×
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

Significant figures and tolerances
8

Significant figures and tolerances

Significant figures and tolerances

(OP)
thread301-176582: Significant digits on tolerance

I dug out the above referenced thread and hope to get the groups opinion on this real world example:

I have a customer that has requested a coating thickness of 2 to 4 microns.  Their drawing doesn't reference any dimension or tolerancing standard.

Actual thickness of the part is measured at 4.2 microns.  I have argued to my QA department that 4.2 should be rounded to 4 as the significant digit in the specification is a whole number.  In other words, they did not require 2.0 to 4.0 microns.

Should the reading of 4.2 be rounded in this case?

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Hi microbus

I disagree with your logic, in your first line you stated that your customer required a coating thickness between 2 and 4 microns and thats what it should be, your tolernce band for coating thickness is 2 to 4 microns not 1.8 to 4.2.

desertfox

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

(OP)
Thanks for the reply.

My logic would actually allow for a thickness range of 1.50 to 4.4 on a specification of 2 to 4.  1.5 would be rounded to 2 and 4.4 would be rounded down to 4.

What I am trying to understand is whether there is a difference as far as rounding and significant digits goes for a specification of 2 to 4 versus 2.0 to 4.0?  Does "2 to 4" imply "2.0000000000+ to 4.0000000000+"?

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

hi microbus

No theres no rounding 2 to 4 is 2.0000000000000000000 to 4.000000000000000000000 thats it

desertfox

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

(OP)
Got it, thanks.
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

In the real world of manufacturing your interpretation of +/- one half of the least significant digit is commonly used. Only your customer can tell you what he really meant or needs. But if the customer did not care to be very explicit about a very tight tolerance requirement then he probably does not need the tighter requirement.

The statement that 2 to 4 means 2.00000000... to 4.000000... is not correct. That would require measuring instruments that are even more precise.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Hi Compositepro

I agree about the number of zero's after the 2 and 4 however the point was that a customer had requested a coating thickness of between 2-4 microns and what I was saying was thats what it should be between those figures or the max and min figure

desertfox

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

But, Dessertfox, if you think about it you are actually contradicting yourself. I understand your point but measurement and tolerancing are not so simplistic. Every measurement has a tolerance. Only the customer can define what the requirements are. If you are using a gauge that is only accurate to a half micron what does a reading of 4 microns mean? The issue can get very complicated. So if the customer requires greater precision he needs to be more explicit. There are whole books written on the subject and they don't provide a simple answer to the question. It depends.  

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Hi Compositepro

Every dimension as a tolerance I agree, if you write on a drawing or specification that the thickness is between 2 and 4 whether it be microns, millimetres,inches then thats what it must be, anything above 2 and anything below 4 is acceptable if its 1.8 or 4.2 its not.
If your measuring something then you need to make sure the tool your using is adequate for that purpose.
I have no doubt that its a complicated issue but unless their is any mention in the specification or on the drawing about significant figures which the OP as not mentioned in any of is posts then he is wrong to assume that there is.

desertfox

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

2
I must agree with desertfox. While I understand your point and your post specifically states that no standard is specified, there is a standard on dimensioning and tolerancing and to pretend it does not exist is detrimental to our common understanding, communication and commerce. We are currently using a standard, English as a language, to communicate; to change the definition of words arbitrarily would not facilitate that, either. Dimensional limits on a drawing have always been interpreted to be absolute. If you feel you method of measuring is not accurate enough and the .2 is a measurement error that is your business, your customer may not feel the same. If the spec is intended to be 4.2 it should be changed to say so.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Per any relevant standard I'm aware of what Desert Fox says about 2.0000000... to 4.0000000... is correct, for example ASME Y14.5M-1994 section 2.4.

Your get out is that your customer doesn't referance a standard (double check it's not in your or there standard terms or contract though, even if not on the drawing).  However, do you really want to play that game?  Is it worth winning this one at the expense of maybe upsetting the customer longer term?  Yes, you'd probably win in a court of law but do you want it to get anywhere like that far, where is the cost/bennefit.

Maybe you go back to the customer, ask what they want (Absolute or rounding sig figs) or maybe just ask if the 4.2 is OK on some kind of waiver etc.  and change your process to meet it next time.  Find someway to meet in the he middle.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

(OP)
Kenat,

FYI - I did check their terms before posting and there is no reference to any standard.  The issue has been resolved and the customer is happy to accept the parts at 4.2 microns.  After discussions with the customer, they actually want >2 microns not to exceed 5 microns.  The "2 to 4 micron" specification was a carry-over from a previous supplier's high end limitations.  They are updating the specification to read "2.0 to 5.0" microns.  This helps us both to have clarity.

There was no game being played here. You apparently misunderstood the motivation for my post.  I was looking for technical advise about the definition and interpretation of a somewhat vague specification, not business or legal advice.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

microbus, I put what I did because you explicitly pointed out that they didn't reference a spec.  Part of the reason for the development of the specs was effectively as a legal document explicitly detailing what you would accept.  So in this case, the technical specification and legal ramifications are intrinsically linked.

The concept of absolute limits is a fairly fundamental one in dimensional specifications on drawings, given that you weren't familiar with this I thought you may not have been familiar with other factors I went on to comment about.

Sorry if trying to take a broader view of the question upset you.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Glad that the issue is resolved. ^_^


All parties are correct.

The tolerance that is specified should be held.
but yet it's not a relistic tolerance that can be held.
if I remember 1 micron = .000039"
              so 4 micron =.000156"

which = .000117 tolerance which is not gonna happen.

I would have the drawing change MM or Inches thick
that is reasonable. without knowing the fit, form or function is tough to say.

.0001-.0005 plate is resonable to me.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

So what happens in a couple of years when another vendor is chosen to make the parts and wants to know if 5.2 microns is acceptable per the original arguement?  The original problem has not been solved, only avoided.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

ehw

the lower portion of the my previous post states
the drawing requires changed.
this would be the long term fix.

it is possible this is an old drawing & their customer is reluctent to change it. even if it's wrong.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

I was refering to microbus' comment that "The issue has been resolved".  The underlying issue has not been resolved, only the clarification of what the customer will accept.  Changing the units doesn't change the problem.  Dimensions are given as limits and significant figures shouldn't enter into it.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

ultimately it's upto the owner of the drawing what is required. Regardless of our opinions.

beating up microbus about this is just wrong.

The drawing is not practical.
and unless we know the fit form & function.
it's not worth arguing.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

It doesn't matter if the drawing is practical or not, and I'm not beating up on microbus.  Fit form and function also don't enter into it.  The problem is not accepting that a dimension and it's tolerances are limits that are not subject to rules concerning significant figures.  This is not opinion, but the basis of what is deemed acceptable when manufacturing to a drawing.  As such, it is a point worth arguing.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

ok then

the tolerance is 2 to 4 microns
in the inch = .000078"-.000156"
which is .000078" tolerance.

what type of plating can hold that tolerance.
my cnc grinders can hold that tolerance.
maybe if I lap them to 3 light bands flatness.

normal plating that I work with day in and day out
is normally .0005' tolerance (12 microns)

ok  

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

As I tried to explain, this particular situation may or may not be realistic, but it doesn't matter as far as the real issue is concerned, the one attempting to legitimize the use of significant figures in limit dimensions.  Your post explaining the problems of holding the tolerance may be true but in no way addresses this issue.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

the statement should read

cnc grinders can not hold that tolerance.

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

then we do not agree, because I deal with these type of issues every day.

my opinion is when the tolerance has to be held
and is a practical tolerance then it will be held.
having experience & knowing the product line is required.

it's not uncommon to hold diameters within .0002" tolerance.
or closer when it's required.

this product that microbus is dealing with could be for toy,
for all we know.

 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

I don't understand why you are so against the concept of limit dimensions.  If they are unreasonable, it is the fault of the designer.  The drawing should be revised to reflect reality.  It does not give the fabricator the freedom to choose whatever tolerance he sees fit to use (regardless of his reasons) without notifying the responsible engineer, who then will see that the drawing is changed to reflect what is being made.  That is what drawings are for, to unambiguously define the part, not to sorta define the part.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

(OP)
Here are some additional facts to help clear the issue, or fuel the fire, as the case may be.

The coating is Zirconium Nitride being applied to a implantable dental device via PVD.  The coating serves a functional service (prevents galling of threads and a press fit mating service)and also aids in identification of the part (color coding.

The customer came to us with a specification of "2 to 4" microns.  The customer's really could allow "2 to 5" microns but when using a previous vendor that could only put on a maximum thickness of 4 microns, for whatever reason, the specification was changed to 2 to 4 microns.  I don't fully understand the reason for the change to 2 to 4 but this is what I was told.

When I said that the issue has been resolved, I meant that the customer has accepted the parts with a thickness measured at 4.2 microns.  They also understood that a specification of "2 to 4" microns could be confusing so they added clarity and opened the range by setting the new limits at "2.0 to 5.0".  Now, if we get a reading of 5.1 or 2.1 microns we are out of spec.  So from the customers point of view and our point of view the issue has been resolved.  We now have a clear understanding what is needed to meet our customers expectations.
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Which question?  I was refering to the error in assuming that the issue was resolved because the customer opened up the tolerances.  The issue of parts in hand may have been resolved, but not the larger issue of sufficient part definition if significant figures were allowed.  That's another can of worms which seems to be an unwelcome guest in this thread.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

ok
apples & oranges

microbus did the correct procedure.
he contacted the customer & basicly submitted to MRB.
the MRB was use as is.

OK significant digits
in black & white tolerance must be in between.


 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

To most people there is no difference between a tolerance of 2 to 4 or 3 +/-1 and how these are interpreted. Perhaps there is but if we are going to argue it would be useful to provide some references, otherwise it is just one opinion versus another.

On the other hand it doesn't matter what standards are out there if neither party in a conversation or transaction is aware of it.  

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

The standard that I am most familiar with and based my comments on has already been mentioned as an example by KENAT.  Granted, if you are not bound to follow any standard, then it is only a matter of opinion.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Hello everybody,

Landing late in on this discussion I cannot let be commenting. I believe several different issues have been somwhat mixed together in the heat of discussion.

From a pruduction and technological point of view, this whole discussion boils down to the normal ground principles:

a) A tolerance is the exact figures put down on a paper, (if this is stated as a tolerance or given as a limit) and without any additional figures or variations up or down.

If there is any doubt about that this is the (real) tolerance: contact customer as stated earlier by others to clarify.

b) Producer and customer has to agree on test methode (measuring procedure) : where to measure and how to measure, if several tests shall be done, on different parts of one piece, each piece tested or statistical sampling, series of measurements with main figures, single figures etc.

c) Producer and customer has to agree on measuring instrument, type, how and when to calibrate and calibrating tolerances.

d) Producer and customer has to agree on how to handle deviations.

Both a. b. c and d may be very simple, or more complicated if technical issues are difficult or consequences large.  

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

Yes, what is on the engineering drawing limits must be held.
that is what is contracted by both parties.

No, It was not microbus question. However, the error is so obvious, it stands out like a sore thumb.

Limits must always be held, & I not against that.
what I was suggesting that the drawing limits should have been re toleranced by owner of the drawing to a practical limits thats all.
My apology to all if I offended anyone.
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances


mfgenggear:

...on the contrary, thank you for an interesting contribution!
 

RE: Significant figures and tolerances

thank you gerhardl

you too!!

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