Me 222 Tolerance Design

Tolerance Design
ME222/424
MSC 424
TME 424
PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424, TME 424, MSC 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
early as 1040’s AD (Chinese
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
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.
 Quick measure of “quality”
 Small D values are immediately impressive
 But what does the tolerance actually mean?
 Two common methods to specify

 Absolute
 Statistical

Absolute (method one)
6
 Inspect all components
 Reject (discard) all those outside of the tolerance

(m ± D)
 All parts (that pass) will be within the tolerance
 Absolute limit

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

Summing tolerances
8
 Often concerned about how
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
?±?
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

Gap
10
 Average
  add & subtract based on
geometry
mg ± Dg
 mg = m4 - m1 - m2 - m3
 Tolerance
  always sum
 Uncertainty increases with each
component included
 Different ways of summing

 “Worst case”
 “Statistical”

“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.
“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.

Where does this (summing squares) come from?
13
 From statistics, know that uncorrelated variances

can be added:
 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 …

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.
Comp. m (mm) D (mm)

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
Worst case Statistical
 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

Tolerance type vs. summation method
17
Tolerance type
Summation
method Absolute Statistical
Some product out of
Worst-case All product within
tolerance (generally
(add D’s) tolerance
small %)
Fraction in tolerance
Statistical Difficult to estimate
related to components’
(add D2 ’s) (“depends”)
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.

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

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.]

Random sampling (Monte Carlo) example
21
 The load supported on the cortical portion of the bone,

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.

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
Load (N)
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

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
Load (N)
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

Tolerance Design
25
TOLERANCE AS VARIABILITY

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

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…

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)

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

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

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
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

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
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

Me 222 Tolerance Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Me 222 Tolerance Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tolerance Design

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424, TME 424, MSC 424)

 Where do tolerances come from?

 Tolerance Design methodology

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 Eli Whitney helped popularize

 “Took off” in the 1800’s as a

 Tolerances make sure parts will

 Set maximum and minimum values for some

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 User (customer) friendly

 Quick measure of “quality”

 Small D values are immediately impressive

 But what does the tolerance actually mean?

 Two common methods to specify

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 Inspect all components

 Reject (discard) all those outside of the tolerance

 All parts (that pass) will be within the tolerance

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

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

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 Determine final tolerance

 Determine how to adjust

 Want to determine the

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 Different ways of summing

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 With absolute tolerances,

mg ± Dg  Can also use with

 Most meaningful with

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 From statistics, know that uncorrelated variances

 Multiply thru by a constant squared, n2:

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Comp. m (mm) D (mm)

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Worst case Statistical

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

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

 May not apply to:

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 The load supported on the cortical portion of the bone,

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

 The table below gives some information on each of the

P (N) 1.5e3 20%

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

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Average Mean Square Error

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)

Average  1.09 e3 MSE  7.09 e4

PD Funkenbusch (ME 222/424)