Document Tight Tolerances
Document Tight Tolerances
(OP)
At our company, whenever a we have a problem with a supplier meeting our tolerance, there is grumbling from management, purchasing, etc., the gist of which is "@%$# engineers can't design something that anyone can actually build". While I'm sure there are cases where this is true, there are times when tight tolerances are justified. I think our problem is that we do a poor job of communicating *why* we need such tight tolerances. Our design process seems to just output the specs and drawings, but the reasoning exists only in the mind of the engineer who did the work.
Anyone else have this same problem? How do you document the decision to go with +/-.0002, or to use some exotic material?
Anyone else have this same problem? How do you document the decision to go with +/-.0002, or to use some exotic material?





RE: Document Tight Tolerances
I once had a drawing of a part that was scaled 100:1. the dims and tol were in microns.
The purchasing idiots changed the tol from .00002 to .005 & .010. They said it was to save cost and make it ease manufacturing.
With this new tol, the part can be air, or much bigger.
Hold to your guns, tell them that's how it is. Show back up and a tol stack-up with the dwg package.
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Fortunately, for most of the high ticket items they flagged we had tried not using invar and had done testing that showed the difference. Once this was established they were more willing to accept our arguments on other parts where we hadn't tried not using Invar but were able to do some ball park calcs etc.
Finally, for the couple of parts we thought were worth trying non Invar version of (legacy parts copied onto a newer system because they were 'common' rather than based directly on performance), the cost savings they showed were too small to justify the amount of testing required. This one sucked a bit as I'd spent a bunch of time creating drawings for lower cost version but c'est la vie.
On the tolerance issue, baffle them with math. Some time back I posted a spreadsheet for the hole position tolerancing per ASME Y14.5-M-1994 appendix B(2?). Some folks questioned why have a spreadsheet for such simple calcs, well this here is one reason. Being able to show those calculations to folks in a well presented format seems to hold more sway than some chicken scratch 'on the back of a fag packet' (as we used to say in the UK).
Aerospace and the like tend to be better at keeping copies of design calcs than some other sectors - heck in Aerospace they're often compiled into formal documents. This may be excessive for you but at least if you do calcs in some kind of log book then you can go back and look at them.
Hopefully if you're able to show them the math, or the test results a few times then they'll gradually learn that most of the time you aren't making this stuff up and they won't question it.
However, keeping design records such as tolerance calculations etc. for things like this - especially critical or non standard things etc. may be a very good idea.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Then talk to the manufacturing folks and discuss what is the capability of the machine... this is the other driver and is sometimes called the "bottom-up" approach.
Now work from both ends, getting to the middle to determine an appropriate tolerance. (This is a greatly simplified explanation, but that's the main idea I recommend.)
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
My experience has been that a lot of people generate fabrication drawings in brain-off mode. Tight tolerances are thrown onto drawings primarly for the heck of it. Your fabricators may not be taking you seriously. If you specify loose tolerances when you can, they are more likely to believe you on the tight stuff. At least, you are showing them your priorities -- what to work hard on, and what can be ignored.
You do not need to communicate why you need tight tolerances. This is design information that, at worst, could be proprietary.
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
The machine shop I worked in was owned by the glass plant corporation and our only customers were the glass plants of the parent corporation. So much for trying to saving the company money.
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
One idea that has been put forth is to require a written justification of tolerances lower than a certain amount, to be approved by a manager. Not sure what that would be, though.
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
So you'd need to make allowance for the process to be used, however often there is more than one way to skin a cat and generally designers avoid specifying processes unless it materially effects end function.
Like I mention above, I've shared tolerance studies, sometimes formalized in spreadsheets or even reports when necessary. Though I prefer not to spend my time doing that.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
I understand your frustration with the tolerance pushback. I'm 'discussing' proposed tolerance changes (that make the part potentially unmountable) with one of our suppliers right now. Not many people around here outside of engineering want to understand tolerance stackups until something doesn't work. The fact that things at technically too-loose tolerances work (due to luck and/or receiving better-than-spec parts) is often used to attempt to justify looser tolerances elsewhere.
It doesn't help that some of the components that go into the parts we design have uncomfortably loose tolerances (a pain in its own right when designing the mating parts) which make ours look quite small by comparison.
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Then I got sucked into cleaning up after someone else's redesign of tiny ball valves, all screw machine parts made in quantity. Based on my testing and analysis, nearly every design feature they changed made the product less satisfactory, but the worst part was the tolerances, which were apparently eyeballed by an old screw machine supervisor. Screws didn't seat properly into holes that were half a thread too shallow, o-ring grooves didn't always have enough volume, stuff like that.
So I set up a spreadsheet for the assembly, and a linked one for every component, with an entry for every stated dimension and its tolerance, and every stackup I could think of, and just beat on it until I could come up with a set of nominals and tolerances that always assembled and always worked. Then I marked up the affected prints and walked through the ECNs to fix the mess.
I also kept a chronological text file containing narratives about everything I knew, suspected, or found out about the product.
Reviewing the text file helped me make a strong argument for the changes with each of the ECN signatories.
The spreadsheet helped with the technical people.
The spreadsheet helped more with the production supervisors. If they made a counter-proposal to loosen a particular tolerance a bit, I could tell them and show them how they would then have to deal with tighter tolerances on other parts.
I would have killed for a software tool to make that job easier, but Excel was all I could find. In retrospect, I don't think such a tool could be made sufficiently flexible to be useful and sufficiently simple to be comprehensible, so Excel is still my tool of choice for such things.
Oh. The production scrap rate went way down and the product worked better.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Was the spreadsheet a way of justifying things to management, or was it just your process of analyzing and making decisions? At some point, you need your bosses to have enough confidence in you to accept your judgements.
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Later, I made a derivative but simpler and better structured sheet for doing First Article Inspections. That was made so that other people could use it with minimal training, but everyone else claimed inability, so I did all the inspections myself. Small outfit.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
I sometimes have a chat with management and try to get a handle on the level of risk they are willing to accept. Let them know that with excellent metrology, full or partial design of experiments, process capability studies, you may indeed be able to open up tolerances. Whenever possible, I base my tight tolerance on design guides that I can show management. Ex: The bearing manufacturer might tell me to hold +/-.0002. If management wants something cheaper, ask them if they want to take the risk and ask for a deviation in writing. I don't mind taking some risks, but I try to inform them as much as I can.
Peter Truitt
Minnesota
RE: Document Tight Tolerances
Different vendors have different skillsets. If there is an engineering requirement for a tight tolerance, and one vendor complains about it, then find another vendor how can do it (as long as you know it can be done and is necessary to the design intent).
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter