Back in the 1940, when Stanley Parker, Mr.

GD&T, decided it was time to create a set of tolerancing

tools that realistically dealt with reality, two objectives were near the top of his list.

The first was to find a way to encode the fact that as bores get larger they may become ever more
offset from their nominal locations and still accommodate a mating shaft. His idea was that stating
that on the drawing made it possible for manufacturing to take advantage of this gift of Mother
Nature, and for quality assurance to base evaluation on real function rather than mere numbers. His
second objective was to find a way to encode the play, or slop, which is often present between mating
parts at the beginning of an assembly process, and which allows shifting one slightly relative to the
other to accommodate minor location errors in related mating features. The objective again, was to
make it possible to accept parts based on their functionality and avoid rejecting them based on
criteria that fail to take reality into account.

The tools he ultimately invented have always been called “material condition modifiers” and are
represented by the symbols (M) for the maximum material condition (MMC) modifier, (L) for the
least material condition (LMC) modifier, and (S) for the regardless of feature size (RFS) modifier. As
important as they are, their effect and use are frequently misunderstood. We hope that some precise
definitions and appropriate new names can reduce the misunderstanding. As we all know, these
modifiers can be associated with the tolerance value and with the datum feature labels in a feature
control frame, and in both cases are understood to lead to “bonuses.” The two main problems
associated with these modifiers are firstly, when to use which one for exactly what purpose, and
secondly how to assign numerical values to the “bonuses” they supposedly produce, when in fact,
under some conditions, what might be a bonus could actually turn into a detriment.

Figure
1.  A
featur
e
contro
l frame
with
materi
al
conditi
on
modifi
ers
We’ll start our analysis by setting forth the new naming conventions coupled with some brief
explanations, and finish with a little demonstration to underpin the applicability and usefulness of
the new names. In particular, as detailed in Figure 2., the second compartment of a feature control
frame, located on the western side of what we’ll call the “great divide,” is dedicated to specifying the
shape and size of a tolerance zone and, with the help of a “tolerance zone size” modifier, the
functional effect on it of any changes in the size of the controlled feature. The third compartment, on
the other hand, located on the eastern side of the “great divide,” is dedicated to defining the process
for establishing the coordinate system (datum reference frame) relative to which the tolerance zone
is to be oriented and located. This includes instructions encoded by “tolerance zone mobility”
modifiers, as to the exact effect each datum feature is to have on the process. 

In particular, the material condition modifiers associated with tolerance values affect the size of the
tolerance zone, whereby (M) leads to (M)ore tolerance, (L) to (L)ots more tolerance, and (S) to a
tolerance that is (S)tuck at the indicated value. On the other hand, the material condition modifiers
associated with datum feature labels, affect the (M)obility, (L)ability (instability) or (S)tability of the
datum reference frame—and therefore also of the associated tolerance zone—relative to each datum
feature.

Figure
2. TZS
and
TZM
modifi
ers—
The
great
divide
Excep
tions:
Altho
ugh
not
explai
ned
here,
these
functi
ons
are
invert
ed in
the
case
of
non-
DRF
origin
 overla
pping,
non-
envel
oping,
pitch,
yaw,
and
roll
constr
aining
datu
m
featur
es.

Tolerance zone size modifiers

In the drawing below, the tolerance zone size modifier (M) in the encircled feature control frame
requires the diameter of the position tolerance zone for the lower right hand bore to be fixed at 0.5
mm as long as the bore is at its MMC diameter of 11.5, but to expand by the difference between the
actual mating size of the bore and its MMC diameter as the bore gets larger. Thus, the larger the
bore, the more offset it may be and still clear a mating shaft.

Figure
3. A
GD&T
encod
ed
drawin
g
As a result, we can say that the tolerance zone size (TZS) modifier (M) encodes the clearance function
of a bore, and produces a numerical “bonus,” which must be added to the specified tolerance to
produce a total tolerance, calculated using the following formula:

Total position tolerance = (nominal position tolerance) + [(actual mating size) – (MMC size)]

If the bore is a cast feature, and the mating feature is a boring tool intended to produce a clean
machined surface, then, only as the bore gets smaller may it be more offset. This “interference”
function is properly encoded with the TZS modifier (L). Finally, if the bore serves an “aiming”
function, as in the case of a threaded feature, changes in size result in no functional benefit. As a
result, the aiming function is encoded with the TZM modifier (S) which provides no bonus for a
change in size.

Tolerance zone mobility modifiers

Turning now to the functional intent of tolerance zone mobility (TZM) modifiers, we start by
reiterating the fact that the alphabet soup pot consisting of datum feature labels and TZM modifiers
found in the last compartment of a feature control frame, is really a set of instructions for
establishing a datum reference frame. The process includes the visualization, and occasional physical
construction, of a set of datum feature simulators referred to in the Y14.5 standard as “true geometric
counterparts” from which we extract the associated datums, establish the datum reference frame,
and with which we transfer the datum reference frame to the actual part. In the current case, the
process results in the datum reference frame indicated by the DRF component labels X[A,B,C],
Y[A,B,C] and Z[A,B,C], found in Figures 3 and 4. As shown in Figure 4, the appropriate simulators
for the illustrated case consist of an upward pointing planar surface for datum feature A, an
expanding shaft for datum feature B, and a “tombstone” fixed at the virtual MMC size, in the case of
datum feature C.

Figure 4. A datum feature simulator set

Why must the simulator for B expand? The TZM modifier (S) encodes the fact that datum feature B
is expected to mate (S)tably with its mating datum feature, regardless of its size, i.e. without slop or
play. To achieve stability relative to datum feature B, the simulator must obviously expand to
consume all the available space inside datum feature B. A functional example would be a flathead
screw consuming all the space inside a counter sink.

Next, why must the simulator for datum feature C be fixed in size? The TZM modifier (M) encodes
the expected play or slop between datum feature C, a slot, and its mating datum feature, a tab. Fixing
the simulator for C at the virtual MMC size of the slot, namely 16 mm, will obviously allow the
simulator to roll back and forth inside the slot as the slot departs from its virtual MMC size,
simulating the residual (M)obility we expect during the assembly process. Because the datum
reference frame, relative to which the position tolerance zone is oriented and located, is free to roll
about datum B, so is the tolerance zone, which could therefore shift to accommodate a potentially
roll displaced bore, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure
5.  TZS
& TZM
modifi
er
 effects

The potentially expanding, and residually rolling, cylindrical tolerance zone defined by the encircled
feature control frame demonstrates the appropriateness of the new material condition modifier
names. It also makes clear that a tolerance zone size (TZS) modifier creates a bonus with a numerical
value which can be added to a specified tolerance, but that a tolerance zone mobility (TZM) modifier
creates a potential bonus that cannot be captured in simple numerical form and cannot be added to a
tolerance value.

Tolerance zone mobility consequences—the rule of simultaneous requirements

Whenever two mating parts experience mutual play, all the features in one part are free to move
slightly as a group relative to all the features in the mating part. Therefore, if certain features only
mate at one extreme, and others only at another extreme of the mutual play, the part as a whole is
nonfunctional. This state of affairs is captured in the extremely important “rule of simultaneous
requirements,” which, in its simplest form, requires all features referenced to a common, mobile
datum reference frame to meet their requirements simultaneously. Furthermore, if available play is
eliminated early in an assembly process by tightening fasteners before the play can be taken
advantage of, an otherwise functional part will appear to be nonfunctional. Tolerance zone mobility
can therefore occasionally be beneficial, occasionally detrimental, and therefore doesn’t always
provide a “bonus.”