×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

(OP)
Does anyone know of any resources anywhere showing the manufacturing capability* of (let's say) a sheet metal emboss, an injection-molded rib, etc.?

*In other words, how tight can tolerances be held for a particular type of feature in a diecast part, sheet metal parts, etc.

Thanks in advance.
   Dan (on da bass!)

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

Good one, and one I'd been planning on posting at some point.

I've looked on the Internet and you can sometimes find information for certain processes but I've not found it all in one document.

I'd love something like the standard surface finish chart (http://icrank.com/cgi-bin/pageman/pageout.cgi?path=/data/surface_finish.htm&t=2) for example, but for typical tolerances.

I assume you've already looked at Ctophers post from a few days ago.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

This is very highly dependent from shop to shop and machine to machine. For instance, I have 2 bridgeport mills in the tool room. I can often achieve tolerances of .0005 with one, whereas the other I'm lucky if I can hit .01. (both are manual).

Also, it is going to depend on what you define as tight tolerances. A .0005 tol may be tight for an engine valve, but may be loose as can be for a heart valve.

You really need to consider tol on a case by case basis and a shop to shop basis; and it's highly dependent on your product's requirements.

IMHO there is too much generalization that is attempted regarding tolerancing.

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

oh... and budget

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

Wes, you are correct.

Ideally I design a part based on my experience/function and then the relevant process expert looks at it to suggest changes, including tolerance, that could reduce costs/ease manufacture etc.

Back when I worked in a place that had its own machine shop and reasonable quantities of most parts I did this.  In fact for high production parts it was part of the design review.

This is more difficult when you only use external machine shops and are pressed for time.  For some parts it's still appropriate to take the time but but in my situation I have a lot of different mostly relatively simple parts but with low production rates.

So the initial guess is gonna be what you go with a lot of the time and it would be nice to get some information to support the guess.

Sometimes the machine shops come back with suggestions, sometimes they just charge to meet your requirements.

We've also had machine shops take it too far, make multiple phone calls etc on how eliminating or changing a certain feature could save money only to find out the saving is only say $20 each on a total run of only 5, the amount of time spent on the phone & investigating the change etc probably cost more than this.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

ISO 2768 kind of has this information.

http://www.ramo.se/iso_2768_english.htm

I'd caution against directly invoking this standard as frankly it's kind of lame in its entirety, especially some peoples interpretation of it.  (thread1103-196260: Tolerance analysis ISO2768 thread1103-197786: tolerance analysis to ISO 8015 & 2768 part 1 (again!))  What joebk  points out on the first thread is a major concern.

However using the tables to guide you in tolerancing a part per ASME Y14.5M-1994 or equivalent may be useful.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/kinzel%5CTolerance/NVtolerance.ppt slide 6

Not by feature as such but may be useful.  I've seen similar charts and I'm not sure how accurate they really are but may at least encourage people to try and relax tolerances where possible.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

If you have the chance, ask your vendors what they can typically hold, it's a good first step.  If you have internal capabilities, ask the supervisors.  Everyone wants to do a good job, some just charge more for it.

(Off topic Dan, I'm learning the bass, week 5 and counting)

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: manufacturing capabilities by feature type?

A former employer paid for all its designers and engineers to spend several days attending an onsite course, "Boothroyd- Dewhurst Design for Assembly/ Design for Manufacture" or something like that, including a room full of computers and access to the software package that actually contained process capability information for a huge assortment of machines and processes.  The price included an ongoing license or two installed on our network.

The software helped you generate what amounted to a process sheet for each part and then the assembly.  It generated a score for relative cost and manufacturability, and encouraged you to explore variations in methods, materials, etc.  

It would have been a wonderful tool for someone just out of school, if you could convince said young person to pay attention to the tool.  

The experienced guys mostly scoffed that it was all common sense, except of course where it disagreed with what they wanted to do, in which case it was obviously wrong.  They didn't use it much, either.

It did effect one change.  The software was very heavily biased toward snap fits.  All of a sudden, there were snap fits everywhere, most in inappropriate places.

Of course it couldn't deal with individual machine variations like Wes pointed out, but if you were considering a process that you hadn't used (and it was embedded in the database), it could help you avoid a few beginner's mistakes.  

I have no idea what the training cost.  It might be cheaper to hire or rent someone with actual experience, and it would certainly be cheaper to buy a book.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources