You may refer ISO286 or ANSI B4.1 or 4.2(Metric) if you want
But these are basically general purpose guidelines and you have to select them.
The other way is the statistical design of tolerances where you come back from the final requirements and trace back to root. Here you can go for equal spreads, un-equal standard spreads (eg IT7/it6), or tolerancing based on manufacturability.
The total design of tolerances is a vast subject and difficult to cover here. We had a total subhect on the statistical design of tolerances in the SQC.
If you require the specifics, may be we can help you.
__________________
Fantastic ideas for a Fantastic World, I make the illogical logical.They put me in cars,they put me in yer tv.They put me in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears.They even put me in watches, they have teeny gremlins for your watches
Re: tolerances (big answer to tiny question, too much time on my hands)
03/07/2009 4:32 AM
You can't.
A. Optimally, this requires a lot of insight into (always with regard to what is achievable & desirable tolearance-wise, incl. best practices) 1) the actual functionality of the machine you are designing, 2) how parts are located when assembled, 3) how parts are manufactured, etc This would be the equivalent of a full university course, several books and at least a few years of hands-on experience.
B. Sub-optimally, you need to be aware at least of the functionality requirements of your machine:
I.e. you are designing a truck that needs to fit under bridges of, say, 6.5m height. Well, you can go to your assembly and call out a height tolerance "max 6500mm". In this bare context, you'd be more correct than someone arbitrarily (and stupidly) specifying 6500+0/-1mm!!! How to translate your functional tolerances to part and manufacturing/ assy/ material prop. tolerances is where the deep insights are needed (point A), which you don't seem to have.
So you can't.
And no, browsing the net for free GD&T material (while not a bad idea) will not even begin to enlighten you, perhaps will even confuse you more...
And yes, the calculus of tolerancing goes way beyond 'stacking' (tip: ...which should not much happen anyway if you want to build things with reasonably economical/ feasible tolerances)
Don't worry, many people who claim to know how to tolerance things are basically ignorant. Even 'reading' tolerances correctly is elusive to some. Proper torerancing is one of the most difficult things in engineering.
I hope my reply doesn't discourage you, but instead prompts you to seek proper education on the subject. Other members may be able to provide refs to good books and courses, depending on your location.
__________________
-however, relying mostly on just a developed sense of smell, it is quite possible that I am missing something here
Re: tolerances (big answer to tiny question, too much time on my hands)
03/07/2009 4:58 AM
In all my career, I have found the explaining GDT most difficult, some times I try to take some lectures for new recruits. Projected zones upto some extent OK but M & L all blank faces.
And interpreting on actual job is even more difficult for them.
Sometimes I feel to go for normal linear/ simpler tolerances may work better than M & L or even the P
But the efficiency goes down (the tolerances become too tight to accommodate these).
Ever tried to explain these to line staff ?
__________________
Fantastic ideas for a Fantastic World, I make the illogical logical.They put me in cars,they put me in yer tv.They put me in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears.They even put me in watches, they have teeny gremlins for your watches
Re: tolerances (big answer to tiny question, too much time on my hands)
03/07/2009 6:18 AM
Yes, embarrassingly blank faces, like you said. M&L are indeed the death of them. L is the death of even some textbooks as well...
Thank god for the CMM software, at least it can understand.
Also tried to explain to MScs doing machine design... They thought they got it. Then they went on to choke perfectly good parts in needless callouts and 'stacked' them to death.
__________________
-however, relying mostly on just a developed sense of smell, it is quite possible that I am missing something here
Re: tolerances (big answer to tiny question, too much time on my hands)
03/07/2009 12:57 PM
And most interesting part with GDT is at the widest possible tolerance (most manufacturable and least cost) - you can achieve the assemblability and functionality. In brief the quality at the lowest cost. But only if they understand. .
PS: Even my design staff are not very strong in it (at least most of them) and we land up in too many linear tolerances and when stacked up- unassemblable .
__________________
Fantastic ideas for a Fantastic World, I make the illogical logical.They put me in cars,they put me in yer tv.They put me in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears.They even put me in watches, they have teeny gremlins for your watches