Section 1

Essay
In the world of engineering design, it is imperative that during the whole design,
decisions concerning shapes, dimensions, and tolerances be closely integrated with
manufacturing and assembly processes. Often, this can be achieved by having a member of the
manufacturing staff as part of the designing team. But this is not always possible. This has been a
serious problem faced by manufacturing companies, because there has been a tendency to
separate the design and manufacturing decision making into different organizational units,
sometimes having the manufacturing department to carry the can because of certain problems
or complications in the design passed to them by the design team. Uncertainties in the
manufacturing process also occur due to circumstances of variation between the design models
and the respective real aspects of these models. Uncertainties are classified into two types. The
first one is the natural uncertainty due to the physical variability of a system. And the second one
is a system uncertainty resulting from the lack of knowledge about a system due to simplifying
assumptions, state of knowledge uncertainty and subjective uncertainty (Ullman, 2010). These
types of uncertainties pose a direct cause of risk for the industrial company. Thus all design
engineers are needed to be familiar with the manufacturing and assembly methods, and also the
various guidelines to be applied on these methods and the importance of such.
And this is where the Design For Manufacture, DFM as abbreviated, and also the Design
For Assembly, DFA as abbreviated, take place into the manufacturing process. The Design For
Manufacture was developed from the past years due to the large amount of efforts devoted by
engineers into the integration of design and manufacture, with the goals of reducing
manufacturing cost and improving product quality. The Design For Manufacture helps the
designers through the optimization of various processes such as minimizing total number of parts
and making it multifunctional, keep designs simple, standardize components and design features,
and many more (Dieter and Schmidt, 2009). While Design For Assembly, developed prior to
formal DFM methodology, being manually done on paper or automatically by means of
automatic assembly machine which is developed by Geoff Boothroyd in 1977 and implemented
in 1981 with the use of computer methods, is also the best practice used to measure the ease with
which a product can be assembled since it aims to provide the design engineers the knowledge

on proper assembly of parts with much lower assembly time and costs. Furthermore, the
popularity of Design For Manufacture and Design For Assembly as a standard basis for design
and manufacturing has earned a merging into the more categorized and also more advanced
method, the Design For Manufacture and Assembly, or DFMA. There are certain classifications
of costs to be considered, and such is the manufacturing cost which consists of the factory cost
plus the general fixed expenses such as depreciation, engineering, taxes, office staff and
purchasing. And this can be mitigated through the standardization of DFMA. The standardization
of Design For Manufacture and Assembly is also essential for the manufacturing processes, as it
benefits the company into many ways. One of them is the cost reduction in manufacturing, where
lowered purchasing costs occur because of standardization of parts and reduction in part
numbers, reduction of costs through raw material standardizations, feature standardizations and
the reduction of inventory and floor space requirements. The DFMA also provides quality
improvement of products, parts and production flexibility. Whatever the method, a major benefit
from performing a Design For Manufacture and Assembly analysis is that the constant using of a
formal analysis scheme unfailingly leads to asking better questions, and therefore to better
solutions (Dieter and Schmidt, 2009).
Yet, a routine quality check on manufacturing process behavior is also a must for
industrial companies to ensure fruitful outcome on the manufacturing process. There is a
common practice in industrial plants where the data of manufacturing performances are
collected, inspected, and determine if it is performing statistically as expected. This method is
called the Statistical Process Control. Statistical Process Control is a method of quality
control which uses statistical methods (Wikipedia, 2014). One example of statistical methods
that are implemented in the Statistical Process Control is the Control Charts, originally
developed by Walter Shewhart in the early 1920s, are used to routinely check process quality in
the manufacturing process. There are two variations that can be viewed upon on the control
chart. One is the chance variation or also called common causes variation, and the assignable
variation or the special causes variation. The common cause variation is one that can be expected
but uncontrollable due to numerous factors appearing in the operation of the process that are
considered of small importance. While the assignable variation is a variation that can be detected
and controlled, like a worn manufacturing tool or a poorly trained worker. In constructing a
control chart, a product is sampled at regular time intervals and a variable applicable to the

product is measured on each sample. The theory behind this is that the samples should be chosen
such that the variability in the samples should be due to common causes and not due to special
causes. When the majority of the points on the chart fall between the control limits, the process is
in control. But any observations outside the limits or any fluctuations on the systematic patterns
will indicate of a new and unanticipated source of variation, such as a special cause variation.
Because of such increase in the variation, a rise on the quality cost will be much expected and
therefore requires immediate investigation. When the manufacturing process undergoes a stable
one, an analysis on process capability may be initiated from using the data gathered from the
control charts to predict the ability of the process to produce the desired outcomes in the future.
Manufacturing planning and control encompass acquisition, utilization and distribution of
limited resources to production activities so as to satisfy the customers demands over a certain
time period (Wazed and Yusoff, 2009). And the use of strategical manufacturing practices such as
Design For Manufacture, or the Design For Manufacture and Assembly and quality controls like
Statistical Process Control is essential to the manufacturing process because these methods aim
to provide insights and better understanding on the aspects of product design, manufacture, and
also the assembly of the products. Engineering schools should also provide their students with
more knowledge about these kinds of practices so that the aspiring would-be engineers would
have greater proficiency and wisdom in their future profession and line of work.

Section 2
Geometric Tolerances
The Geometric tolerances symbols are used to define the profile, location, orientation and
form of a part. The symbols are shown below and explained how they are used and their depicted

tolerances conditions

Section 3
Hole-based and Shaft-based ISO Standards
The difference between hole based ISO standard and shaft based ISO standard is that they
are both used depending on each specific application (ISO International Standards, 1999). The
hole-based system is used with stepped shaft designs. Standard gages for checking the hole-basis
fits cost less than those required for checking shaft-basis fits. In designs where a uniformdiameter shaft is used it is advantageous to employ the shaft basis system. For example, in the
case of driving shafts, a single shaft may have to accommodate a variety of accessories such as
couplings, bearings, collars, etc. Steel products tolerance adjust to the shaft-basis system is
supplied in a number of steel grades and finishes throughout Europe. Both types of fits might be
used on the same design.
In the interference fit, the hole-basis of tolerance grade H7/s6 and for the shaft-basis of
tolerance grade S7/h6, both having the basic size of F8, with the difference of -0.008 mm and
-0.032mm in the tolerances, respectively, can be used for medium drive fit for ordinary steel
parts or shrink fits on light sections. These fits can be applied on permanent couplings of gears
with shafts and bearing bushings.
While on the sliding or transition fit, the hole-basis having the tolerance grade of H7/n6
and for the shaft-basis of tolerance grade N7/h6 with both of the same size of F8 and with the
difference of -0.008mm and -0.032mm, respectively, these fits are used to provide accurate
location and greater permissible interference.
And for the clearance fit, the hole-basis having the tolerance grade of H11/c11 and the
shaft basis of tolerance grade C11/h11, both having the same size of F8 and having a difference
of -0.008mm and -0.032mm, respectively, these kind of fits are preferred for wide commercial
tolerances or clearances with parts on external members and used on parts exposed on corrosive
elements, contamination and thermal or mechanical deformations.

References:
Coban Engineering, n.d. Hole And Shaft Basis Limits and Fits. [online]. Available at:
<http://www.cobanengineering.com/Tolerances/ISOHoleandShaftBAsisLimitsAndFits.asp>
[Accessed at 28 December 2014]
Dieter, G. E. and Schmidt, L. C., 2009. Engineering Design. 3rd Ed. Maryland: McGraw-Hill.
ISO International Standards, 1999. The ISO System of Limits and Fits Tolerances and
Deviation. Available at: <http://mdmetric.com/Ch6.8wGO.pdf> [Accessed 28 December 2014].
Ullman, D. G., 2010. The Mechanical Design Process. 4th ed. Oregon: McGraw-Hill.
Wazed and Yusoff, 2009. Uncertainty Factors in Real Manufacturing Environment, [e-journal]
10(2). Available through: <http://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2009/342-351.pdf> [Accessed date:
December 27, 2014].
Wikipedia, 2014. Statistical Process Control. [Online] Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_process_control