Abstract
One of the challenges facing precision manufacturers is the increasing feature complexity of tight tolerance parts. All engineering drawings must account for the size, form, orientation, and location of all features to ensure manufacturability, measurability, and design intent. Geometric controls per ASME Y14.5 are typically applied to specify dimensional tolerances on engineering drawings and define size, form, orientation, and location of features. Many engineering drawings lack the necessary geometric dimensioning and tolerancing to allow for timely and accurate inspection and verification. Plus-minus tolerancing is typically ambiguous and requires extra time by engineering, programming, machining, and inspection functions to debate and agree on a single conclusion. Complex geometry can result in long inspection and verification times and put even the most sophisticated measurement equipment and processes to the test. In addition, design, manufacturing and quality engineers are often frustrated by communication errors over these features. However, an approach called profile tolerancing offers optimal definition of design intent by explicitly defining uniform boundaries around the physical geometry. It is an efficient and effective method for measurement and quality control. There are several advantages for product designers who use position and profile tolerancing instead of linear dimensioning. When design intent is conveyed unambiguously, manufacturers don't have to field multiple question from suppliers as they design and build a process for manufacturing and inspection. Profile tolerancing, when it is applied correctly, provides manufacturing and inspection functions with unambiguously defined tolerancing. Those data are manufacturable and measurable. Customers can see cost and lead time reductions with parts that consistently meet the design intent. Components can function properly-eliminating costly rework, redesign, and missed market opportunities. However a supplier that is poised to embrace profile tolerancing will no doubt run into resistance from those who would prefer the way things have always been done. It is not just internal naysayers, but also suppliers that might fight the change. In addition, the investment for suppliers can be steep in terms of training, equipment, and software.
