Quality Engineering 2(4) , 461 -471 (1990)

CAPABILITY INDICES FOR PROCESSES

SUBJECT TO UNILATERAL AND
POSITIONAL TOLERANCES
K. S. KRISHNAMOORTHI
Industrial Engineering
Bradley University
Peoria, Illinois 61625

Key Words
Capability indices; Unilateral tolerance; True position tolerance .
Introduction

A process is said to be capable when it is in control and meets a given set of

specifications; and indices such as Cp and Cpk are used to measure the degree of
such capability in processes. Cp is the ratio of the variability allowed by the
specification (i.e., upper specification limit minus lower specification limit) to the
natural variability present in the process. The natural variability is represented by
6a, where a is the estimated standard deviation of the process. Cpk is the ratio of
the distance between the process center and the nearest specification limit to one
half of the process variability (3a). Cp gives an assessment of how good a process is with respect to the allowed variability and Cpk gives, in addition, an
assessment of how centered the process is with respect to the given targe~.
p
and Cpk are used to identify problem processes, prioritize processes for resource
allocation, and monitor processes in a department, plant, or company.
In some situations such as when unilateral tolerances or positional tolerances
are specified , these indices seem to be inadequate for measuring process capabili-

_\)

h1. t[::JS

3_.~
.

461
Copyright 1990 by Marcel Dekker, Inc .

KRISHNAMOORTHI

462

ties. This article examines this inadequacy and proposes some alternative measures for process capability in such cases.
Measuring Capability of Processes with Unilateral Tolerance

In a machine shop, several product characteristics have print tolerances that

allow variations only on one side of the target such as 3.5 +0.010/-0.000. Figure 1 shows two conditions of a process with one-sided tolerance and with measurements assumed to be normally distributed. In case (a), the process center is
located near the target and the variability is small, and in case (b), the process
center is farther away and the process variability is large. However, the Cpk calculated for the two process conditions are the same. The Cpk index, considered
superior to the Cp index because of its ability to judge process centering in addition to process variability, is not able to discriminate between a good process
condition and a poor one in the example where the process is subject to unilateral
tolerance.
The inability of the Cpk index to discriminate between the two process conditions can be explained as follows. The Cpk index evaluates a process' location
with respect to an ideal center which, in the normal bilateral case, is the midpoint
of the specification limits. In the case of processes with unilateral tolerance, as
explained later, the ideal location for the process is not a constant, but changes
with process variability. The Cpk index does not recognize this changing ideal
center, and so is unable to recognize a good location from a poor one. It is necessary to define a capability measure that will differentiate between good and poor
process conditions when the process is subject to unilateral tolerance.
Cpk = .002/.002 = 1.0

3.5

3.502

Target

Cpk =.005/.005 =l.O

3.51

3.5

3.505

Target

(aj
Figure 1.

(b)
Examples of process conditions subject to unilateral tolerance.

3.51

CAPABILITY INDICES AND POSITIONAL TOLERANCES

463

We first define the ideal condition for a process subject to unilateral tolerance
and then search for a measure that would distinguish process conditions that are
close to and those that are farther away from this best condition. When used as
guidance for process impr.ovement, the improving values of the index should indicate process movement toward the best condition.
The ideal condition for a process with unilateral tolerance changes with variability. When the process variability is zero, the ideal condition is the target. If
there is any variability at all, the process cannot be centered on target, a situation
different from the bilateral case. Then the ideal center is at 3u distance from target so that there is no production below target. Besides the ideal location, there
are many acceptable locations where 'all' production is within specification. The
acceptable locations range from the ideal location to 3u distance inside the upper
limit. Figure 2(a) shows some examples of processes with different variabilities
and their acceptable locations. Figure 2(b) shows the case with extreme acceptable variability, with only one acceptable position, which is also the ideal location.
A capability index is used in practice, first to differentiate an acceptable condition from an unacceptable condition of a process, and then, within the acceptable
set, to distinguish the one closer to the ideal condition from the one farther from
it.
The requirements for process acceptability shown in Figure 2 can be translated
into notations using properties of the normal distribution. If X and u represent
process average and standard deviation, and T and U represent the target and
upper limit respectively; for acceptability, the requirement on variability
translates to:

Target

Target

USL
(b)

(a)

Figure 2. Acceptable process conditions with unilateral tolerance.

464

KRISHNAMOORTHI

6u

U-T

==:> (6u/U - T) ~ J.0

==:> Cp

1.0

This requirement on variability is the same as in the bilateral case.

The requirement for acceptability on process centering translates to:
T

+ 3u ~ X~ U -

==:> [(X - T)/3u] ~ 1.0

==:> CpT

1.0

3u

AND

[(U - X)/3u] ~ 1.0

AND

CpU

Or, min [CpT, CpU]

1.0

1.0

This again is the same requirement used for the cases with bilateral tolerances
except that the target is used as the lower specification limit. Satisfying this
requirement will force the process to acceptability. Yet, this will not force the
process to move to the ideal condition (for its current variability). In order to
push the process to the ideal condition, the following requirement needs to be
added:
1.0 ~ CpT < CpU
This means:
CpT ~ 1.0

AND

(CpU/CpT)

> 1.0

The larger the value of CpT is than 1.0, the smaller the variability. The larger
the value of the ratio (CpU/CpT), the closer the process center is to the target.
It is important that the value for CpT be larger than 1.0, but too large a value
will indicate that the process center is too far from the target for the current variability. When CpT= 1 and (CpU/CpT)= 1 the process is just at the limit of
acceptability. For a given value of CpT, increases in the value of the ratio (CpU/
CpT) would indicate that the process is moving toward the ideal condition. Figure
3 shows some example process conditions and the corresponding values for these
indices.
In practical terms, for processes subject to unilateral tolerance, first the process
standard deviation must be estimated. If 6u is larger than the spread in the tolerance, steps must be taken to reduce the process variability. Once the process variability 6u is smaller than the specification width, the process must be centered at
T + 3u or slightly above it. Further reduction in variability must be attempted so
that CpT will assume values larger than 1.0. Too large a value for CpT would
indicate that the process center needs to be moved closer to target but not closer
than T + 3a. When this procedure of reducing process variability and then moving the process center closer to the target is repeated, the process will move

CAPABILITY INDICES AND POSITIONAL TOLERANCES

465

CpT" 1.0
CpU/CpT 1.0

Target: T

CpT> 1.0
CpU/CpT > 1.0

CpT>l.0
CpU/CpT<l.0

Target: T

Figure 3.

Target: T

Target: T

Examples of process conditions with corresponding values for the ratio (CpU/CpT).

closer and closer to the best condition. The measures suggested here would help
in monitoring progress in this effort.
For audit purposes, the requirement can be imposed that:
1.0

CpT

1.33

and
(CpU/CpT)

> 1.0

The above analysis assumes the process is normally distributed, and hence, a
verification for normality of the process is necessary. Although the analysis was
made with reference to a tolerance with an upper limit, the analysis would apply
to a tolerance with a lower limit as well. The condition for a lower limit L would
be:
1.0

CpT

1.33

and

( CpL/CpT)

> 1 .0

466

KRISHN AMOORTHI

Measuring Capability of Processes Subject to Positional Tolerance

When a hole has to be drilled or a stud has to be located in a given position,
designers generally provide a tolerance region, usually a circle around the target
position, to allow for the variability in locating the hole or stud in actual
manufacture. When the performance of the process is to be compared against
such a tolerance, a measure is needed to compare the variability and centering in
actual production with that specified by the designer. In other words, a capability
index has to be defined for processes subject to such positional tolerances.
Figure 4 shows an example where the position for a hole is specified along
with a tolerance region. In this example the target position (TP) is specified by
the coordinates (a,b) for the center of a hole, and the tolerance by the circle with
diameter D.
When the holes are drilled, the centers of the holes will not all exactly coincide
with the specified target position, but will be distributed in an area around a
center, say, CC (for center of centers). Let us assume first that this CC coincides
with the specified target position TP, and the actual location of hole centers are
distributed as bivariate normal around the CC . On the assumption that the deviations of the hole centers from CC on X and Y axes have equal variance and are
uncorrelated, the footprint of the bivariate normal distribution will be a circle
with center at CC. Figure 5 illustrates this case when the CC coincides with the
TP.
It might seem appropriate to compare the area of the tolerance circle and the
area of the circle of natural variability to get a measure of capability of the process . The assumption that the CC coincides with the target position can be
verified by taking a sample of holes, measuring the X and Y coordinates of their
centers and calculating (X,Y). If (X,Y) _ (a,b) then the assumption can be conD

TP : (a,b)

Figure 4.

Example of a positional specification.

467

CAPABILITY INDICES AND POSITIONAL TOLERANCES

Tolerance region

Region of natural

variability

TP=(a.b)

CC=('X,Y)

..

'. . . .:.: : ~ .sTucroa~2

_.,,Figure S. A positioning process: natural variability vs. tolerance.

~alid. The area of natural variability can be approximated by:

?r(3u ) = 91ra2 , where u is the (equal) standard deviation of the X and Y coordinates of the sample holes. When the standard deviations of the X and Y coordinates are not equal, the larger of crx and u1 is recommended. This will give a circular area for natural variability to be compared with the circular tolerance area
while giving conservative (larger) estimate for natural variability.
Thus, the capability index PCp (Positional Cp) can be defined as:
PCp=

1r/402
1 02
=-911'u2
36 u2

When PCp = 1.0 the natural variability is equal to the variability in tolerance.
When it is larger than 1.0, the natural variability is sqialler than the tolerance
variability. A value for PCp greater than 1.33 can be required to make 'all' hole
locations fall within tolerance. Increasing values for PCp would indicate improving process conditions.
Consider next the case when CC does not coincide with TP. Figure 6 shows an
example where the CC does not coincide with the target position specified. Tfle
figure shows the off-centered location in an exaggerated fashion for the sake of
clarity.
Again, if we make the assumption that the centers are distributed as bivariate
normal with variability in the two axes equal and deviations uncorrelated, the
PCpk (Positional Cpk) can be defined as:
PCpk =

7r/4 02
7r(V(X - a) 2 + (Y - b)2 + 3u]2
02

---;:::::::;:::==:::;::==::;:::==~-~

4(V(X - a) 2 + (Y - b)2 + 3of

.I

468

KRISHNAMOORTHI

Tolerance region
TP( a, b)

CC(X,

Figure 6.

Y)

A positioning process where the center of actual centers misses the target position .

It should be noted that when the process center CC coincides with target position TP, PCp = PC pk.
The requirement that PCpk be larger than 1.33 can be imposed for audit purposes. The process center will have to be closer to the target position and the pro-
cess variability has to be smaller than the variability in tolerance in order to meet
this requirement.
The following example illustrates the method of computing the capability
indices and interpreting their meaning for a positioning process.

Example:
The following (coded) data represent X and Y coordinates. of 30 holes drilled
against a true position (0,0) and tolerance diameter D = 2.
X:

-.514
- .346
- .440
- .632

-.622
-.448
-.524
- .376
= - .5034
S(X)
.1755
Y:

.372
.845
.372
.729

-.412
- .462
- .795
- .934

-.412
- .400
- .829
- .546

.663
.618
.290
.574

-.685
-.786
-.480
-.594

-.462
-.671
-.384
- .618

-.356
- .532
- .500
- .313

-.638
- .530
- .506
- .510

-.169
-.502
-.528
- .333
-.683
- .588
- .574
- .514
.5237 ______

-.274
-.347
-.436

-.494
- .257
- .370

-.576
-.386
-.885

-Jl9
-.480
- .380

=S(Y) = .1542

= .1755 (larger of the two sample standard deviatiom.,

PCp = (l/36)(4/.175s2) = 3.6
PCpk = 4/4[Y(- .5034) 2 + (- .5237) 2 + 3x.1755] 2 = 0.63

Estimate of <J

CAPABILITY INDICES AND POSITIONAL TOLERANCES

469

PCp = 3 .6 indicates that the variability in locating the holes is small compared
with the tolerance allowed. The value of PCpk = 0.63 indicates, especially since
PCp is large, that the actual hole centers are off the specified true position. This
can be seen by comparing (X, Y) = ( - .5034, - .5237) with the specified target
position (0.0). The steps to be taken to improve the capability of the process
become obvious.

Meaning of PCpk

A point needs to be made about the meaning of PCpk. It is only an index

which indicates whether the actual centers are centered around and close to the
specified target position. When the value of PCpk is larger than 1.0, there is the
assurance that 'all' holes will fall within the tolerance region. When the value is
much larger than 1.0, say larger than 1.33, the degree of assurance is larger. If
its value is smaller than 1.0, all holes are not within the tolerance region.
Although a process with PCpk of 0.5 will be considered worse than a process
with PCpk of 0.75, it should not be interpreted that one half of the holes drilled
in the fotmer case or one fourth of those drilled in the latter are outside
specification limits. Process improvements should aim at larger and larger values
for PCpk .

Validity of Assumptions Made

First, the assumption of bivariate normal for the actual location of the hole
centers is probably valid in many situations and can also be verified. The deviations on the two axes should be tested for independence and when independence
can be taken to be true, they can be tested for normality as two one-dimensional
variables .
Second, equality of variability on the X and Y axes: This assumption requires
that ax and ay be equal. When the deviations on the X and Y axes have equal
variance and are uncorrelated, the region of natural variability is a circle. Since
the tolerance region is usually given as a circle, the derivation and computation of
the indices are simple. When these assumptions are not true, the region of natural
variability will be an ellipse. Calculating the area of the ellipse and comparing it
with the tolerance area might give a more correct comparison, at least for the
case when TP and CC coincide. When they do not coincide, derivation and computation of the PCpk becomes complicated. However, taking the larger of the two
standard deviations simplifies calculation, and gives a conservative estimate for
the indices (i.e., smaller values than would be obtained by calculating the area of
the elliptical region). This may be erring on the safer side.

470

KRISHNAMOORTHI

Conclusions

Many machine shop processes are subject to the types of tolerances considered
above. Measures are necessary to compare the centering and variability generated
in those processes in actual production with the variability and target specified by
the designer. Several informal rules have been used for this purpose. The ratio of
the tolerance diameter to the major axis of the ellipse of natural variability has
been used as a capability measure. This oversimplifies the problem by not using
the information from the other axis . A comparison of the area of the tolerance
region with the ellipse of natural variability without reference to the centering of
hole centers has been used. This has the obvious drawback of giving wrong indications when the hole centers are off the target center. Further, simple comparison of areas of tolerance circle with the natural ellipse suffers from the fact that,
when the deviation in one axis is very small , while that of another is very large,
the area of the natural ellipse may be small but there may be out-of-spec values
on the larger axis. The capability index will not be able to detect this. The measures suggested in this article avoid these handicaps .
It has been recently brought to the attention of the author that Gilliland (1989)
is suggesting a measure for the two-dimensional case that would, for example,
evaluate the proportion of hole centers located within the tolerance region using
bivariate normal distribution, and invert the proportion into a univariate capability
measure through the N(0,1) distribution . Such an index would give additional
meaning to capability measurement although the concept and the computational
details will be more difficult to sell to the engineers and technicians . However, if
simplified formulas are made available to minimize computational effort, the
above line of thinking should produce some good indices.
It is recognized that there are many other special process situations, besides the
two considered above , where the currently available capability indices are not
adequate. Processes that are not normally distributed and processes that have
unequal, bilateral tolerance are examples of processes that offer difficulty. A
major purpose of this article is to highlight the need for defining capability measures for such special processes on a rational basis. The methods suggested here
may be the first steps in handling this class of problems.

Acknowledgment
The author extends thanks to the Manufacturing and Quality General Offices of
Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, Illinois, for bringing the problem to his attention and
providing financial support for the research.