MANE-4040 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LABORATORY (MSL)

Lab Report Cover Sheet

Lab 1: Geometric Measurements and Tolerances

Section: S4-R(12p)
Lab Bench: D
Submitted by Group Leader: Jes Champi

Group Members:
Niroshan Amarasiriwardena
Jes Champi
Kevin Chen
Mark Gaither
Jen Shields

Lab Scheduled Dates: __________________________________________

Lab Report Due Date: __________________________________________
Lab report Received Date (by TA): __________________________________________
Late Penalty Points (by TA): __________________________________________

Section Possible Points Points Given

Abstract 10
Introduction 10
Experimental Procedures 15
Results 25
Discussion of Results 25
Conclusions 15
Total 100
ABSTRACT

Mechanical Systems Lab 1, Geometric Measurements and Tolerances is an introduction

to statistical analysis methods for assuring proper and acceptable manufacturing practices.
In this experiment, statistical analysis is used on a set of ten plates and three brackets to
determine acceptable tolerances for the set. Using both calculated and measured statistics, it
was found that a low percentage of total assemblies would fit together with an acceptable
clearance. Further analysis was done to determine the most cost effective way to raise this
percentage to 99%. Additionally, the calculated statistics for single plates were compared to the
statistics for stacks of three. This analysis led to the discovery that while the mean is consistent
between the two sets, the calculated standard deviation differed. Overall, this experiment
teaches basic statistical tools, as well as laboratory practices, that engineers use in the real
world.

2
INTRODUCTION

The significance of this experiment is to understand geometric dimensioning and

statistical analysis of tolerancing. This knowledge will contribute to the design of functional
systems with appropriate tolerancing of mating parts and assemblies. The experiment
introduces how to choose suitable tools for measurement, determine tolerances and tolerance
stack-ups of parts, and predicting what tolerances are needed or currently exist in assemblies.
The nominal size of an element is generally used as an identifier which may not match
any dimension of the product. Whereas, the basic size of an element is the exact theoretical
size typically with stated maximum and minimum permissible dimensions called limits. The
tolerance of the element is the difference between the two limits. There exist different types of
tolerances such as bilateral, unilateral, and normal. The accuracy of dimension and tolerance
measurements plays an important role in determining how elements will mate with each other; if
there is clearance or interference. Clearance refers to the mating of cylindrical parts where the
internal member is smaller than the external. Interference refers to the opposite condition
where the internal member is larger than the external.
One tolerance or source of error to consider involves the accuracy of a measuring tool.
This value can be determined by finding the mean and standard deviation of several
measurements using equations 1 and 2, where n is the number of measurements taken and x is
the measurement value. Standard deviation and variance (defined in eq. 3 as the square of
standard deviation), are measures of dispersion of a distribution.
1 𝑛
𝜇𝑥 = ∑ 𝑥 (1)
𝑛 𝑖=1 𝑖
∑((𝑥𝑖 −𝜇𝑥 )2 )
𝜎𝑥 = √ 𝑛−1
(2)
∑((𝑥𝑖 −𝜇𝑥 )2 )
𝜎𝑥 2 = (3)
𝑛−1

Another source of tolerance or possible discrepancy that should be considered is the

sum of tolerances between several parts, or tolerance stack-ups. Theoretically, the assembly of
parts is related to the individual elements with equations 3 and 4, where N is the number of
individual plates in the assembly. This experiment will compare these theoretical values to the
actual values.

𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = 𝑁 × 𝜇𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 (4)

𝜎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 2 = 𝑁 × 𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 2 (5)

If elements must mate with a specific type of fit, the percentage of rejected assemblies
that do not satisfy this fit must be determined to meet a defined criterion. Assuming the
production process of parts is in statistical control, meaning variations in part dimensions occur
at random and their sources are not specific, then dimensional variations have a normal
distribution. The probability density function (eq. 5) and the cumulative distribution function (eq.
6) for the normal, or gaussian, distribution are:
1 𝑥−𝜇 2
1 − ( )
𝑓(𝑥) = 𝜎 𝑒 2 𝜎 (6)
√2𝜋
−𝑢2
𝛼 𝑍 1
𝐹(𝑍𝛼 ) = ∫−∞ 𝑒 2 𝑑𝑢 (7)
√2𝜋
𝛼, 𝑍𝛼 ≤ 0
={
1 − 𝛼, 𝑍𝛼 > 0

3
The area under the curve of a standard normal distribution is equivalent to the probability. The
standard normal distribution table provides the probability that a normal distributed random
variable 𝑍𝛼 , with a mean of 0 and variance equal to 1, is less than or equal to x. This
standardized variable is defined as:
𝑥−𝜇
𝑍𝛼 = 𝜎 (8)

Any normal distribution with mean 𝜇 and standard deviation 𝜎 can be transformed into a
standard normal distribution using equation 7. When independent normally distributed random
variables are summed, the summation is normally distributed with a mean equal to the sum of
the individual distribution means and a standard deviation equal to the square root of the sum of
the individual distribution variances. Thus, 𝜇 and 𝜎 can be calculated as follows:
𝜇 = 𝜇𝑆 − 𝜇𝜎 (9)
2
𝜎 = √𝜎𝑆 + 𝜎𝜎 2 (10)

In general, proper tolerances and geometric dimensioning are significant for a system’s
performance and reliability. Tolerances are set to meet a specific criterion to assure
functionality of the mechanical system. In this experiment, tolerance has to meet the 3-sigma
rule which dictates that for a normal distribution almost all values fall within 3 standard
deviations of the mean value. Therefore, there exist equations 10 and 11.
𝑇 = 3𝜎 (11)
𝜎𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑘 = √3𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 (12)

4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

This experiment entailed multiple processes to gather measurements using a set of 10 plates
and 3 brackets for analysis of measurement uncertainties.

For the first process, 40 measurements of plate thickness were taken with the digital
micrometer, one at each corner of all 10 plates. In the mean time, 12 measurements of the 3
brackets’ slot thickness were recorded using the digital caliper, one at each corner as well. All
these measurements were then sorted to calculate the means and standard deviations of the
plate and bracket.

The second process determined and compared the accuracies of both measuring
devices by taking 10 measurements of the same precision gage block with each device. Each
set of measurements was used to calculate the standard deviation and therefore the tolerance
of the device.

The third process measured the thickness of a stack of 3 randomly chosen plates using
the digital micrometer by measuring the thickness at any one of the corners. The measurement
was repeated 25 times before calculating the mean and standard deviation of the stacks.

Similar to the third process, 3 plates, as well as a bracket, were randomly chosen for the
forth process. Putting the 3 plates into the bracket resulted in one of the three fitments: did not
fit in, properly fit in, or loosely fit in. The loose fitment was defined by the gap size bigger than
0.01”. This experiment was repeated 25 times and the fitment results were recorded in a table
for calculating the percentage of proper fitment.

The last process was the most complex of all. The 10 plates were assigned numbers
from 1 through 10. Each time, a number from 2 to 9 was chosen, meaning the plate with the
picked number and the two plates with the contiguous numbers were the chosen plates. 25
stacks were chosen following this procedure, and then the thickness of stacks was measured
with the digital micrometer for calculation of standard deviation.

5
RESULTS

Measuring Device Accuracy

The digital micrometer and caliper were measured and compared to the manufacturer’s
claimed accuracies of ±0.00005” and ±0.001”, respectively. The group found that the caliper’s
measurements had a standard deviation of .0002 and the micrometer’s measurements had a
standard deviation of .00147”.

Measurement of Parts
Using equation (1) and equation (2), the mean slot thickness, standard deviation of the
slot thickness, mean plate thickness, and standard deviation of the plate thickness were found.

Table 1 – Plate Thickness

Plate Thickness at each corner Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
1 0.10025 0.09985 0.1001 0.10045 0.099935 0.00024302 0.015589
2 0.1099 0.1093 0.1093 0.1101
3 0.07925 0.0792 0.079 0.0792
4 0.1232 0.12285 0.12275 0.12345
5 0.08725 0.08755 0.08755 0.0877
6 0.1227 0.12305 0.12345 0.1227
7 0.1003 0.0992 0.10005 0.0997
8 0.11065 0.1101 0.1101 0.10955
9 0.0875 0.08805 0.0882 0.08725
10 0.0795 0.0793 0.0788 0.07905

Table 2 – Slot Thickness

Slot Slot thickness at each corner Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
1 0.299 0.301 0.3 0.299 0.29904 8.4269E-05 0.0091798
2 0.2865 0.2875 0.2885 0.2875
3 0.309 0.311 0.31 0.3095

Measurement of Stacks of Plates

Once again, Equations (1) and (2) were used to calculate the standard deviation and
mean of measured values. This time, the group made a stack of 3 random plates and measured
the thickness of the stack. Later, the group made a stack of plates by choosing one plate
randomly and stacking it with the next smallest and next largest plate in the sample.

Table 3 – Stack Thickness

Stack Type Mean Variance Standard Deviation
Randomly Chosen plates 0.30377 0.000467 0.021607
Stack Made With Ordered 0.30114 0.001003 0.032326
Plates

6
Cost Analysis and Adjustments
To calculate the largest tolerances possible while 99% of assemblies fit together with a
gap size between 0” and 0.010”, it was first assumed that the plate and bracket tolerances, Tp
and Tb respectively, were equal. Thus, cost will increase equally for decreasing tolerances.
Using a modified version of Equation (8), as seen below, was used.

𝐺𝐿 − µ𝐺
𝑧99% =
𝜎𝐺

where z is the value for the Cumulative Distribution Function which encompasses approximately
99% of the samples. Using Table E-10 from the Lab Manual, 𝑧99% was found to equal 2.57. 𝐺𝑙 ,
the gap clearance, was set to zero, andµ𝐺 , the gap standard deviation, was set to .005”. 𝜎𝑔 was
then found to equal .0019. Using the following equations:
2 2
𝜎𝑔𝑎𝑝 = 4𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑇𝑝 = 3𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒

The tolerance for plate and bracket was then found to be .00285”. To find from this the new
bracket size which allows for the largest tolerance with 99% fit, using the following equation for
mean calculation via subtractive process and rearranging to solve for mean bracket size:

µ𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 = 3µ𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 + µ𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡

The new mean bracket size was found to be 3.005”.

To find tolerances based on the two cost functions provided, first 𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡 was defined as𝐶𝑏 +
𝐶𝑝 , illustrated by the following equation:

6 × 10−6 $ × 𝑖𝑛2 5 × 10−6 $ × 𝑖𝑛2

𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡 = +
𝑇𝑝2 𝑇𝑏2

And the following equations were then substituted into it:

𝑇𝑝 = 3𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑇𝑏 = 𝜎𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡
2 2 2
𝜎𝑔𝑎𝑝 = 3𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 + 𝜎𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡
Where 𝜎𝑔𝑎𝑝 is the previously calculated .0019”. 𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑡 was then differentiated with respect to 𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒
and set equal to zero. By graphical examination, 𝜎𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 was found to be equal to .001012 and
𝜎𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 was found to equal to 0.001133. This leads to tolerances of .00306 and .003399 for the
plate and bracket respectively.

The statistical tolerance that is met by the sample set of plates about a requested mean of .100”
and .300” for plate and bracket thickness respectively is displayed by the table below.

Table 4 – Plate and Bracket Tolerance Around A New Mean

Plate Tolerance (inches) ±.04686
Bracket Tolerance (inches) ± .000465

7
DISCUSSION

Measuring Device Accuracy

The standard deviation for the caliper was .0002” while the standard deviation for the
micrometer was .000147”. While both of the instruments used to measure the precision gage
block were extremely close to the assumed true value of .250”, the smaller standard deviation of
the micrometer leads to a tolerance that is 1.4 times smaller than that of the caliper. The
advantage of the micrometer is more accurate measurements, but it is limited by its size and
measuring area. The caliper can measure depth and inner distance between points while the
micrometer can only measure the outside distance.

When measuring the plate thickness, the variance of the measuring instrument must be
considered. Using equation (10) and solving for the actual variance of the plate it can be seen
that the measured variance of the plates is so much larger than the variance of the micrometer.
Therefore, the difference between the measured standard deviation of the plate and the actual
standard deviation of the plate is negligible because of how accurate the micrometer is.

Measurement of Parts and Stacks of Plates

The mean thickness of the 25 stacks of plates was 0.303768”. This is extremely close to
the 0.2999805” thickness that is predicted by 3µplate, only giving a 1.26% error. The standard
deviation of the stacks of plates was 0.0216”. When compared to 3σplate = 0.04677, the
predicted value appears to be more than twice the experimentally found value. However, when
using the proper equation of√3σ2𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 = .027”, the stacked plate standard deviation only has a
percent error of 20% but a smaller standard deviation. This error can be explained by only
having a small pool of plates to choose from, small sample size, or a sample of plates that was
not truly random. For example, the variation in the plates seems to be exaggerated a bit from a
normal line of machined parts. There is a large range of part thickness from the smallest to the
largest plate.

To further explore how correlated measurements can affect the standard deviation
calculation, the stacks of tiles were built by choosing one tile randomly and using the next
largest and next smallest tile to complete the stack. This resulted in a standard deviation of
0.03233”. This standard deviation is much larger than the previous one because the thicker
pieces were placed with the thicker pieces and the thinner pieces were stacked alongside the
thinner pieces, leading to a greater range and variation of stack thickness.

8
CONCLUSION

This lab was performed to reinforce the concept that tolerance is important in the
manufacturing of any product. There will always be imperfections in things that are made, but
there has to be a precise tolerance in which these items can vary. The lab focused on
measurements and the tolerances that could be calculated given these measurements. We
learned how to effectively measure parts using both a digital micrometer and a digital caliper,
and simulated random assemblies to see how tolerances can affect them. We also calculated
tolerance based on cost efficiency and explored how lower and higher tolerances can affect the
cost. It was concluded that with a fit percentage of only 16% this current manufacturing process
for the given parts would be unacceptable in a real manufacturing scenario. By increasing the
average size of the bracket to .305’ and using a tolerance of +/-.005” and +/-.00285” for the
bracket and plates respectfully, it is possible to minimize the cost of production. These
tolerances would allow for a 99% fit rate for the assemblies to function properly.
Overall, this experiment covered key aspects of mechanical design, and how tolerances
and measurements can significantly affect the efficiency and performance of an assembly of a
design. This lab was helpful in setting a foundation for other experiments we will be doing this
semester, as well as what we will encounter in real engineering problems.

REFERENCES

MSL Lab Experiment # 1, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

J.E. Shigley and L.D. Mitchell, Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 4th
ed., 1983

9
APPENDICES

Table A1: Plate Thicknesses, Mean Value, and Standard Deviation

Plate Corner 1 Plate Corner 2 Plate Corner 3 Plate Corner 4 μp σp

(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
0.10025 0.09985 0.1001 0.10045 0.099935 0.000243021
0.1099 0.1093 0.1093 0.1101
0.07925 0.0792 0.079 0.0792
0.1232 0.12285 0.12275 0.12345
0.08725 0.08755 0.08755 0.0877
0.1227 0.12305 0.12345 0.1227
0.1003 0.0992 0.10005 0.0997
0.11065 0.1101 0.1101 0.10955
0.0875 0.08805 0.0882 0.08725
0.0795 0.0793 0.0788 0.07905

Table A2: Bracket Thicknesses, Mean Value, and Standard Deviation

Bracket (in.) μB σB
0.299 0.2990 0.00917
0.2865
0.309
0.301
0.2875
0.311
0.3
0.2885
0.31
0.299
0.2875
0.3095

Table A3: Plate Stack Thicknesses, Mean Value, and Standard Deviation Compared to Plate Values

Plate stacks μs σs 3μp sqrt(3)σp

(in.)
0.303768 0.02160
0.29145
0.30935
0.32445
0.3224
0.31265

10
 0.3115
0.29105
0.34855
0.3132
0.30345
0.24775
0.2994
0.334
0.30255
0.26925
0.3226
0.2898
0.31375
0.26875
0.2783

Table A4: Whether or Not the Stacks Fit, and Percentage for Each

Trial # Good Fit Negative Positive

Gap Gap
1 X
2 X
3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
7 X
8 X
9 X
10 X
11 X
12 X
13 X
14 X
15 X
16 X
17 X
18 X
19 X
20 X
21 X
22 X

11
23 X
24 X
25 X
Good Fit Negative Positive
Gap Gap
16% 40% 44%

12
Table A5: Plate Stack Thicknesses, Comparing Standard Deviation to That in Table 3

plate stacks σs3 σs5

(in.)
0.24895 0.020753 0.037688
0.25825
0.2785
0.28885
0.31145
0.32165
0.34395
0.3574
0.2482
0.25725
0.2779
0.28885
0.311
0.3214
0.34485
0.35745
0.32215
0.24875
0.2883
0.34445

13