QUALITY AND RELIABILITY ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

COMPUTER-AIDED TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS WITH

STATISTICAL METHOD AND OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES
ANGUS JEANG

Department of Industrial Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China

SUMMARY
Most tolerance design optimization problems have focused on developing exact methods to reduce manufacturing
cost or to increase product quality. The inherent assumption with this approach is that assembly functions are
known before a tolerance design problem is analyzed. With the current development of CAD (Computer-Aided
Design) software, design engineers can address the tolerance design problem without knowing assembly functions
in advance. In this study, VSA-3D/Pro software, which contains a set of simulation tools, is employed to generate
experimental assembly data. These computer experimental data will be converted into other forms such as total
cost and Process Capability Index. Total cost consists of tolerance cost and quality loss. Then, empirical equations
representing two variables can be obtained through a statistical regression method. After that, mathematical
optimization and sensitivity analysis are performed within the constrained desired design and process space.
Consequently, tolerance design via computer experiments enables engineers to optimize design tolerance and
manufacturing variation to achieve the highest quality at the most cost effective price during the design and
planning stage. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS :

tolerance; VSA-3D/Pro; cost; quality; regression; optimization

1. INTRODUCTION
One robust design method, the experimental design
approach, is used by quality engineers to reduce
the effects of variation [1,8]. Experimental design
methods play a major role in engineering design
activities, during which new products are developed
and existing ones are improved. These methods
have broad application in many industries, and
may lead to the development of products with
enhanced functionality and quality, lower cost, and
shorter design and development stages. In some
circumstances, simple physical experiments may
become impractical, particularly at the beginning of
the design stage; fortunately, however, with recent
developments expanding the power of computers and
software, many products are now routinely designed
with the aid of computer experiments [13]. As a
result, these complicated tasks become workable in
many practical applications. Computer experiments
sometimes replace physical experiments, reducing
the cost of experimentation and, perhaps more
importantly, speeding up product development.
This study discusses an assembly design experiment
Correspondence to: A. Jeang, Department of Industrial Engineer-

ing, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

which may be carried out via computer. Authors who

discuss this approach for assembly design include
Doydum and Perreira, and Feng and Kusiak [2,3].
Doydum and Perreira propose the Monte Carlo
Simulation as a design method for assemblies with
irregular and complex cross sections. Feng and Kusiak
also use Monte Carlo Simulation combined with the
Design of Experiment (DOE) approach for the design
of assemblies. However, they assume the assembly
function is known before the computer simulation can
be performed. As is well known, there are two types
of tolerance, dimensional tolerance and geometrical
tolerance [7]. In their work, only dimensional
tolerance is considered. In addition, tolerance analysis
and synthesis should not ignore criteria such as
quality, cost, process capability; in particular, these
criteria should not be considered independently. In
these respects, the following study attempts to extend
previous work using existing computer software,
statistical methods and optimization techniques to
design a complicated assembly.
This paper is divided into the following sections:
Section 2 provides relevant background information;
Section 3 presents an application to demonstrate the
approach; Section 4 contains a discussion, and a
summary is given in Section 5.
Received 10 July 1999
Revised 25 October 2000

132

A. JEANG

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following background information needs to be
introduced before this approach is developed: resultant
tolerance and resultant variance, computer experiment for problem simulation, process capability index,
tolerance-cost function, quality loss function, statistical regression model, and optimization techniques.
They are introduced in the following.
2.1. Resultant tolerance and resultant variance
An assembled product consists of many components created by different processes; thus, the question
becomes how to determine which combination of
component tolerances is best. Therefore, in addition
to tolerance design for a single component of a product, most design problems should allocate component
tolerances so that the output dimensions of a final
assembled product fall into acceptable ranges. The
assembly dimensions of a completed product are a
combination of the dimensions of several components.
This causes the overall assembly dimensions to vary.
Tolerance analysis relates to the variation of total
assembly tolerances (resultant tolerances) to the variation of component tolerances.
2.2. Computer experiment for problem simulation
To analyze a tolerancing problem properly, functional relationships between the component dimensions and assembly dimensions should be identified
beforehand. These functions will be referred to as
assembly functions in the following discussion. Assembly functions may appear in any form. However,
these functions are usually not known, are difficult to
obtain, or are in very complex forms. For example, it is
difficult to contain the features of multiple dimensions
or geometric tolerances in assembly functions. In addition, designers prefer to have as many feasible designs
as possible to allow for changes as the design team
encounters complexities. These arguments make it
necessary to define various assembly functions before
tolerancing analysis. This becomes an impractical task
due to the hundreds or even thousands of calculations
needed for design activities. Fortunately, with the
recent development of expanded power in computers
and software, most of these tasks are workable. In this
study, the VSA-3D/Pro model, a 3D tolerance analysis
integrated with Pro/E, is employed to analyze the
presented tolerancing problem [12]. Figure 1 depicts
that five tools in VSA-3D/Pro model are used to
generate a complete VSA-3D model for an assembly. They include VSA-APP, Pro/E, VSA-GDT/Pro,
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 1. Flow for creating the VSA-3D/Pro model

Pro/ASSEMBLY, VSA-3D/Pro, and VSA-3D analysis

tools.
Except for the VSA-APP and the VSA-3D analysis
tools, the generation processes are working exclusively within the Pro/E interface. A representation for
a part is created using the VSA-APP tool. These representations enable the graphical display of the assembly
sequence and relationships, and are used as a reference
when creating assemblies with Pro/E interface. For
working within the Pro/E interface, the part creation
and tolerancing need to be performed using Pro/E
tools at the beginning stage. VSA-GDT/Pro is used
to create a Functional Feature Model which helps us
to verify that the tolerance schemes are complete and
conform to ANSI/ISO standards. Instead of merely
creating the drawing of an assembly which is done
in VSA-APP, the Pro/ASSEMBLY is used to create
a 3D model in Pro/E and analyze the assembly of
the model with respect to certain measurements; the
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

133

COMPUTER-AIDED TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS

Figure 2. A motor assembly drawing

specific assembly sequence and assembly methods

become very important to this point. Once the assembly methods are complete, VSA-3D/Pro is used to
verify the assembly methods and assembly constraints,
create all necessary measurements, and generate the
VSA-3D Model. This model will be used to simulate
the building of the assembly in the VAS-3D Analysis.
A Monte Carlo simulation is performed to provide an
accurate assessment of experimental data such as resultant means and resultant variances without knowing
the assembly functions. These data are then analyzed
and converted into valuable information which enables
designers to determine an appropriate tolerance allocation during the design process.
2.3. Information needed for problem optimization
In this study, information converted from experimental data, Cpk and T C (total cost), will be employed for analysis. The value Cpk is a process capability index used to compare the range allowed
by the design tolerance with the spread of data [6].
Since a high value for Cpk represents a large deviation
between the mean value and the design tolerance, with
little process variance, the higher the value of Cpk , the
better the design. The value can be calculated using
the following formula:



UDLr Ur Ur LDLr
,
Cpkr = Min
(1)
3r
3r
The values, resultant mean Ur and resultant variance
r , are the experimental data derived from computer
simulation. UDLr is the upper design limit. LDLr is
the lower design limit. r ranges from 1 to q. q is the
total number of assembly dimensions in an assembly.
Other important information, such as cost of
manufacturing and loss of quality should also be
considered. Hence, the need to utilize experimental
data from computer experiments and to convert it
into information which helps the designer in tolerance
analysis.
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Costs incurred during a product life cycle can

be divided into two main categories: manufacturing
costs, which occur before the product reaches the
customer, and quality loss, which occurs after the
product is sold [9]. In this study T C, which is the
sum of manufacturing costs and quality losses, will be
introduced in representing the converted information.
Manufacturing cost can be expressed as a function
of tolerance. The cost equation, CM (t) = a + b/t 2 ,
as proposed by Spotts [10] has parameters a and
b which can be estimated from regression based
on dollar values. In addition to manufacturing costs
occurring in-house, Taguchi suggests a loss function,
L(Y ) = K(Y T )2 . This loss function represents
the measurements of product quality characteristics,
Y , deviating from the expected target, T , where K is
the quality loss coefficient [11]. The value K is the
loss due to failure, Cq , divided by the square of design
tolerance, S. That is K = Cq /S 2 . The expected value
of loss function, L(Y ), can be written as K[(U T )2 +
2 ] with a mean, U , and variance, 2 , of Y . In general,
a loose tolerance (low manufacturing cost) indicates
that the variability of product quality characteristics
will be great (high quality loss). On the other hand,
a tight tolerance (high manufacturing cost) shows that
the variability of product quality characteristics will
be small (low quality loss). Hence, there is a need
to adjust the design tolerances to reach an economic
balance between quality loss and manufacturing cost
during tolerance design [4,5]. The total cost function
is
q
m


kr [(Ur Tr )2 + r2 ] +
CM (ti ) (2)
TC =
r=1

i=1

The value m is the total number of components of q

assembly dimensions in an assembly. The tolerance
costs, CM (ti ), are based on the tolerance levels, ti ,
established in the computer experiments.
2.4. Statistical regression model
One of the most important applications of statistics
involves estimating the response value Y based on
knowledge of a set of related independent variables
X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . , Xn . For most real-life applications, a
curvature in the response surface may be expected [8].
Hence, a second-order regression model will be
employed to analyze the key information, T C and
Cpk , in this study. The general form is
Y = a0 +

n

i=1

ai Xi +

n

i=1

bi xi2 +

n 
n


cij Xi Xj

i=1 j =1

(3)
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

134

A. JEANG

Figure 3. Xbase

Figure 4. Motor base

In this study, X1 , X2 , X3 , . . . , Xn represent t1 , t2 , t3 ,

. . . , tm .
2.5. Optimization techniques
Mathematical programming can represent one
problem formulation that generalizes all deterministic
operations research techniques [1]. The problem
formulation is presented as
optimize

F (X)

(4)

subject to

fj (X) bj

(5)

where X is a set representing the tolerances, t1 , t2 , t3 ,

. . . , tm . F (X) is the objective function and fj (X) is
constraint set function. In this study, F (x) is the total
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 5. Shaft

cost T C which must be minimized. fj (X) contains

two types of constraints: (1) the process capability
index, Cpk , should be no less than the specified level,
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

135

COMPUTER-AIDED TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS

Figure 6. Motor

and (2) the allocation tolerances, X, should fall within

an acceptable range due to the restriction of product
functionality and process capability.

3. AN APPLICATION
This application is related to a motor assembly which
consists of items such as Xbase, crank, shaft, and
motor base. Figures 27 depict graphic representations
of the motor assembly with dimensioning and
tolerancing schemes. The relevant information for the
above figures is provided in Table 1. The ordering
numbers in the first row from Table 1 are also shown
in Figures 37 for the purpose of easy reference. The
component tolerances provide the main contribution
to the variations of final assembly dimensions. There
is only one assembly dimension, which is called
clearance in this example. The object is to determine
an appropriate tolerance allocation so that there is
sufficient space between the crank and the Xbase.
To ensure that the product functionality is performed
properly, the dimension value of clearance should
not fall below the lower design limit 0.70 cm with
target value 0.89 cm. Among geometrical features,
Xbase flatness, motor base flatness, motor shaft size,
and motor shaft perpendicularity are the relevant
factors which influence the clearance measurement.
Hence, these four features will be selected as input
factors in the computer-aided tolerancing analysis.
For convenience, they are called factors A, B, C,
and D, which are shown in the second column of
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 7. Crank

Table 1. The number of levels for factor A (Xbase

flatness) and factor C (motor shaft size) is three,
and the number of levels for factor B (motor base
flatness) and factor D (motor shaft perpendicularity)
is two. There are only two levels for the latter two
factors because the third level has no influence on
the clearance measurement. Consequently, one level is
eliminated to reduce the total number of experimental
runs. Table 2 shows the factors and levels of a full
factorial experiment with 36 runs. They are tA , tB ,
tC , and tD , in representation of factors A, B, C,
and D respectively. Each run repeats 400 times to
obtain adequate samples for accurate results, which
are the variance, 2 , and mean, U . These results (or
experimental data) are also summarized in Table 2.
The total loss, Cq , is 722 dollars, and design tolerance,
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

136

A. JEANG

Table 1. Dimensioning and tolerancing schemes for motor assembly

Tolerance
and size no.

Component

Geometry
feature

Illustration

X base
(A)

Flatness

Surface on
X base

Motor
base
Motor base
(B)

Profile

Surface on
motor base
Surface on the
bottom of
motor base
Size of shaft (with
target value
2.0 cm)
Perpendicularity
of shaft

Flatness

Motor shaft
(C)

Size

Motor shaft
(D)

Perpendicularity

Motor shaft

Profile

Motor

Size

Motor

Position

Crank

Size

10

Crank

Perpendicularity

Profile of
shaft
Hole size
of motor
Hole position
of motor
Hole size
of crank
Hole perpendicularity
of crank

S, is 0.19 cm, which is the difference between the

lower design limit and the target value. The constant,
K, is 720/(0.19)2 = 20 000. T is the target value
for the dimension measurement at clearance, which is
0.89 cm as mentioned in above illustration. CM (tA ),
CM (tB ), CM (tC ), and CM (tD ) are the tolerance costs
in dollar values, shown in Table 3. In this example,
q is 1 and m is 4. With equations (1) and (2), the
process capability index, Cpk , and the total cost, T C,
for each experimental run are also shown in the last
two columns in Table 2.
Quite often, the optimal values exceed available
experimental regions and the optimal conditions are
not based on a single quality characteristic. Therefore,
the approach with one designed experiment or one
quality characteristic is not capable of achieving
true optimization, which makes it difficult to obtain
a clear picture of quality behaviors within design
spaces. In addition, design activities are dynamic
and evolutionary decision processes, and designers
prefer to have as many feasible, designs as possible
to allow for changes as the design team encounters
complexities. However, it is impossible to establish
various designed experiments and conduct individual
experiments (runs) for each designed experiment all
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Possible tolerance
levels

Influence on
clearance?

0.05
0.08
0.10

Yes

0.05
0.08

0.10
0.15
0.20
0.05
0.10

Yes

No

Yes
Yes
No

No

No

No

No

the time. A designed experiment consists of a set of

experiments, and the data (quality values) from all
experiments in the set taken together are analyzed
to determine the effects of various control factors.
It is more convenient to proceed with the design
process if, based on one designed experiment, the
mathematical relationships can be established between
the quality values of relevant quality characteristics
and the levels of control factors. Then, these
mathematical relationships are formulated in a way
which are solvable by the optimization technique,
such as the mathematical programming adopted in
this study. Of course, these mathematical relationships
are reusable and allow designers to modify the
model formulation according to various design criteria
and consideration. For these reasons, equation (3)
is applied for statistical regression analysis to find
the mathematical relationships of quality values T C
and Cpk , which are expressed in a function of
the component tolerances (control factor levels), tA ,
tB , tC , and tD . They are 508.7213 887.583tA
450.37tB 3178.5tC 55.78tD + 8502.78tA2 + 8850tC2
and 2.5743 14.0805tA 8.0000tC + 60.4170tAtC
respectively. Generally, when the Cpk value is less
than 1, it means that the component tolerances
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

137

COMPUTER-AIDED TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS

Table 2. Full factorial experiment design and response data

Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

X base
flatness
tA

Motor base
flatness
tB

Motor shaft
size
tC

Motor shaft
perpendicularity
tD

Mean

Std.

Index
Cpk

Total
cost
TC

0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05

0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.8877
0.8893
0.8867
0.8895
0.8878
0.8880
0.8879
0.8884
0.8883
0.8885
0.8885
0.8893
0.8894
0.8884
0.8885
0.8880
0.8810
0.8880
0.8881
0.8890
0.8890
0.8886
0.8880
0.8890
0.8890
0.8870
0.8899
0.8896
0.8897
0.8886
0.8899
0.8900
0.8895
0.8897
0.8885
0.8901

0.0592
0.0366
0.0643
0.0350
0.0591
0.0581
0.0582
0.0496
0.0495
0.0485
0.0484
0.0364
0.0350
0.0670
0.0657
0.0624
0.0613
0.0613
0.0613
0.0587
0.0573
0.0534
0.0522
0.0587
0.0570
0.0522
0.0480
0.0415
0.0400
0.0540
0.0465
0.0416
0.0400
0.0658
0.0464
0.0613

0.9513
1.3680
0.7580
1.4000
0.9514
0.9653
0.9720
1.1200
1.1200
1.1420
1.1420
1.3670
1.4000
0.7580
0.7670
0.8840
0.8970
0.8970
0.8970
0.8100
0.8200
0.9580
0.9740
0.8100
0.8200
0.9730
0.8786
1.0900
1.1100
0.9580
0.8790
0.8900
1.0900
1.1100
0.7700
0.8900

235.0
214.8
176.8
230.5
248.0
250.0
237.7
221.2
234.0
234.0
237.0
227.5
217.5
196.8
198.3
200.0
202.2
184.2
189.0
183.0
185.0
186.0
188.5
170.0
171.0
175.6
176.1
179.5
183.0
174.0
163.3
165.0
166.6
169.0
185.6
178.1

Table 3. Tolerance costs for factors A, B, C, and D

Factor

Level 1

A
B
C
D

$41 (Flatness 0.05)

$108 (Size 0.10)

Level 2

Level 3

$25 (flatness 0.08)

$35 (flatness 0.05)
$52 (size 0.15)
$22 (perpendicular 0.05)

$18 (flatness 0.10)

$22 (flatness 0.08)
$37 (size 0.20)
$17 (perpendicular 0.10)

allocated in a particular design show a weakness in

holding the assembly dimension value falling above
lower design limit at clearance. In addition, the
allocated tolerance of each component is constrained
by the limits, which are the process capability ranges
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

in producing these components. Hence, the lowest

total cost from a set of experiments with the Cpk
value being no less than one, and the ti values falling
within process capability range, is the best decision for
tolerance design in an assembly. Based on the above
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

138

A. JEANG

Table 4. Optimal solutions vs. various CP k

discussion, the problem can be formulated as:

minimize F (tA , tB , tC , tD ) = 508.7213 887.583tA
450.37tB 3178.5tC
55.78tD + 8502.78tA2
+ 8850tC2
subject to 1 2.5743 14.0805tA 8.0000tC
+ 60.4170tAtC

CP k

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

tA

tB
tC

tD

F ()

0.049 cm
0.100 cm
0.175 cm
0.100 cm
$149.786

0.040 cm
0.100 cm
0.145 cm
0.100 cm
$161.233

0.040 cm
0.100 cm
0.109 cm
0.100 cm
$194.341

indicates no feasible solutions.

0.04 tA 0.10
0.05 tB 0.10
0.10 tC 0.20
0.04 tD 0.10
The sensitivity analysis is a study of the variation in
the optimum solution as some of the original problem
parameters are changed. This is an important analysis
in the area of optimum design because decisions made
during design activities are dynamic and uncertain
in nature [10]. The present study focuses on the
sensitivity of T C and ti to the variation of the
constraint limit for process capability index, where
i represents factors A, B, C, and D. The optimum
solutions of cost function and design tolerances under
various Cpk are shown in Table 4. Process capability
indices (Cpk ) are mathematical ratios that specify the
ability of a process to produce products within the
specifications. The spread of the individuals can be
calculated for a new process that has not produced a
significant number of parts, or for a process currently
under operation. In either case, a true value, Cpk ,
cannot be determined until the process has achieved
stability. Additionally, knowing process capability
gives insight into whether or not the process will
be able to meet future demands placed on it. For
example, a customer may ask for extra fine product
tolerances that the machines are not capable of
producing. Hence, the impact from the dispersion of
the acceptable Cpk level, as in the example shown in
Table 4, needs to be analyzed. It can then be used to
assist in decisions concerning product specifications
(design tolerances), process specifications (process
tolerances), appropriate production methods, and
equipment to be used. The results indicate that the
motor shaft size is the most sensitive factor in the
presented tolerance design problem, because this
factor has significant impact on the cost function
and solution feasibility. With respect to the methods
of finding solutions, commercial PC-level software,
such as GAMES, can solve the above nonlinear set of
equations easily and accurately.
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4. DISCUSSION
Many products are now routinely designed with the aid
of computer software. With input consisting of designable engineering parameters and parameters representing manufacturing process conditions, computer
simulation can generate output, which is the products
quality characteristics. Then, a standard statistical
analysis is performed based on this output. This type
of experiment through computer software sometimes
replaces physical experiments, reducing the cost of
experimentation and, more importantly, speeding up
product development [13]. The finite element analysis of mechanical components and the design of
electronic circuits are two important application areas
in which computer experiment is widely used. With
the current development of tolerance-related software,
such as VSA-3D/Pro, it becomes possible to put tolerance design via computer experiment into practical
use.
Under these circumstances, the assembly function
can be determined by the computer, and the analysis
is performed using the Monte Carlo Simulation
which defines the assembly process. Then, computer
experimental data is studied with the methods of
statistical regression and optimization technique.
Thus, the optimal component tolerance can be found
easily and economically. All these activities can
be carried out very effectively using the approach
presented in this paper.
In preparing to use this approach, the following
important steps should be followed.
Step 1. Provide assembly drawing, parameter values
of tolerancecost functions and coefficient K of
quality loss function.
Step 2. Choose appropriate experimental designs
(matrix) over the various levels of input
(component tolerances) for performing the
computer simulation. These levels are fractions
of maximum component tolerance range.
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139

139

COMPUTER-AIDED TOLERANCE SYNTHESIS

Step 3. Perform the simulation with the aid of VSA3D/Pro software. Observations are made on a
response for an assembly through computer
simulation. Two experimental data are obtained:
U and , in the eth experiment.
Step 4. Convert above experimental data into the
expressions of Cpk and T C by equations (1) and
(2) respectively.
Step 5. Use statistical regression analysis to approximate T C and Cpk as functions of the component
tolerances.
Step 6. Determine the best component tolerance
allocation for an assembly with an optimization
technique.
Consequently, an economical and quality assembly
can be achieved through computer-aided design.
5. SUMMARY
Use of VSA-3D/Pro software, a simulation can provide an accurate assessment of cumulative effects for
any complex assembly. These effects can be converted
into various expressions which are related to the measurement of cost, quality, and process capability. Then,
an approach which combines statistical methods and
optimization techniques for tolerance determination
is developed. This provides designers with guidelines
to follow, and suggestions for improvement. Consequently, via computer simulation, a robust tolerance
design resulting in high quality and cost-effective
products can be achieved during the early stages of
design.

editor, Finn Jensen, and the referees for their positive

comments and suggestions which have resulted in
significant revision of this paper. I would also like
to thank my research assistants, Mr. Chia-Li Chang
and Mr. Charles Liu, for their contribution to this
paper. They are currently graduate students in the IE
Department.
REFERENCES
1. Arora JS. Introduction to Optimum Design. Mcgraw-Hill: New
York, 1989.
2. Doydum C, Perreira N. Use of Monte Carlo simulation to
select dimensions, tolerances, and precision for automated assembly. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1992; 10(3):209
222.
3. Feng CX, Kusiak A. Design of tolerance for quality. Design
Theory and Methodology. ASME: New York, 1994; 1928.
4. Jeang A. Tolerance design: choose optimal specifications
in the design of machined parts. Quality and Reliability
International 1994; 10(1):2735.
5. Jeang A. Economic tolerance design for quality. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International 1995; 11(2):113121.
6. Koltz S, Johnson N. Processes Capability Indices. Chapman
& Hall: London, 1993.
7. Ligget JV. Dimensional Variation Management Handbook.
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
8. Montgomery DC. Design and Analysis of Experiments
(3rd edn). Wiley: New York, 1991.
9. Phadke MS. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design.
Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
10. Spotts MF. Allocation of tolerances to minimize cost
of assembly. Journal of Engineering for Industry 1973;
95(3):762764.
11. Taguchi G. Introduction to Quality Engineering. Unipub:
White Plains, NY, 1989. 2122.
12. VSA-3D/Pro. Variation System Analysis Inc., St. Clair Shores,
MI, 1996.
13. William JW, Jerome S. A system for quality improvement via
computer experiments. Communications in Statistics Theory
and Methods 1991; 20(2):477495.

Authors biography:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was carried out at the Department of

Industrial Engineering at Feng Chia University in the
Design, Quality, and Productivity Laboratory (DQPL)
with support from the e-Manufacturing Center at
the Engineering School of Feng Chia University,
the Education Department of the Republic of China
and the National Science Council of the Republic of
China under grant No. NSC 89-2213-E-035-060. I
would like to express my deep appreciation to the chief

Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Angus Jeang received his BS degree in Industrial

Engineering from Chung Yuan University (Taiwan, ROC)
and received his MS degree in Industrial Engineering from
Kansas State University (USA). He was then employed
by the Nuclear Division of Siemens Gammasonics, Inc. in
Desplaines, Illinois, serving as a manufacturing engineer.
He received his PhD in Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering from Wayne State University. Currently, he
is a full professor of Industrial Engineering at Feng Chia
University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. In addition, he is a
member of the Industrial Engineering (IIE) and the Society
of Manufacturing Engineering (SME).

Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139