Optimum tolerance design using component-amount and mixture-amount experiments

  • Greg F. Piepel
  • Cenk Özler
  • Ali Kemal Şehirlioğlu


The tolerance design problem involves optimizing component and assembly tolerances to minimize the total cost (sum of manufacturing cost and quality loss). Previous literature recommended using traditional response surface methodology (RSM) designs, models, and optimization techniques to solve the tolerance design problem for the worst-case scenario in which the assembly characteristic is the sum of the component characteristics. In this article, component-amount (CA) and mixture-amount (MA) experiment approaches are proposed as more appropriate for solving this class of tolerance design problems. The CA and MA approaches are typically used for product formulation problems, but can also be applied to this type of tolerance design problem. The advantages of the CA and MA approaches over the RSM approach and over the standard, worst-case tolerance-design method are explained. Reasons for choosing between the CA and MA approaches are also discussed. The CA and MA approaches (experimental design, response modeling, and optimization) are illustrated using real examples.


Assembly tolerance Component-amount experiment Component tolerances Mixture-amount experiment Tolerance design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kim JK, Chou RC (2000) The use of response surface designs in the selection of optimum tolerance allocation. Qual Eng 13:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Creveling CM (1996) Tolerance design: a handbook for developing optimal specifications. Addison Wesley Longman, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Şehirlioğlu AK, Özler C (2008) The use of mixture experiments in tolerance allocation problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:769–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jeang A (1997) An approach of tolerance design for quality improvement and cost reduction. Int J Prod Res 35:1193–1211CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jeang A (1999) Robust tolerance design by response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15:399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho BR, Kim YJ, Kimber DL, Phillips MD (2000) An integrated joint optimization procedure for robust and tolerance design. Int J Prod Res 38:2309–2325CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Govindaluri MS, Shin S, Cho BR (2004) Tolerance optimization using Lampert W function: an empirical approach. Int J Prod Res 42:3235–3251CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsieh KL (2006) The study of cost-tolerance model by incorporating process capability index into product lifecycle cost. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang MF, Zhong YR, Xu ZG (2005) Concurrent process tolerance design based on minimum product manufacturing cost and loss. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25:714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeang A (1994) Tolerance design: choose optimal specifications in the design of machined parts. Qual Reliabil Eng Int 10:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeang A (1995) Economic tolerance design for quality. Qual Reliabil Eng Int 11:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeang A, Chang CL (2002) Concurrent optimisation of parameter and tolerance design via computer simulation and statistical method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19:432–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeang A, Leu E (1999) Robust tolerance design by computer experiment. Int J Prod Res 37:1949–1961CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liao MY (2010) Economic tolerance design for folded normal data. Int J Prod Res 48:4123–4137CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mao J, Cao YL, Liu SQ, Yang JX (2009) Manufacturing environment-oriented robust tolerance optimization method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moskowitz H, Plante R, Duffy J (2001) Multivariate tolerance design using quality loss. IIE Transact 33:437–448Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muthu P, Dhanalakshmi V, Sankaranarayanasamy K (2009) Optimal tolerance design of assembly for minimum quality loss and manufacturing cost using metaheuristic algorithms. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44:1154–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng HP, Jiang XQ, Xu ZG, Liu XJ (2008) Optimal tolerance design for products with correlated characteristics by considering the present worth of quality loss. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shin S, Kongsuwon P, Cho BR (2010) Development of the parametric tolerance modeling and optimization schemes and cost-effective solutions. Eur J Oper Res 207:1728–1741MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tang K (1988) Economic design of a two-sided screening procedure using a correlated variable. Appl Stat 37:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu CC, Chen Z, Tang GR (1998) Component tolerance design for minimum quality loss and manufacturing cost. Comp in Indust 35:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu CC, Tang GR (1998) Tolerance design for products with asymmetric quality losses. Int J Prod Res 36:2529–2541CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Box GEP, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khuri AI, Cornell JA (1996) Response surfaces: designs and analyses, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology—process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheffé H (1958) Experiments with mixtures. J Royal Statist, Soc, Series B 20:344–360MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cornell JA (2002) Experiments with mixtures, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith WJ (2005) Experimental design for formulation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piepel GF, Cornell JA (1987) Designs for mixture-amount experiments. J Qual Technol 19:11–28Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piepel GF, Cornell JA (1985) Models for mixture experiments when the response depends on the total amount. Technometrics 27:219–227MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atkinson A, Donev A, Tobias R (2007) Optimum experimental designs, with SAS. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stat-Ease (2010) Design-Expert version 8. Stat-Ease, Inc., MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    JMP (2011) JMP version 9. SAS Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    SAS (2008) SAS version 9.2. SAS Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Minitab (2010) Minitab version 16. Minitab, Inc., State CollegeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Piepel GF, Cornell JA (1986) A comparison of mixture-amount and component amount experiments, BN-SA-2179, Rev. 1. Battelle. Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taguchi G (1989) Introduction to quality engineering. Asian Productivity Organization, Unipub, White Plains, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ross PJ (1996) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang J, Li SP, Bao NS, Zhang GJ, Xue DY, Gu PH (2010) A robust design approach to determination of tolerances of mechanical products. CIRP Annals–Manuf Technol 59:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg F. Piepel
    • 1
  • Cenk Özler
    • 2
  • Ali Kemal Şehirlioğlu
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied Statistics and Computational ModelingPacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconometricsFaculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Dokuz Eylul UniversityBucaTurkey

Personalised recommendations