You are on page 1of 35

# Tolerance Design

ME222/424
MSC 424
TME 424

Tolerance Design
2

##  Where do tolerances come from?

 History
 Absolute vs. Statistical  tolerance as acceptable range

 Summing tolerances
 Worst-case
 Statistical
 More complex systems

##  Tolerance Design methodology

 Tolerancing based on variance control

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Interchangeable parts
3
 Inventor? Depends on your
interpretation. But maybe as
moveable type).

##  Eli Whitney helped popularize

the idea for the manufacture of
http://p2.img.cctvpic.com guns.

##  “Took off” in the 1800’s as a

cornerstone of mass production.

##  Tolerances make sure parts will

fir together.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)
Tolerance as acceptable range
4

##  Set maximum and minimum values for some

characteristic (e.g. part length).
 LSL = Lower Specification Limit
 USL = Upper Specification Limit

##  For simplicity we will assume that the average value (m)

is midway between the LSL and USL.

 Tolerance = D
 LSL = m - D
 USL = m + D

 Range of values  m ± D

m±D
5

##  User (customer) friendly

 Immediate sense of the values likely to be encountered.

 Absolute

 Statistical

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Absolute (method one)
6

(m ± D)

 Absolute limit

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Statistical (method two)
7

##  Analyze a sample of components. Determine average (m) , standard

deviation (s), and distribution.

##  Set tolerance so that only a small, specified fraction of components

will be outside of the range.

 For simplicity here, we will assume that all distributions are normal.
 Examples:
 D = 1 s  68.3 % in tolerance  average ± one standard deviation
 D = 3 s  99.73 % in tolerance
 D = 6 s  99.9999998% in tolerance
 D = 4.5s  99.99966% in tolerance

 Note: D = 4.5s (evaluated over an extended time period) is sometimes used as the
cut-off point for “Six Sigma Quality”  less than 3.4 DPMO (defects per million
opportunities)  “rule of thumb” to adjust for drift in product mean

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Summing tolerances
8
to sum tolerances.

##  Determine final tolerance

m2 ± D2 based on component
m1 ± D1 tolerances

##  Determine how to adjust

component tolerances to
achieve a desired final
tolerance
 Add in information on costs
to find the most cost
effective approach

?±?
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)
Example
9
m1 ± D1 m2 ± D2 m3 ± D3  Fit three components
end to end into a slot
machined into a fourth
m4± D4 component.

##  Want to determine the

“gap” remaining.
mg ± Dg  Average length of gap
 Tolerance on the gap

m2 ± D2

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Gap
10
 Average
  add & subtract based on
geometry

mg ± Dg
 mg = m4 - m1 - m2 - m3

 Tolerance
  always sum
 Uncertainty increases with each
component included

 “Worst case”
 “Statistical”

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

“Worst-case” summation
11

##  With absolute tolerances,

 Tolerance  sum D’s
this ensures that all the
gaps will be within the
 Dg = D1 + D2 + D 3 + D4 tolerance (i.e. mg  Dg )

## mg ± Dg  Can also use with

statistical tolerances. In
this case it is possible to
have product outside of
tolerance  but the
probability will be small.
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)
“Statistical” summation
12

##  Most meaningful with

 Tolerance  add D2 ‘s statistical tolerances.

##  Dg2 = D12 + D22 + D32 + D42  Assuming all distributions

are normal and that the
component tolerances are
mg ± Dg set to the same number of
s’s (e.g. D = 3s for all
components), then the
product tolerance should
correspond to that of the
components.

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Where does this (summing squares) come from?
13

##  From statistics, know that uncorrelated variances

 stotal2 = s12 + s22 + s32 + s42 …

##  Multiply thru by a constant squared, n2:

 n2stotal2 =n2s12 +n2s22 +n2s32 +n2s42 …

##  But D = ns is how we defined the statistical tolerance,

so:
 Dproduct2 = D12 + D22 + D32 + D42 …

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Numerical example
14
m1 ± D1 m2 ± D2 m3 ± D3  Fit three components
end to end into a slot
machined into a fourth
m4± D4 component.

1 10 0.1
mg ± Dg 2 30 0.3
3 20 0.3
m2 ± D2
4 61 0.2

Average gap
15

## Comp. m (mm) D (mm)  Add & subtract based on

geometry
1 10 0.1
2 30 0.3
 mg = m4 - m3 - m2 - m1
3 20 0.3
4 61 0.2
 mg
mg ± Dg
= 61 – 20 – 30 – 10
= 1 mm

Tolerance on gap
16

##  Dg = D1 + D2 + D3 + D 4  Dg2 = D12 + D22 + D32 + D42

=0.1 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 0.2 = 0.9 mm = (0.1)2 + (0.3)2 + (0.3)2 + (0.2)2
= 0.23
 mg  Dg  0.1 to 1.9 mm  Dg = 0.5 mm

 mg  Dg  0.5 to 1.5 mm

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Tolerance type vs. summation method
17

Tolerance type
Summation
method Absolute Statistical
Some product out of
Worst-case All product within
tolerance (generally
small %)

Fraction in tolerance
Statistical Difficult to estimate
related to components’
fraction in tolerance

Complications
18

##  Simple approach works well for a linear stacking of components as

shown in the example.

##  May not apply to:

 components with other “features” shape imperfections, roughness…
 more complicated geometries  3-D, rotations…
 properties other than length
 variability caused by other sources (e.g. environmental conditions)
 etc.

 As examples,
 variability in the output voltage of an electrical circuit because of differences in
component properties (resistances, capacitances, etc.) and geometry/assembly
 variability in engine performance due to component wear, ambient temperature,
fuel quality, etc.

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Approaches to dealing with more complex systems
19

 Modeling
 Need a good mathematical model
 May be able to solve analytically, depending on complexity
 Alternatively use the model to “test” different combinations of
component /environment values
 Monte Carlo random sampling based on frequency of occurrence.
Generally requires large numbers of samples (1,000s or 10,000s) 
must be practical with the model
 Various systematic approaches, e.g. Tolerance design

 Experimental
 Need to be able to identify and monitor or adjust sources of
variability
 Analyze data collected “in the field”  is suitable data available?
 Systematic testing, e.g. Tolerance design

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Random sampling (Monte Carlo) example
20

P
trabecular
t

cortical

##  Simple model for axial loading of a long bone. [This

is taken from a “Case Study” in Bartel, Davy, and
Keaveny’s Orthopedic Biomechanics textbook.
However, it is just an isostrain model for uniaxial
compression.]

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Random sampling (Monte Carlo) example
21

Pc, is given by:

##  Where P is the total applied load, t is the thickness of the

cortical shell, D is the diameter of the trabecular
centrum, and Ec and Et are the modulus of the cortical
and trabecular bone, respectively.
 Because of each of the terms in this equation will vary
from person to person, the load on the cortical bone will
also vary.

22

##  The table below gives some information on each of the

parameters.
Parameter Average value Coefficient of variance

## P (N) 1.5e3 20%

Et (Pa) 3.0e8 20%
Ec (Pa) 1.7e10 10%
t(m) 3.5e4 25%
D (m) 3.0e-2 25%

##  Average values (except for P) are taken from Bartel et al.

and are nominally for vertebra. The rest of the values are
“stand-ins” (more or less made up), just to illustrate.

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Results (different each time!)
23

## Average Mean Square Error

1.20E+03 1.40E+05

1.20E+05
1.15E+03

1.00E+05

1.10E+03

MSE (N*N)
8.00E+04

6.00E+04
1.05E+03

4.00E+04

1.00E+03
2.00E+04

9.50E+02 0.00E+00
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
N N

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Compare with a tolerance design (8 TC)
24

## Average  1.09 e3 MSE  7.09 e4

1.20E+03 1.40E+05

1.20E+05
1.15E+03

1.00E+05

1.10E+03

MSE (N*N)
8.00E+04

6.00E+04
1.05E+03

4.00E+04

1.00E+03
2.00E+04

9.50E+02 0.00E+00
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
N N

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Tolerance Design
25

TOLERANCE AS VARIABILITY

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Taguchi’s approach to quality
26

##  Genichi Taguchi (1924 – 2012)

 quality “guru”, responsible for many innovations
 developed many tools and methods
 Tolerance design was Taguchi’s last resort method for improving
quality

##  Taguchi’s concept of quality

 Taguchi equated “quality” with reducing the variance (s2) in the final
product
 Didn’t believe in using fixed “tolerances” (i.e. cutoff values)
 So Tolerance design focuses on reducing s2 , without considering %
in/out of tolerance
 Can be applied to non-normal distributions, but need to be cautious
about converting to a “D” and estimating % in tolerance

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Tolerance Design  concept
27

##  Assume that proportionality between variance in

components and final (product) variance still holds, but
with a proportionality constant (sensitivity) added
 stotal2 = h1s12 + h2s22 + h3 s32 + h4 s42 …

 Experiment
 estimate variance for the product
 determine contribution of each component variance to the total 
decide how to best improve tolerance (i.e. reduce variance) as needed
 h values show sensitivity of final product variance to tolerance
(variance) of each component  think about the units…

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Tolerance design experiment
28
 For each component, input
specific values
TC measured
 match variance of component
...
A B C response
 (“levels” -1 ,+1)  m ± s
1 -1 -1 -1 Y1
2 -1 -1 +1 Y2  Experiment tests different
3 -1 +1 -1 Y3 combinations of component
4 -1 +1 +1 Y4 levels
... +1 -1 -1 …

##  Measure the response of the

product
TC = Treatment condition, one   variation in these values
“run” of the experiment provides estimate of the total
A, B, C = different components product variance.
-1, +1 = represent two different   also determine
component values to be used in contribution of each
experimentation component to total

Matrix selection
29

##  Design of matrix is important

 Design Of Experiments (DOE)
 Usually 2-level
 Can include other (non-component) sources

##  Matrix size (# of TC)

 Between ~ (n+1) and 2n
 n = number of components
 Much smaller than Monte Carlo style methods
 Large matrix provides more/better data (rare)
 But smaller sizes are still useful (common)

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Example (Throttle handle)
30
 From “Designing experiments  Components
for tolerancing assembled  Knob, handle, and tube
products”, Soren Bisgaard.  But multiple dimensions on
Technometrics (1997), 142- the knob (three), and handle
152 (three)
 Total of seven dimensions to
 Friction in a throttle handle tolerance
of outboard motors  too
much or too little  need to  Matrix size
improve the tolerance  Minimum size  8
 Maximum size  128
 Tracked friction by measuring  Chose to use 64
torque to turn the handle  Relatively
conservative/expensive
 Three components in the
assembly

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Throttle handle (experimental details)
31

 Knobs (dimensions A, B, C)
 m - s and m + s for each dimension
 Eight possible combinations
 Manufactured all eight combinations

 Handles (dimensions D, E, F)
 m - s and m + s for each dimension
 Eight possible combinations
 Manufactured four of the combinations

 Tube (dimension G)
 Manufactured two tubes, one with m - s and one with m + s

##  Tested all combinations of these components

 8 x 4 x 2 = 64 combinations  64 TC
 Treatment condition  assembled one combination of components and
measured torque

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Throttle handle (key results)
32
Source s Variance %  A, B, C  knob
(contrib.
to stotal2) dimensions
A 0.0028 29.50 4.36  D, E, F  handle
B 0.0023 56.91 8.40 dimensions
C 0.0024 10.04 1.48  G  tube dimension
D 0.0037 107.33 15.83
E 0.0030 45.16 6.67
 G is main contributor to
F 0.0043 86.27 12.74
variance (>50%)
G 0.0040 342.25 50.52
 Best bet to improve
Total -- 677.46 100.00 performance
 But also depends on
relative costs
Part tolerances Variance of torque
(length) (force-length)2
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)
Throttle handle (predicting improvement)
33
Source s Variance %  Consider the effect of
(contrib.
to D2) halving the tolerance (i.e.
A 0.0028 29.50 7.01
s) for G
B 0.0023 56.91 13.52
 Variance of G (s2 ) will be
C 0.0024 10.04 reduced to ¼
2.38
D 0.0037 107.33  Contribution from G to
25.49 total with, therefore also
E 0.0030 45.16 10.73 be reduced to ¼
F 0.0043 86.27 20.49
G 0.0040 342.25
 Total Variance for the
0.0020 85.56 20.32
Total -- 677.46
throttle torque should be
420.77 99.95 reduced to ~ 421
 677 – ¾ (342) = 421

## PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Predictive equation
34
Source s Variance % stotal2 = hA sA2 + hBsB2 + hCsC2
(contrib. + h D s D2 …
to D2)
A 0.0028 29.50 7.01  hG sG2
B 0.0023 56.91 13.52 = contribution of G to total =
C 0.0024 10.04 SSG = 342.25
2.38
D 0.0037 107.33 25.49  hG = 342.25/ sG2
E 0.0030 45.16 10.73 = 342.25/(0.0040) 2
F 0.0043 86.27 20.49 = 2.14 x 10 7
G 0.0040 342.25
0.0020 85.56 20.32  Reduce sG to 0.0020
Total -- 677.46 SSG= hG sG2
420.77 99.95
=2 .14 x 10 7 x (0.0020) 2
Part tolerances Variance of torque
= 85.56
(length) (force-length)2
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)
Summary
35

 Definitions of tolerance
 Based on % in/out of tolerance
 Absolute  all in tolerance
 Statistical  known % out of tolerance

 Summation of tolerances
 “worst-case”  summation of tolerances
 “statistical” summation of the squares

 Tolerance design
 Based on reducing the product variance
 Assumes product variance is proportional to component variances
 DOE to estimate total product variance, component contributions,
and the effects of changing component tolerances