Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
(OP)
Hello,
I have a question regarding the best way to dimension and tolerance close fitting, mating parts.
I have two parts made from 60-61-T6 aluminum that mate with a tongue and groove fit. I have a 0.250" wide tongue that must fit into a 0.250" wide groove. There cannot be any interference between the tongue and groove, but the parts should fit together with the least amount of clearance possible at the width.
Periodically, the part with the groove will slide on the part with the tongue very slowly, but the sliding is so intermittent and slow that friction and wear is not an issue.
I think the maximum amount of clearance I could get away with between the parts would be about .004" & I would feel more comfortable with .002".
1.which of the following dimension / tolerances would be best to keep clearance to a minimum (or are both the same)? They both have the same amount of total clearance possible, but from a machining standpoint, would one produce better overall results for the majority of parts?
A. Groove 0.250" wide +/- 0.001"
Tongue 0.249" wide + 0.000" -0.002"
Worst case = 0.004" clearance
B. Groove 0.250" wide + 0.002" -0.000"
Tongue 0.250" wide + 0.000" -0.002"
Worst case = 0.004" clearance
2. Are there any general guidelines when dimensioning and tolerancing mating parts like this? I want to eliminate as much clearance as possible and still keep costs reasonable. At what point would tolerances begin to really become a cost issue?
3.Provided the total variance in tolerance is the same, in general, is there any difference in machining cost between bilateral or unilateral tolerancing? For example, (plus or minus 0.001") versus (plus 0.000 minus .002").
Thanks for your help. I would appreciate any feedback.
John
I have a question regarding the best way to dimension and tolerance close fitting, mating parts.
I have two parts made from 60-61-T6 aluminum that mate with a tongue and groove fit. I have a 0.250" wide tongue that must fit into a 0.250" wide groove. There cannot be any interference between the tongue and groove, but the parts should fit together with the least amount of clearance possible at the width.
Periodically, the part with the groove will slide on the part with the tongue very slowly, but the sliding is so intermittent and slow that friction and wear is not an issue.
I think the maximum amount of clearance I could get away with between the parts would be about .004" & I would feel more comfortable with .002".
1.which of the following dimension / tolerances would be best to keep clearance to a minimum (or are both the same)? They both have the same amount of total clearance possible, but from a machining standpoint, would one produce better overall results for the majority of parts?
A. Groove 0.250" wide +/- 0.001"
Tongue 0.249" wide + 0.000" -0.002"
Worst case = 0.004" clearance
B. Groove 0.250" wide + 0.002" -0.000"
Tongue 0.250" wide + 0.000" -0.002"
Worst case = 0.004" clearance
2. Are there any general guidelines when dimensioning and tolerancing mating parts like this? I want to eliminate as much clearance as possible and still keep costs reasonable. At what point would tolerances begin to really become a cost issue?
3.Provided the total variance in tolerance is the same, in general, is there any difference in machining cost between bilateral or unilateral tolerancing? For example, (plus or minus 0.001") versus (plus 0.000 minus .002").
Thanks for your help. I would appreciate any feedback.
John





RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
It also depends on mfg process - extruded or machined.
Keep in mind that temperature plays a role, so you might want to spec the inspection temperature and check your clearances at operating temps.
enjoy
Keep the wheels on the ground
Bob
showshine@aol.com
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
gearguru
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
Lynn
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
If you need further help, please let me know.
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
Good luck!
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
Otherwise follow GD&T guidelines for fits and dimensional tolerance stack-up.
Woody Ebersold
Consulting Engineer
"AN EXPERT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE FROM OUT OF TOWN"
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
I just wanted to thank everyone for their replies to this post. I have received some interesting feedback, & I like hearing all the different points of view. Someone had pointed out that the length of the parts is a factor. I forgot to mention the length (1.375") in my original post.
At the website www.engineersedge.com under the DFM section, it states that bilateral tolerances should be used with CNC due to "cutter compensation". However, I am not sure if this would apply to my situation. I have pasted the link below if anyone wants to take a look.
Thanks again.
John
http://www.engineersedge.com/design_guidelines.htm
RE: Dimensioning and tolerancing close fitting mating parts
Good luck
Alan Minasian