#132

A Practical Approach to Tolerance Allocation

M. N. Islam

Abstract This paper reviews the currently available tolerance

allocation tools and identifies their shortcomings which are then
used to create a better tool suitable for industrial applications.
The obstacle in the application of existing tolerance allocation
tools appears to be the lack of up-to-date cost data. In this paper,
a tolerance allocation strategy that is simple and practical is
presented. It is suitable for use in a Concurrent Engineering (CE)
environment and incorporates some of the existing methods/tools
viz. method of guided iteration, manufacturability rating
technique-baseline and decision matrix. The proposed strategy is
interactive and utilizes the expertise of all the members of the CE
team. It uses production time as the basis for optimization, thus
avoiding the need for cost-tolerance
Index TermsConcurrent Engineering, Decision Matrix,
Method of Guided Iteration, Tolerance Allocation

I. INTRODUCTION

OLERANCE allocation plays an important role in product

design. This is one area in which very little investment can
result in significant cost savings. For this reason, tolerance
allocation has been the topic of extensive research over the last
fifty years. However, despite all these research efforts, the
theories have not been applied in practice and tolerances are still
assigned based on past experience, a best guess, or through
handbook data. In recent years a number of tolerance analysis
software packages such as CETOL [1], DCS [2] and Vis VSA
[3] have been released commercially, but these have not
resolved this problem either. These packages often apply
statistical tolerancing theories (Monte Carlo simulation has been
found to be the most popular one) for finding the combined
effect of the input tolerances (part tolerances) on the assembly
tolerance. They are appropriate for verifying the results once the
part tolerances and their distributions are known, but are not
generally suitable for establishing the dimensional specification
where the prime objective is to determine part tolerances based
on functional requirements of the product.
II. REVIEW OF EXISTING TOLERANCE ALLOCATION
STRATEGIES
Over the years an enormous amount of research has been
published on tolerance-related areas, which makes it practically
M. N. Islam is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, WA 6845, Australia (phone: +618 9266
3777; fax: +618 9266 2681; e-mail: M.N.Islam@curtin.edu.au)

impossible to present an exhaustive review on this topic; hence

only a few representative research works are reported here.
Comprehensive treatments of the topic can be found in Chase
and Parkinson [4] and Hong and Chang [5] with about 104 and
270 reference papers cited, respectively.
In the literature, several tolerance allocation strategies have
been proposed and cost reduction has been the focus of most
of these strategies. The existing tolerance allocation strategies
can be grouped into three categories: (i) strategies that
indirectly lead to cost reduction, (ii) strategies that attempt to
explicitly minimize costs and (iii) strategies that attempt to
explicitly minimize quality loss and/or productivity loss.
The indirect cost reduction strategies are rule based in
which a factor is chosen that is believed to have a correlation
with both costs and tolerances; subsequently tolerances are
allocated in proportion to this factor. In general, these
strategies allocate tolerance according to the following
formula:

xi =

z
n

F
i =1

Fi

(1)

where xi are the individual tolerance values, z is the available

tolerance band, and Fi are the individual values of the factor
on which the allocation is based.
These strategies provide rough estimates of tolerance values
for the designer. They are simple, do not need a great deal of
manufacturing data and can be applied manually. Examples of
indirect cost reduction strategies are: allocation by
proportional sizing [6], allocation by proportional scaling [7],
allocation by constant precision factors [8], allocation by
difficulty factors [7,8], allocation by process variability [9]
and allocation by process capability [10]. Farmer [11] has
proposed an interesting variation of the allocation by process
capability strategy by incorporating ideas from the allocation
by a difficulty factors strategy.
On the other hand, direct cost reduction strategies are more
complex, require cost data and are usually computer based.
These strategies consist of two basic steps: (i) development of
a cost-tolerance model and (ii) applying a suitable solution
method to find the values of tolerances when manufacturing
cost is at a minimum. These strategies are further divided into
two types: (i) a continuous cost-tolerance model and (ii) a
discrete cost-tolerance model.

#132
In a continuous cost-tolerance model an algebraic
relationship is established between tolerance and cost,
typically using empirical data through regression analysis. A
typical cost-tolerance relationship is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Various functions have been proposed to represent a costtolerance relationship and various solution methods have been
applied (Table I). Comparisons of some of the cost models and
solution techniques used can be found in ElMaraghy and
ElMaraghy [24]. The main drawback with these strategies is
that the required cost data is not available, especially at the
early design stage.
Ostwald and Huang [19] proposed a tolerance allocation
strategy that minimizes cost with process selection based on a
zero-one algorithm presented by Balas [25]. Lee and Woo [22]
proposed another allocation strategy based on minimizing cost
with process selection using a selection method called the
branch and bound method. Chase and Greenwood [23]
proposed similar allocation strategies, but used different search
algorithms for process selection viz. exhaustive search method,
univariate search method, sequential quadratic programming
algorithm and others. Comparisons of all the allocation
strategies by minimizing costs with process selection
mentioned above can be found in [23]. These strategies use
discrete cost-tolerance models which are promising;
nevertheless the question of the availability of reliable data
remains.
Taguchi introduced the concept of the quality loss of a
product [26]. According to this concept, all critical parameters
(including dimensions) of a product should be at their target
values, which will ensure the products best performance.
Several researchers, such as Krishhnaswami and Mayne [27],
Sderberg [28,29], Choi and Park [30] Kapur [31], Fathi, et al
[32] and Jeang [33], have based their tolerance allocation on
minimizing quality loss and/or productivity loss, which is the
sum of quality loss and production cost. However, these
strategies require production cost data as well as
replacement/repair cost data, which are often not available at
the early design stage.
In addition, there are several other tolerance allocation
strategies that use relatively new solution techniques, such as:
expert system [34], fuzzy logic [35], neural network [36], genetic
algorithm [37,38], and experimental design [39].

2
TABLE I
COST-TOLERANCE MODEL EXAMPLES
Model Name

Cost Model

Linear

A - Bx

Exponential

Be

-mx

Multi/Recipr. power B/xkj

Exponential

-mx

Be

Reciprocal squared A + B/x2

-mx

Solution Method

Reference

Linear programming

Edel and Auer [12,13]

Graphical

Peters [6]

Lagrange multiplier

Bennet and Gupta [14]

Lagrange multiplier

Speckhart [15]

Lagrange multiplier

Spootts [16]

Geometric programming Wide and Prentice [17]

Exponential

Be

Reciprocal power

A + B/x

Empirical data

Discrete points

Lagrange multiplier

Sutherland and Roth [18]

Zero-one programming

Ostwald and Huang [19]

Expon./recp. power Be-mx/xk

Nonlinear programming

Michael and Siddall [20]

Reciprocal

A + B/x

Nonliner programming

Parkinson [21]

Reciprocal

A + B/x

Lagrange multiplier

Chase and Greenwood [10]

Piecewise linear

Ai - Bixi

Linear programming

Bjrke [7]

Empirical data

Discrete points

Branch and bound

Lee and Woo [22]

Empirical data

Discrete points

Lagrange multiplier

Chase et al, [23]

From the review of existing tolerance allocation strategies, it

is clear that allocation by minimizing cost is by far the most
widely applied strategy. However, to apply analytical methods,
continuous cost-tolerance functions are required and there is
no theoretical basis for this relationship. It is interesting to
note that different researchers have claimed their models are a
better fit with the practical data. This affirms that there is no
cost-tolerance function that is universally valid. Here, another
point worth noting is that when advocating a particular model,
almost all researchers used one specific model for all the
processes they used, whereas in reality, different models may
be needed to suit different situations. Because of this, the
designer cannot be sure about the suitability of one model for
any particular situation.
Another deficiency of the current approach is its inability to
appreciate the interdisciplinary nature of the problem, which
traditionally has been tacked by the designer only. The
Concurrent Engineering (CE) approach has been proposed by
a number of researchers [40-42] to overcome this problem
which has been adopted in this research. It seems that most of
these research efforts take the wrong approach to the problem.
When discussing engineering problems, Imai [43] wrote that
there are two different approaches to problem solving. The
first approach is used when data are available and the problem
is solved by analyzing these data. The other approach is used
when the set of data needed to solve the problem is
unavailable. These types of problems are suitable for solving
in a CE environment. In the authors view, the tolerance
allocation problems fall under the second type of problem,
whereas most researchers have been attempting to solve
tolerance allocation problems as the first type.
III. PROPOSED TOLERANCE ALLOCATION STRATEGY

Fig. 1 Typical Cost-Tolerance relationship.

The proposed tolerance allocation model is based on a

variation of tolerance allocation by the process capability
model proposed by Farmer [11], which is modified and
enhanced, keeping in mind its suitability for a CE
environment. It makes use of the Guided Iteration
Methodology as a problem-solving tool widely used in
Engineering Design, the details of which can be found in

#132

Dixon and Poli [44]. The Guided Iteration Methodology as

applied to the proposed tolerance allocation strategy is
depicted in Fig. 2 and its main features are presented in the
following sub-sections.
A. Tolerance Accumulation Model
Any tolerance calculation depends on the adopted model of
tolerance accumulation. A number of tolerance accumulation
models are available, such as Worst Case (WC), Root Sum
Square (RSS), Six Sigma (6) and others. The Worst Case
tolerance accumulation model is based on a worst-case
scenario and considers the possibility that all the component
part dimensions are at their extreme limits simultaneously. In
this research, the WC accumulation model is followed not only
because it satisfies the interchangeability requirements, but
because it is also the most widely used model in industry
settings. It should be pointed out that, if required, the proposed
strategy can be modified to include other tolerance
accumulation models.
B. The Starting Point
In an optimization process, selection of a favorable starting
point can significantly reduce the time needed to find the
optimum solution and in this respect, the combined wisdom of
the members of the CE team plays a vital role within the
proposed tolerance allocation strategy. To begin the process, the
CE team will consider the production of each part and propose
manufacturing processes that they think will be the most suitable
and least costly for the manufacture of each feature.
START

Formulate
Problem

Enter functional equation

Yes

Enter values of
non-negotiable
dimensions

No

Modify processes
through appication of MRBT

Modify design or
Modify assembly strategy

Enter proposed manufacturing

processes and their capability
details

Guided
Redesign

Select tolerance values

based on enlarged process
capability tolerances

Evaluate
Alternatives

Calculate Residual Tolerance

(RT)
Yes

RT = 0
Final Results

STOP

Fig.2 The Proposed Methodology.

IT 16
5

(2)

where PCT is the process capability tolerance (mm), X is the

basic size (mm) and IT is the International Tolerance grade, a
number reflecting the precision of the process.
To find the achievable process capability tolerances of all
the dimensions with proposed manufacturing processes, the
CE team may consult the process capability database and
determine the IT grade range for each proposed manufacturing
process under average conditions. The CE team will then
assess the difficulty of producing the feature by considering
factors that they feel will contribute to the particular case. On
the basis of this assessment, the CE team can select the IT
grade that they think is achievable.

Cp

Enlarge process capabality

tolerances

RT < 0
RT = 0
RT > 0

PCT = 0.453 X +0.001X 10

= (UTL - LTL) / PCT

(3)

Generate
Alternatives

Calculate process capability

tolerances

RT < 0

C. Determining the Process Capability Tolerance

Process capability tolerance is the smallest tolerance that
can be maintained economically by a particular process [9]. A
number of authors [7,11,45,46] utilized the following formula
to estimate the process capability tolerance achievable through
a manufacturing process:

D. Uncertainty of Input Data

It is proposed that the process capability tolerances be
enlarged by safety factors to account for the degree of
uncertainty of process capability data used. In statistical
tolerancing this safety factor is known as the capability index.
It is defined as follows:

Enter target values

Non-negotable
dimensions?

Although only the finishing process will be selected for

further analysis, the CE team will decide on a mini process
plan. The manufacturing departments staffs are usually
familiar with the way a feature can be produced and are
experienced in judging the relative costs and the achievable
tolerances. This knowledge provides an excellent starting point
for the proposed strategy even though the process selection is
an iterative one and the initial choice may have to be modified
several times.

RT > 0

Want to
utilize RT?
No

where Cp is the capability index, UTL is the upper tolerance

limit, LTL is the lower tolerance limit and PCT is the process
capability tolerance.
For a process that produces normally distributed results, the
process capability tolerance is calculated as six times the
standard deviation (6). It is recommended that a capability
index of 1.33 be selected for an existing process and 1.5 for a
new process [47]. The CE team still has to assess the actual
manufacturing situation and will decide on the values of
capability indices for each dimension and proposed process.
The CE team then selects tolerance values for each dimension
based on enlarged process capability tolerance. If desired, the
selected tolerance values can be adjusted to standard ones. A
list of preferred tolerances is given by Gladman [45].

#132

E. Evaluating the Alternative Solutions

The proposed strategy provides two quantitative methods
for evaluating solutions: (i) residual tolerance and (ii) the
effective capability index.
Residual tolerance (RT) is the difference between the target
value of the assembly tolerance and the sum of all selected
tolerances.
n

RT = z xi

(4)

i =1

A negative value of residual tolerance indicates that the target

tolerance requirement has not been met and some corrective
action is necessary. On the other hand, a positive value indicates
that some improvement is possible.
Effective capability index indicates how well a selected
process matches with the specified tolerance value. Effective
capability index is calculated using the following formula:
ECp = x / PCT

(5)

where ECp is the effective capability index, x is the specified

tolerance value, and PCT is the process capability tolerance.
F. Guided Redesign
For guided redesign, the following three strategies can be
adopted: (i) modify the process plan, (ii) modify the design and
(iii) modify the assembly strategy. The first modification
strategy to consider is to change one or more process
parameters. Then, the question arises as to which processes and
their parameters are to be changed? Here the strategy is to make
changes to those processes that have the greatest effects on the
residual tolerance. This technique is known as the Pareto
technique, which is widely used in quality improvement
strategies. It is a process of ranking opportunities to determine
which of many potential opportunities should be pursued first.
Details of the Pareto technique can be found in Pyzdek [48].
Then, the Required Percentage Change (RPC) for each
tolerance is calculated as follows:

RT
(6)
100 %
xi
The required percentage change for each tolerance shows how
much improvement is necessary to fulfill a target tolerance
requirement if only one process is altered. Nevertheless, these
values should be considered as indicative only. The CE team
selects those options that have the greatest effect and seem
feasible. The options must be translated into specific proposals.
For example, if the problem can be solved by a slight
improvement, then an option will be to remove the uncertainties
of that process so that the safety factor can be reduced. It is
estimated that if the IT grade is reduced by one, then the
tolerance is reduced by 37 percent. By using this information a
new process can be proposed.
When proposing a process alternative, all avenues for
achieving the required finish tolerance should be considered,
including whether to replace the finishing operation only, to add
a new finishing operation, to change the whole process plan, or
( RPC)i

to consider some other option. Here it should be pointed out that

while generating new process alternatives, the CE team, if
necessary, may decide to combine or change more than one
process.
If solutions cannot be found through the modification of
processes, then modification of design should be considered.
Anther possibility is to change the assembly requirement. The
proposed strategy discussed so far is based on a full
interchangeable assembly strategy. However, in some cases it
may prove to be more economical to relax the stringent
requirements of full interchangeable assembly and adopt other
assembly strategies such as unit assembly, selective assembly or
adjust at assembly. The selection of different assembly strategies
has a profound effect on tolerance allocation; detailed treatment
of this topic can be found in Bjrke [7].
G. Selecting the Best Option
After generating possible solution options the best option
has to be selected. The CE team members have to make this
decision. The most likely strategy will be the option which
adds least cost to the system. A procedure for taking such an
action is outlined below.
The cost of each manufacturing operation for the production
of any dimension can be calculated as the sum of handling
cost, tool cost, tool changing cost and machining cost. The
details of cost calculation procedures can be found in Ostwald
[49]. The cost of producing a feature can then be calculated by
adding the cost of each operation used to manufacture that
dimension. When the cost of producing all the features in a
part are totaled this will give the manufacturing cost of the
part, then by adding the cost of manufacturing of all the parts
involved, the manufacturing cost of the product is calculated.
Knowledge of labor rates and tooling costs is necessary to
determine the products manufacturing costs. These cost data
are site dependent and difficult to obtain, especially at the
design stage. For this reason, it is proposed that a decision be
made based on the manufacturing operation time required to
produce a product. This method is known as the
Manufacturability Rating Technique - Baseline (MRTB).
MRTB is a simple tool for evaluating the manufacturability of
a product design. Further information on MRTB can be
obtained from [50]. The formulas required for calculating the
time variables used are available in the literature [49,51].
The manufacturability evolution of designs by application of
MRTB can be enhanced by the inclusion of other parameters,
such as tooling, annual volume, overhead costs and other
important factors [50]. Here, it is proposed that the total time
required to produce a unit be used, which is the sum of
machining time, handling time and tool change time per unit,
as the basis of manufacturability evaluation.

Tu = t m + t h + t cu = t m + t h + t c

tm
T

(7)

where Tu is the total time required to produce a unit; tm is the

machining time per unit; th is the handling time per unit; tcu is

#132

the tool change time per unit; tc is the tool change time; and T
is the average tool life.
It is worth noting that the total time required to produce a
unit (min/unit) is the reciprocal of the production rate
(units/min); thus, the minimization of unit production time will
lead to the maximization of the production rate.
If desired, the CE team members can calculate each time
factor and make a decision on that basis. However, this is time
consuming and the team members are interested in a
comparative assessment (i.e., which option will least increase
the total production time per unit). Rather than an absolute
value, a decision matrix (Table II) can be formed for this
purpose and, taking one option as a datum (the existing
option), the effect of other options can be assessed. This
method is suitable for combining the judgments of team
members for decision making. The details of the decision
matrix and its use can be found in [50]. After deciding which
process is to be changed the CE team can recalculate the
residual tolerance and evaluate the outcome. The process will
be repeated until an acceptable solution is found.
After the allocation of tolerances according to the proposed
manufacturing process capabilities, if there is slack (i.e.,
residual tolerance is positive), then a decision can be made on
the basis of the magnitude of the residual tolerance. It is worth
noting that increasing the selected tolerances beyond the
achievable process capabilities may prove to be counterproductive as it generally does not reduce the cost. Moreover,
it might produce misleading specifications for the part, and if
the part is used in another assembly, problems might arise.
Therefore, the recommended option will be to change the
process and, for example, select a process with less precision
(higher IT grade). The possible change options can be
generated from the required percentage change of each
selected tolerance.
TABLE II
DECISION MATRIX FOR COMPARING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
Criteria

Weighting

Machining time per unit

Tool change time per unit
Workpiece handling time per unit
Total

Proposed Manufacturing Options

Option No 1
Option No 2
Option No 3
Datum
Datum
Datum

IV. AN APPLICATION

The presented tolerance allocation strategy is demonstrated

with the example given in Fig. 3. This example is taken from
Chase and Greenwood [10], first introduced by Fortini [8]. The
target values are changed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
strategy.
Functional Requirement:
Shafts endplay: (Z z) (clearance in Fig. 3)
Target values:
(Z z) = (0.5 0.266) mm
Functional Equation:
(Z z) = - (A a) + (B b) - (C c) + (D d) - (E e) +
(F f) - (G g)
(8)

Fig. 3 Shaft and Bearing Assembly [10].

Purchased Parts:
Retaining Ring, (A a) = ( 1.283 0.019) mm
Bearing,
(C c) = (12.936 0.032) mm
Bearing,
(G g) = (12.936 0.032) mm
The tolerance allocation procedure for the above example is
demonstrated in Tables III-V. This assembly contains three
purchased parts. Their dimensions are non-negotiable and are
deducted from the target tolerance value (Table III). Following
this, a turning operation is proposed for the manufacture of all the
remaining features. The process capability database is consulted
and the IT grade range for turning operations under average
conditions is recorded. The difficulty level of the manufacture of
each feature is considered and the IT grades for each dimension
and process under real conditions are determined. Then, the
achievable process capability tolerances are calculated using
Equation 2. The process capability tolerances are enlarged by
taking into account the uncertainties of each process.
After allocating the tolerances on the basis of enlarged process
capability, it is found that the residual tolerance is negative (0.015 mm). This indicates that some corrective action is
necessary. From the required IT change calculations, it can be
seen that to achieve the target values for the functional equation
concerned, the process used for producing dimensions B or E, the
IT grade has to be reduced by one (a 20.27 percent change),
whereas for achieving the same goal, the IT grade for the process
used for the manufacture of dimension D or F has to be reduced
by two (a 60.00 percent change). In this case, both dimensions B
and E have similar effects and the CE team can choose either of
them for further analysis. If the selected option is the
manufacturing of dimension B, the CE team members will be
able to determine how, in practice, the IT grade could be reduced
by one and propose new process plans. They can then decide
which option will be the easiest to achieve (i.e., which option will
add the least cost/time to the products manufacturing cost). For
making this decision, a decision matrix, similar to the one
explained below, is used.
After consulting the process capacity database, the CE found
that the finish turning with a process capability of IT7-IT9 and
coarse grinding with a process capability of IT7-IT9 could be
used for the manufacture of dimensions B. On this basis, the
following options are generated:

#132

6
TABLE III
AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY: INITIAL PROPOSAL
Target Value = 0.5 0.266
Retaining

Part Name

Shaft

Bearing

Bearing
Sleeve

Ring

Housing

Bearing
Sleeve

Bearing

Dimension

Sensitivity Factors

-1

-1

-1

-1

1.283

200

12.936

10

192.345

10

12.936

Basic Size
Purchased Part
Tolerance

Yes

Yes

Yes

0.019

0.032

0.032

Available +/- Tolerance = {0.266 - (0.019 + 0.032 + 0.032)} = 0.183

Proposed Manufacturing Process

N/A

Turning

N/A

Turning

Turning

Turning

P.C. under average conditions

N/A

IT7- IT11

N/A

IT7- IT11

IT7- IT11

IT7- IT11

N/A
N/A

P.C. under real conditions

N/A

IT9

N/A

IT9

IT9

IT9

N/A

Process Capability Tolerance (+/-)

N/A

0.056

N/A

0.019

0.056

0.019

N/A

Safety Factor

N/A

1.33

N/A

1.33

1.33

1.33

N/A

Selected +/- Tolerance (xi)

N/A

0.074

N/A

0.025

0.074

0.025

N/A

Residual Tolerance (RT) = {0.183 - (0.074 + 0.025 + 0.074 + 0.025)} = - 0.015

Required % change = (RT/xi) x 100%

N/A

-20.27%

N/A

-60.00%

-20.27%

-60.00%

N/A

Required IT change

N/A

-1

N/A

-2

-1

-2

N/A

Options selected for further analysis

N/A

Yes

N/A

Yes

N/A

TABLE IV
AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY:
DECISION MATRIX FOR COMPARING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS.
Criteria

Weighting

Proposed Manufacturing Options

Option No 1

Machining time per unit

0.43

1.00

Tool change time per unit

0.03

1.00

Workpiece handling time per unit

0.54

1.00

Total

1.00

0.430
0.030
0.540

Option No 2
1.20

0.516

1.30

0.039

1.10

1.000

Option No 3

0.594

1.50

0.645

1.40

0.042

1.80

1.149

0.972
1.659

TABLE V
AN APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED STRATEGY: FINAL REULS
Available +/- Tolerance = {0.266 - (0.019 + 0.032 + 0.032)} = 0.183
Proposed Manufacturing Process

N/A

Fine Turning

N/A

Turning

Turning

Turning

P.C. under average conditions

N/A

IT7- IT9

N/A

IT7- IT11

IT7- IT11

IT7- IT11

N/A
N/A

P.C. under real conditions

N/A

IT8

N/A

IT9

IT9

IT9

N/A

Process Capability Tolerance (+/-)

N/A

0.035

N/A

0.019

0.056

0.019

N/A

Process Capability Index

Selected +/- Tolerance (xi)

N/A

1.33

N/A

1.33

1.33

1.33

N/A

N/A

0.047

N/A

0.025

0.074

0.025

N/A

Residual Tolerance (RT) = {0.183 - (0.047 + 0.025 + 0.074 + 0.025)} = +0.012

Residual Tolerance after adjusting to Preferred Tolerances
Residual Tolerance (RT) = {0.183 - (0.050 + 0.025 + 0.080 + 0.025)} = +0.003
Selected Tolerances (+/-) [Fianl Rsults]

N/A

0.050

N/A

0.025

0.080

0.025

N/A

Preferred Tolerance
Effective Process Capability Index

N/A

N/A
N/A

Yes
1.33

Yes
1.43

Yes
1.33

N/A

N/A

Yes
1.43

Retaining

Shaft

Bearing

Bearing
Sleeve

Housing

Bearing
Sleeve

Bearing

N/A

Final Results
Part Name

Ring
Dimension

Sensitivity Factors

-1

-1

-1

-1

Purchased Part

Yes

Yes

Yes

Basic Size

1.283

200

12.936

10

192.345

10

12.936

Tolerance (+/-)

0.019

0.050

0.032

0.025

0.080

0.025

0.032

N/A

Yes
1.43

N/A

Yes
1.33

Yes
1.43

Yes
1.33

N/A

Preferred Tolerance
Effective Process Capability Index

N/A

N/A

N/A

#132

Option 1: turning (existing option, which is the datum option)

Option 2: add another finishing operation, which is fine turning
Option 3: add another finishing operation, which is coarse
grinding
For constructing the decision matrix (Table IV) for each of
the criteria, a score of 1.0 is allocated for the datum option
(Option 1). Then each option is compared against the datum
option for each of the criteria and a relative score is entered. For
example, a relative score of 2.0 indicates that the Option being
considered will increase the respective time by two fold.
Conversely, if the time is decreased by two fold, the relative
score would be 0.5. The weighting factors are allocated by
considering different magnitudes of the criteria with respect to
the datum option. Then each relative score is multiplied by
corresponding weighting factors and added together to find the
total unit time. The option with the minimum total unit time (in
this case Option 2) is selected. Then the CE team recalculated
the residual tolerance and found a slack (+ 0.012 mm). Where
possible, the tolerance values are adjusted to preferred
tolerances and the final results are given in Table V.

analyses the implications of their proposal, and then takes

appropriate action on the basis of a quantifiable parameter
(residual tolerance). It is both flexible and interactive. Most
importantly, the proposed strategy considers tolerance
allocation problems as decision-making problems rather than
as pure mathematical problems.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS

A tolerance allocation strategy suitable for a CE

environment has been presented. It employs the Guided
Iteration Methodology as a problem-solving tool and utilizes
the expertise of all the members of the CE team for generating
alternating solutions. Proposed solutions are then evaluated on
the basis of residual tolerances. Possible alternative options are
evaluated qualitatively with the help of a decision matrix. The
strategy also allows for quantitative evaluations on the basis of
MRTB and/or total time required to produce a unit. The
presented strategy uses production time as the basis for
optimization, thus avoiding the need for cost-tolerance data. It
provides a practical solution to the years-old tolerance
allocation problem.

V. DISCUSSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It must be acknowledged that the author did not have the

opportunity to form a CE team for solving the shaft and
bearing assembly problem as explained above; consequently,
solutions presented here may not be the best one. Therefore,
the reader is requested to pay attention to the solving
methodology rather than the final solution results.
One overlooked aspect of tolerance allocation by
minimizing cost, is the relationship between cost and process
capability tolerance. As shown in Fig. 1, the cost-tolerance
curve is a decreasing function and it flattens out at a certain
point. This is the point when tolerance values reach the
process capability tolerance. When the tolerance value is
larger than the process capability tolerance, the cost of
manufacturing remains relatively constant. Conversely, when
the tolerance value is smaller than the process capability
tolerance, the manufacturing cost increases exponentially. The
proposed allocation strategy is underpinned by this fact and
seeks to keep the manufacturing costs at their minimum by
selecting all tolerance values greater than their respective
process capability tolerances.
Chase and Greenwood [10] also used tolerance allocation by
the process capability tolerances method. However, when the
target tolerance could not be met, they scaled down all the
tolerance values significantly (by a correction factor of
0.47222). This means that actions would be required with
regards to all the manufacturing processes, which in the
authors view are unnecessary. A better approach, as described
above, is to identify the tolerance that has the most profound
effect and act accordingly.
The proposed strategy is most suitable for a CE
environment. It is based on the experience of the CE team
members and it is designed in such a way that decisions can be
made on a consensus basis. The CE team proposes a solution,

The author wishes to acknowledge the input of Dr. L. E.

Farmer (now retired) of the University of New South Wales,
Australia for the ideas put forward in this paper.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]

CETOL (n.d.). Sigmetrix homepage. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from

http://www.sigmetrix.com/default.asp
DCS (n.d.). Dimensional control systems homepage. Retrieved August
8, 2007, from http://www.3dcs.com
Vis VSA 3D (n.d.). Variation systems analysis homepage, Retrieved
August 8, 2007, from http://www.visvsa.com/
K. W. Chase and A. R. Parkinson, A survey of research in the
application of
tolerance analysis to the design of mechanical
assemblies, Research in Engineering Design, 3, pp. 23 -37, 1991.
Y. S. Hong and T. C. Chang, A comprehensive review of tolerancing
research, Int. J. Prod. Res, 40(11), pp. 2425-2459, 2002.
J. Peters, Tolerancing the components of an assembly for minimum
cost, J. of Engineering for Industry, 35, pp. 677-682, 1970.
. Bjrke, Computer-aided tolerancing, 2nd Ed. New York: ASME
Press, 1989.
E. T. Fortini, Dimensioning for interchangeable manufacture, New
York: Industrial Press, 1967.
C. A. Gladman, Techniques for applying probability to the tolerancing
of machined dimensions, NSL Technical Paper No. 11, Melbourne:
CSIRO, 1959.
K. W. Chase and W. H. Greenwood, Design issues in mechanical
tolerance analysis, Manufacturing Review, 1(1), pp. 50 -59. 1988.
L. E. Farmer, Dimensioning and tolerancing for function and economic
manufacture, Sydney: Blueprint Publ., 1999.
D. H. Edel and T. B. Aurer, Determine the least cost combination for
tolerance accumulations in a drive shaft seal assembly. General Motors
Engineering J., 4, pp. 37-38, 1964.
D. H. Edel and T. B. Aurer, Determine the least cost combination for
tolerance accumulations in a drive shaft seal assembly. General Motors
Engineering J., 1, pp. 36-38. 1965.
G. Bennett and L. C. Gupta, Least-cost tolerances II. Int. J. of
Production Research, 8(2), pp. 69-181, 1970.

#132
[15] F. H. Speckhart, Mechanism design: Accounting for manufacturing
tolerances and costs in function generating problems, J. of Engineering
for Industry, 94, pp. 447-453. 1972.
[16] M. F. Spotts, Allocation of tolerances to minimize cost of assembly, J.
of Engineering for Industry, 95, pp. 762-764, 1973.
[17] D. Wide and E. Prentice, Minimum exponential cost allocation of surefit tolerances, J. of Engineering for Industry, 97, pp. 1395-1398, 1975.
[18] G. H. Sutherland and B. Roth, Calculation of tolerance based on a
minimum cost approach, J. of Engineering for Industry, 97, 283-286,
1975.
[19] P. F. Ostwald and J. Huang, A method for optimal tolerance selection,
J. of Engineering for Industry, 99, pp. 558-565, 1977.
[20] W. Michael and J. Siddall, The optimization problem with optimal
tolerance assignment and full acceptance, J. of Mechanical Design,
104, pp. 855-860, 1982.
[21] D. B. Parkinson, Assessment and optimization of dimensional
tolerances, Computer-Aided Design, 17, pp. 191-199, 1985.
[22] W. Lee, W and T. C. Woo, Optimum selection of discrete tolerances,
J. Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 111, 243251, 1989.
[23] K. W. Chase and W. H. Greenwood, Least cost tolerance allocation for
mechanical assemblies with automated process selection,
Manufacturing Review, 3(1), pp. 49-59. 1990.
[24] W. H. ElMaraghy and H. A. ElMaraghy, Evaluation of cost-tolerance
algorithms for design tolerance analysis and synthesis, Manufacturing
Review, 1(3), pp. 168 -179, 1988.
[25] E. Balas, An additive algorithm for solving linear programs with zeroone variables, Operation Research, 13, pp. 517-546, 1965.
[26] G. Taguchi, E. A. Elsayed and T. C. Hsiang, Quality engineering in
production systems, McGraw-Hill book Co., 1989.
[27] K. Krishnaswami and R. W. Mayne, Optimizing tolerance allocation
based on manufacturing cost and quality loss, Advances in Design
Automation, 11, pp. 211-217, 1994.
[28] R. Sderberg, Tolerance allocation considering customer and
manufacturer objectives, Advances in Design Automation 1993. 2,
pp. 149-157, 1993.
[29] R. Sderberg, Robust design by tolerance allocation considering
quality and manufacturing cost, Advances in Design Automation 1994, 1, pp. 219-226, 1994.
[30] H. R. Choi and M. H. Park, Optimal tolerance allocation with loss
function, J. Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 122(3), pp. 529535. 2000.
[31] K. C. Kapur, An approach for development of specifications for
quality improvement, Quality Engineering, 1(1), pp. 63-77, 1989.
[32] Y. Fathi, R. O. Mittal, J. E. Cline and M. Martin, Alternative
manufacturing sequences and tolerance buildup: A point of view and a
case study Int. J. Prod. Res., 35(1), pp. 123-136, 1997.

8
[33] A. Jeang, An approach of tolerance design for quality improvement
and cost reduction, Int. J. Prod. Res., 35(5), pp. 1193-1211, 1997.
[34] D. Janakiram, L. V. Prasad and U. R. K. Rao, Tolerancing of parts
using an expert system, Int. J. of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
4, pp. 157-167, 1989.
[35] E. Dupinet, M. Balazinski and E. Caogala, Tolerance allocation based
on fuzzy logic and simulated annealing, J. of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 7, pp. 487-497, 1996.
[36] P. Kopardekar and S. Anand, Tolerance allocation using neural
network, Int. J. of Adv. Manuf. Technol., 10, pp. 269-276, 2005.
[37] M. Iannuzzi and E. Snadgren, Tolerance optimization using genetic
algorithms: Benchmarking with manual analysis, Paper presented at
the 4th CIRP Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Tokyo. April 56, 1995.
[38] G. Bai, C. Zhang and B. Wang, Optimization of marching datum
selection and machining tolerance allocation with genetic algorithms, I.
J. of Prod. Research, 38, pp. 1407-1424, 2000.
[39] M. H. Gadallah and H. A. ElMaraghy, The tolerance optimization
problem using a system of experimental design, Advances in Design
Automation, 1(4), 251-264, 1994.
[40] R. G. Wilhelm and S. C. Y.Lu, Tolerance synthesis to support
concurrent engineering, Annals of the CIRP, 41(1), pp. 197-200, 1992.
[41] L. E. Farmer, Function Oriented Dimensioning Enhances Concurrent
Engineering Performance, Proceedings ACME93, IE Aust., 1993.
[42] M. N. Islam, Concurrent engineering offers the best solution to
tolerance allocation problems, New Engineer J., 6 (1), pp. 14-15, 2003.
[43] M. Imai, Kaizen: The key to Japans competitive success, McGraw-Hill
Publ. Co. 1986.
[44] J. R. Dixon and C. Poli, Engineering design and design for
manufacturing - A structured approach, Massachusetts: Field Stone
Publ., 1995.
[45] H. G. Conway, Engineering tolerances. 3rd Ed. London: Sir Isaac
Pitman and Sons. 1966.
[46] C. A. Gladman, Geometric analysis of engineering designs. 2nd Ed.,
Sydney: Australian Trade Publ. Pty. Ltd., 1972.
[47] D. H. Besterfield, Quality control, 2nd Ed. Prentice-Hall, 1986.
[48] T. Pyzdek, What every engineer should know about quality control,
New York: Marcel Dekker. 1989.
[49] P. F. Ostwald, Engineering cost estimating. 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, 1992.
[50] Tool and manufacturing engineers handbook, Vol. 6: Design for
Manufacturability, SME, 1993.
[51] Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Vol. 1: Machining,
SME, 1983.