning, and tolerancing symbols, any
proper engineering design drawing can be interpreted precisely.

9.4 TOLERANCE/COST RELATIONSHIP

Tolerance is a key factor in determining the cost of a part. The relationship between
tolerances and manufacturing cost is shown in Figure 9.10. The manufacturing (total)
cost is divided into machining and scrap cost. The machining cost is the cost of first
producing the part. This cost consists of labour, overhead, gauges, tools, jigs and fixtures,
inspection, etc. The scrap cost is the cost encountered due to rejecting some parts that fall
outside the specified tolerance range, and/or due to repairing some of these parts. The
cost of parts which are produced by multiple manufacturing processes
(Figure 9.10(b)) is the sum of costs encountered in each process. An example of multiple
processes is a cylinder that may need rough turning, finish turning, and grinding.
As expected, and shown in Figure 9.10, the tighter the tolerance, the more expensive it is
to manufacture a part. This trend provides the fundamental rule in selecting tolerances by
designers at the design phase; that is, tolerances should be chosen as large as possible as
long as they meet the functional and assembly requirements of the part. It may be worth
while to change designs to relax tolerance requirements for cost purpose. Larger
tolerances result in using less skilled machinists (less expensive labour), lower inspection
costs, and reduced scrapping of material.

18
 Tolerance Analysis

(a) Single Manufacturing Process

(b) Multiple Manufacturing Processes

Figure 9.10 : Relationship between Tolerance and Manufacturing Cost
It is important for designers to be aware of manufacturing accuracies attainable by
various manufacturing processes. To assist designers in relating tolerances to machining
processes, Table 9.3, developed by ANSI, relates tolerance grades (IT number) to
machining processes. The range of grades for each process accounts for the conditions
(old, new, well maintained, etc.) of the machine, and the level of skills possessed by the
machine operator. Having selected a tolerance based on functional requirements of a part,
the designer can determine the tolerance grade for a given size using tolerance grade
tables. With the tolerance grade known, the designer can determine the proper machining
process by using Table 9.3. With the knowledge presented in Table 9.3 and the tolerance
grade table, the designer can effectively judge the manufacturing method to produce the
design.
Table 9.3 : Relationship between Tolerance Grades and Machining Processes
Tolerance Grade (IT Number)
Machining Process
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Lapping and honing x x
Cylindrical grinding x x x
Surface grinding x x x x
Diamond turning x x x
Diamond boring x x x
Broaching x x x x
Powder metal-sizes x x x
Reaming x x x x x
Turning x x x x x x x
Powder metal-sintered x x x x
Boring x x x x x x
Milling x x x x
Planning and Shaping x x x x
Drilling x x x x
Punching x x x x
Die casting x x x

SAQ 2
(a) Explain the tolerance cost relationship with respect to various production
process to manufacture the components.
(b) Differentiate cumulative tolerancing with over tolerancing.
(c) Discuss Geometrical tolerances with suitable examples.
19
CAPP Analysis

9.5 TOLERANCE ANALYSIS

Thus far, we have discussed the tolerancing concepts and how tolerances are represented.
We have also seen that tolerance assignments to various components of an assembly must
meet its functional requirements and must reduce manufacturing cost. With all tolerances
assigned to the various components (parts) of an assembly, the designer must check that
the combined effect or accumulation of all these tolerances (tolerance stackup) does not
cause an inoperable or malfunctioning assembly. Analysis of tolerances and their stackup
is important because tolerance assignments are usually done on a part-by-part basis.
Thus, tolerance analysis is defined as the process of checking the tolerances to verify that
all the design constraints are met. Tolerance analysis is sometimes known as design
assurance.
Tolerance analysis requires two steps (assuming tolerances have already been assigned).
First, all dimensions that affect the analysis must be identified. Since dimensions in one
direction are often related, find out the relations among them. When the extraction of the
tolerance information is complete, the second step is to use it to section. These methods
can be implemented into some tolerance analysis so that to create an automatic tolerance
analysis. Manual methods for tolerance analysis are time-consuming and error-prone. For
complicated problems, they are usually infeasible.
The objective of tolerance analysis is to determine the variability of any quantity that is a
function of product dimensions. Most often, these quantities are also dimensions, and are
called design functions. Product dimensions and variables that control the behaviour of a
design function are called design function variables. The variability of the design
functions is used to assess the suitability of a particular tolerance specification.
Figure 9.11 shows an example of a design function for the case of two blocks assembled
into a slot. The design function RD is the clearance between the two blocks, and is a
function of the dimensions of the slot and the two blocks. A tolerance specification for
these dimensions is satisfactory if it prevents RD from being less than zero.

D1, D2, D3 = Product dimensions (design function variables)

RD = Resultant Dimension
RD = f (D1, D2, D3) = D1 D2 D3
RD > 0, accept assembly
RD < 0, reject assembly

Figure 9.11 : Formulating a Design Function for Tolerance Analysis

The formulation of tolerance analysis can be stated as follows. Given a set of tolerances
{T} = {T1, T2, . . . , Tn} on a set of dimensions {D} = {D1, D2, . . . . , Dn} and given a set
of design constraints {C} = {C1, C2, . . . , Cm}, is {T} satisfactory? Constraints could be
functional requirements of an assembly, manufacturing costs, etc. The dimensions in the
set {D} include both the nominal dimensions {DN} and their tolerances {T}, that is,

20
{D} = {DN} + {T}. To assess tolerance suitability, we formulate a Resultant dimension in Tolerance Analysis
terms of {D}, that is,
RD = f ({D}) = f (D1, D2, . . . , Dn) . . . (9.1)
The variability of RD due to variability in {D} is determined (using methods described
below). If RD satisfies {C } all the time, {T } is satisfactory and assembly is accepted. If
not, {T } is unsatisfactory and assembly is rejected. Design functions are often complex
and their formulation form the hardest part of tolerance analysis and can be time-
consuming.
Tolerance analysis methods can be divided into two types. In the simpler type,
dimensions have conventional tolerances, and the result of tolerance analysis is the
nominal value of the design function (RDN) and its upper (RDmax) and lower (RDmin)
limits. This type of analysis is sometimes called worst-case analysis. This means that all
possible combinations of in-tolerance parts must result in an assembly that satisfies the
design constraints. The upper and lower limits of the design function represent the worst
possible combination of the tolerances of the design function variables. However, the
likelihood of worst-case combination of these tolerances in any particular product is very
low. Therefore, worst-case tolerance analysis is very conservative.
The other type of tolerance analysis is performed on a statistical basis. Tolerance analysis
methods of this type allow statistical tolerances and output a statistical distribution for the
design function. This allows for more realistic analysis. Manufacturing costs are reduced
by loosening up the tolerances, and accepting a calculated risk that the design constraints
{C} may not be satisfied 100 percent of the time. By assuming a probability distribution
for each toleranced dimension, it is possible to determine the likelihood that the specified
design limits will be exceeded. Effectively, a reject rate is determined for the assembly. A
nonzero reject rate may be preferable to an increase in individual part manufacturing
costs due to tight tolerances. Both the worst-case and statistical approaches are important
in practice.
9.5.1 Worst-Case (Arithmetic) Method
The arithmetic tolerance method is the worst-case analysis method. It uses the limits of
dimensions to carry out the tolerance calculations. The actual or expected distribution of
dimensions is not taken into account. All manufactured parts are interchangeable since
the maximum values are used. Arithmetic tolerances require greater manufacturing
accuracy. It is used when 100 percent interchangeable assembly is required.
Let us assume a closed-loop (the resultant dimension is obtained by adding or subtracting
the given dimensions) dimension where set {D} of n element such that the resultant
dimension. RD is obtained by adding the first m elements which are called increasing
dimensions and subtracting the last (n m) elements which are called decreasing
dimensions. Using this method, all tolerance information about RD is obtained by adding
and/or subtracting the corresponding information of the individual dimensions.
Hence we can derive the following :
Nominal dimension = Sum of increasing dimensions Sum of decreasing dimensions
m n
RDN = CDi CDi . . . (9.2)
i =1 i = m +1

Maximum dimension = Sum of the max increasing dimension Sum of the minimum
decreasing dimension
m n
RDmax = CDmax CDmin . . . (9.3)
i =1 i = m +1

Minimum dimension = Sum of the minimum increasing dimension Sum of the

maximum decreasing dimension
m n
RDmin = CDmin CDmax . . . (9.4)
i =1 i = m +1

Tolerance on RD :
21
CAPP Analysis m n n
TRD = RDmax RDmin = Ti = Ti . . . (9.5)
i =1 i = m +1 i =1

Upper tolerance on RD :
m n
TURD = RDmax RDN = (d Dmax d D1 ) (d dmin d D1 )
i =1 i = m +1

m n
= Tui TLi . . . (9.6)
i =1 i = m +1

Lower tolerance on F :
m n
TLRD = RDmin RDN = (d Dmin d D1 ) (d dmax d D1 )
i =1 i = m +1

m n
= TLi Tui . . . (9.7)
i =1 i = m +1

where Tui and TLi are the upper and lower tolerances on dimension DIN respectively. For
unilateral tolerances, one of these variables is zero.
Example 9.1
Figure 9.12 shows a part designed with assigned tolerances. Use the worst limit
arithmetic method to calculate the tolerance information for the axial dimension of
the outside surface shown.
Solution
Figures 9.12(b) and (c) show the D-chain and D-tree of the dimensions of the part
design. It is obvious that the design function RD is affected by the dimensions in
its chain. The dimension D6 is independent of the chain and, therefore, is not
expected to affect RD in the tolerance analysis. There are five dimensions in the
chain (D1 to D5) excluding RD; two of them are increasing (positive) dimensions
(D1 and D3) and three are decreasing (negative) dimensions (D2, D4, and D5).

Figure 9.12 : Tolerance Analysis of a Part Design

Substituting the tolerance information shown in Figure 9.11 into Eqs. (9.2) to
(9.6), we obtain.
RDN = (100 + 6) (16 + 40 + 44) = 6 mm
RDmax = (100 + 6.05) (15.99 + 39.975 + 43.95) = 6.235 mm
RDmin = (99.9 + 5.95) (16.01 + 40.025 + 44.05) = 5.765 mm
TRD = 6.235 5.765 = 0.47 mm
TURD = (0.10 + 0.05) ( 0.01 0.025 0.05) = 0.235 mm
22
 TLRD = ( 0.10 0.05) (0.01 + 0.025 + 0.05) = 0.235 mm Tolerance Analysis

Thus, the tolerance of RD is 0.47 mm, upper tolerance of RD is 0.235 mm and lower
tolerance of RD is 0.235 mm.
9.5.2 Statistical Tolerancing Method
This method, like the arithmetic method, uses the limits of dimensions to perform
tolerance analysis. However, unlike the arithmetic method, it takes into consideration the
fact that dimensions of parts of an assembly follow a probabilistic distribution curve.
Consequently, the frequency distribution curve of the dimensions of the final assembly
follow a probabilistic distribution curve. Typically, the probabilistic distribution curve is
assumed to be a normal distribution curve. This method is used in both batch and mass
production. It allows for variabilities in manufacturing conditions such as tool wear,
machine conditions, random errors, etc. It increases the manufacturing efficiency by
increasing tolerance limits and, therefore, reducing the required accuracy of
manufacturing.
Table 9.4 : and K Values of Typical Distributions
Distribution k
Normal 0 1.0
Uniform 0 1.73
Quasi-uniform 0 1 1.5
Triangle 0 1.22
Left Skew 0.26 1.17
Right Skew 0.26 1.17

Figure 9.13 : Tolerance Information and Dimension Distribution

This method is applied to a closed-loop dimension set {D} with each element Di of the
set having a probability distribution curve. The design function RD is obtained in the
same way as in the arithmetic method. The tolerance information about RD [similar to
Eqs. (9.2) to (9.6)] can be obtained statistically as follows. Normal distribution is
considered the basis of the analysis. Parameters relating other distributions to the normal
distribution are shown in Table 9.1. Figure 9.9 shows the parameters of a distribution
curve for one of the elements of the dimension set. When the elements in the dimension 23
CAPP Analysis set become large enough, the distribution of the RD (the resulting dimension) will be
asymptotically normal and independent of the distributions of the individual dimension.
Thus we can write :
m n
RD1 = DiN DiN . . . (9.8)
i =1 i = m +1

m
TRD = K 2 Ti 2 . . . (9.9)
i =1

m TRD
RD = i2 = . . . (9.10)
i =1 6
1
TLRD = + TRD . . . (9.11)
2
1
TLF = TRD . . . (9.12)
2
m
1 n
1
= i + i Ti i + i Ti . . . (9.13)
i =1 2 i = m +1 2
The = TRD/6 used in Eq. (9.10) is based on assuming a range of 6 for the distribution
curve (3 on each side of the mean tolerance), as shown in Figure 9.13, Eqs. (9.11) to
(9.13) can be viewed as dividing TRD into upper and lower limits TURD and TLRD
respectively. If bilateral equal tolerance limits are assumed, then TURD = 1/2 TRD and
TLRD = 1/2 TRD.
Example 9.2
Use the tolerance statistical method to calculate the tolerance information of RD
for Example 9.1. Assume a normal distribution curve.
Solution
The use of Eqs. (9.8) to (9.10) is straightforward and gives RDN = 6 mm,
TRD = 0.251 in, and F = 0.0568 in. To calculate TURD and TLRD, notice that i = 0
for a normal distribution curve. For worst-case analysis, DiN shown in Figure 9.11
is either Dimin or Dimax. In either case, it is shown from the figure that
i = (Dimax Dimin)/2 = Ti/2. Thus Eq. becomes
m Ti m T 1 1
= i = (0.2 + 0.1) (0.04 + 0.25 + 0.05) = 0.03 in . . . (9.14)
i =1 2 i = m + 1 2 2 2
Substituting into Eqs. (9.11) and (9.12) gives TURD and TLRD as 0.1905 and
0.0605 mm respectively, whereas the tolerance calculated by worst limit
arithmetic method as shown in Example 9.1 are TURD = 0.235 m and
TLRD = 0.235. Therefore, it can be seen that the tolerance calculated by statistical
tolerancing method are more tight as compared to worst case method. So when the
cost is the priority then the worst limit arithmetic designing should be used.
SAQ 3
(a) Interpret the positional tolerances shown in following figure. Sketch the
tolerance zones for each case.

24
 Tolerance Analysis

Figure

(b) Identify the resultant dimensions RD in the part designs shown below. Then
use the worst-case arithmetic method of tolerance analysis to calculate the
tolerance information for RD.
20 + 0.04 12 + 0.03

4 + 0.02

20 + 0.04

4 + 0.02
14 + 0.02

8 + 0.05
+ 0.00
80 - 0.01
12 + 0.05
+ 0.00
56 - 0.15
+ 0.00 + 0.00
10 - 0.01 44 - 0.05
12 + 0.05

8 + 0.05

(c) Use the worst-case statistical method of tolerance analysis to calculate the
tolerance information for RD for part shown in SAQ 1 (f).

9.6 SUMMARY
This unit discusses the importance of assigning tolerances to the dimensions. Tolerance
analysis is the process of assigning suitable tolerances. Proper assignment of tolerances is
important, because tight tolerances may result in good performance. However, when
tolerances are overly stringent, parts may get rejected unnecessarily and production cost
increases.
This unit discusses number of systems that help to allocate tolerances on various
components. A brief discussion about the geometrical tolerance methodology is given.
The relationship between tolerances and manufacturing cost is explained.
The unit also discusses about the tolerance analysis which is the process of checking the
tolerances to verify that all the design constraints are met. Tolerance analysis is
sometimes known as design assurance.
The two methods of tolerance analysis Worst-case Arithmetic Method and Worst-case
Statistical Method are discussed.
25
CAPP Analysis

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kalpakjian (1989), Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 3rd Edition,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
P. Radhakrishnan, S. Subramanyam and V. Raju (1994), CAD/CAM/CIM, 2ND Edition,
New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.
26
Nanua Singh (1996), Systems Approach to Computer Integrated Design and Tolerance Analysis
Manufacturing, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
T. C. Chang and R. A. Wysk (1991), Computer Aided Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
T. Earlwood Forting (1967), Dimensioning for Interchangeable Manufacturing,
Industrial Press, New York.

27