Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2002) 19:432441

Ownership and Copyright

Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2002

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design via

Computer Simulation and Statistical Method
A. Jeang and C.-L. Chang
Department of Industrial Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

This study optimises component parameters and component

tolerances simultaneously via computer simulation and
response surface methodology (RSM). The approach first generates a set of experimental data through computer simulation,
then the data are converted to a total cost as a response value
before applying RSM for statistical analysis and mathematical
optimisation. The response value (total cost) includes quality
and related costs which reflect the combined effect of the
parameter and tolerance values being assigned. The results
provide designers with the optimal component design values,
the critical components, and the response function of a product
or process design, which are very important to know during
design activities as they give designers information about
repeated applications, accurate feedback and appropriate
suggestions, particularly under uncertain design conditions.
Three examples are provided: They are mechanical assembly
design, machining process planning, and electronic circuit
design.
Keywords: Concurrent; Cost; Design; Optimisation; Parameter; Quality; RSM; Tolerance

1.

Introduction

Quality engineering uses robust design to improve product or

process quality by reducing the effects of variation. The variation of output can be reduced by two actions [1,2]. One is
parameter design which adjusts the parameter value so that the
output is less sensitive to the causes of variation. The other is
tolerance design which reduces the tolerance value to control
variation [2,3]. In general, there is no cost associated with
changing the parameter values. However, tolerance design by
reducing the tolerance value always leads to additional costs.

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Dr A. Jeang, Chairman,

Department of Industrial Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung,
Taiwan. E-mail: akjeangfcu.edu.tw

Hence, parameter design is usually carried out prior to tolerance

design for economic reasons.
Generally, there are two types of input variable in product
or process design, those with a tolerance requirement and those
without a tolerance requirement. Examples of the first type
include resistances of a circuit and dimensions of a mechanical
part. Both the nominal values of resistance or dimension and
their tolerance values must be determined. Examples of the
second type include the temperature and pressure during the
production process. Because the values of these input variables
do not influence product application and manufacturing operations, only the nominal values need be determined. Hence,
for the first type of input variable in a product or process
design, if the quality from measuring the output variables
which result from parameter and tolerance design has identical
units, the combined optimisation of parameter and tolerance
design can be completed in one stage [47].
For product or process design, the quality function from
describing the relationship between the output quality of interest
and the input variable of design may or may not be available.
For the former situation, well-known methods such as rootsum-square (RSS), worst-case (WC), and numerical simulation
can be applied directly for design analysis; however, the latter
situation requires physical experiments [8]. This paper considers
a situation where the quality function is known. A distinct
advantage over a situation where the quality function is not
available is that costly physical experiments can be replaced
by numerical simulation [9]. Furthermore, the computation of
design analysis is more accurate because the quality function
is not estimated in this situation.
We will use a measurement score which is converted from
the values found via numerical simulation which represents the
experimental run in this study. The measurement score is the
total cost which includes quality loss, manufacturing cost, and
failure cost. This score is also called the response value in the
statistical analysis presented. Normally, it is efficient to proceed
with the design activities if a functional relationship (response
function) exists between the measurement score (response
value) and the set of design input variables. In addition to
finding the best component design values during the design

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design

process, it is also necessary to locate the critical components

of product or process design, particularly a repeated application
under uncertain design conditions. Response surface methodology (RSM) is essentially a combination of mathematical and
statistical techniques used in the empirical study of relationships
and optimisation. In addition, RSM has the ability to produce
an approximating function using a smaller number of experimental runs. For these reasons, RSM is adopted for analysing
the measurement scores in this study. With the approach
presented, efficiency can be achieved in terms of cost, quality,
and time spent during design activities for simultaneous
optimisation of parameter and tolerance design.

2.

Response Surface Methodology

Usually the relationship between the dependent variable and

the independent variable is extremely complex or unknown;
however, RSM provides a procedure which solves this problem
[10,11]. It is assumed that the designer is concerned with a
system involving a dependent variable R which depends on
the independent variables Xi. It is also assumed that Xi is
continuous and controllable. With RSM, the functional relationship between R and the levels of n independent variables can
be written as:
R = f(X1, X2, %, Xn)

(1)

A mechanistic model for such a relationship does not necessarily exist. Thus, the first step in RSM is to find a suitable
approximation for f(.) using a low-order polynomial in some
region of the independent variables. If the approximated function has linear variables, a first-order polynomial can be used
and written in terms of the independent variables.
Y = a0 + a1X1 + a2X2 + % + anXn

(2)

Otherwise, a second-order polynomial can be used.

Y = a0 +

i=1

ai X i +

i=1

biX2i +

cijXiXj

(3)

i=1 j=1

The frequent use of second-order polynomial models is justified

by the fact that they reflect the nonlinear behaviour of the
system. Experimental designs for fitting a second-order
response surface must involve at least three levels of each
variable so that the coefficients in the model can be estimated.
A rotating property is desirable for response surface models
because the orientation of the design with respect to its surface
is unknown. This study uses a Box-Behnken design because
it allows efficient estimation of the first- and second-order
coefficients. Using this experimental design, the levels of each
input factor are assumed to be equally spaced. A least-squares
estimate is used to estimate the coefficients in approximating
the polynomials. The response surface analysis then proceeds
in terms of the fitted surface. If the fitted surface is an adequate
estimation of the true functional relationship, then the analysis
of the fitted response will be nearly equivalent to the analysis
of the studied problem. This functional relationship can be a
repeated application for possible design modification and design
adjustment during the design process.

433

3. Experimental Design via RSM

All costs incurred in a product life cycle can be divided into
two main categories: manufacturing costs which occur before
the product is sold to the customer and quality loss which
occurs after the product is sold [2]. Manufacturing cost can
be expressed as a function of tolerance as in the cost equation,
CM(t) = A+ B/t, discussed by Chase and Greenwood [12]. In
addition to in-house manufacturing costs, Taguchi suggests a
loss function, L(X) = K(X T)2, representing the measurements
of product quality characteristics deviating from the expected
target [13]. A loose tolerance (small manufacturing cost) indicates that the variation of product quality characteristics will
be great (high quality loss). On the other hand, a tight tolerance
(high manufacturing cost) shows that the variation of product
quality characteristics will be small (low quality loss). Hence,
there is a need to adjust the tolerance values to reach an
economic balance between quality loss and manufacturing costs
in product or process design [1418]. In addition to the quality
loss and manufacturing cost, failure cost should also be considered. Failure cost appears whenever the quality characteristic
of interest falls outside the design specifications (see Fig. 1).
Because there is an interaction among the above cost items, a
simultaneous determination of parameter and tolerance values
becomes essential to truly minimise total cost [6]. Assume
there is no reworking in this case. The non-conforming parts
are sold at a low price before selling to the customers. The
associated loss is called failure cost or in-house failure cost in
this study. The total cost which includes quality loss, manufacturing cost, and failure cost will be considered as the response
value in RSM analysis. The total cost function is:

TC =

s=1

[E(LAs(x)) + (C1s1s) + C2s(1 2s)] +

CM(ti)

i=1

(4)
E(LAs(X)) can be found from Eq. (A1) in Appendix A. Before
finding E(LAs(X)), the resultant parameter value, UYs, the resultant variance, 2Ys, the target value, Ts, and the quality loss
coefficients, Ks1 and Ks2, should be provided ahead of time.

Fig. 1. Asymmetric loss function with parameter U, tolerance t, target

T, specification T S1 and T + S2.

434

A. Jeang and C.-L. Chang

In this study, UYs and Ys are obtained from the eth experiment
via numerical simulation with a known quality function. K1s
and K2s are used because various losses are experienced by
customers for two reasons. C1s is the in-house failure cost when
the sth quality value falls below the lower design specification;
conversely, C2s is the in-house failure cost when the sth quality
value exceeds the upper design specification. Failure costs vary
because one side may be more valuable than the other owing
to an unrecoverable situation. The associated probability for
these two costs is, 1s and, 1 2s. A relevant illustration is
shown in Fig. 1. The value of s ranges from 1 to q where q
is the total number of quality characteristics of interest in a
product or process design. The term CM(ti) is a manufacturing
cost which will be called a tolerance cost in the following
illustration. The tolerance cost, CM(ti), is based on the tolerance
levels, ti, established in the experiments [12,19]. The value m
is the total number of tolerances required to be determined
from q quality characteristics of interest.
Before performing numerical simulation, an appropriate
experimental design matrix of input factors must be chosen.
Response surface methodologies involve the application of a
statistically designed experimental matrix in N-dimensional
space to approximate the response of output variables as a
function of N independent input factors. The matrix consists
of E trials, where E depends on the number of factors and the
choice of experimental design. In this study, the input factors
consist of parameters U1, U2, U3, %, Un, and tolerances t1, t2,
t3, %, tn. That is, N is 2n. The associated low, middle, and
high levels for input factors Ui and ti should be decided before
numerical simulation. Assume that the quality value, Xi, for
each input forms a normal distribution, N(Ui, i), where i =
1, 2, 3, %, n [20]. The standard deviation, i, is estimated as
[15,17] i = ((S2i /9C2Pm) (Ui Ti)2) where CPm is known as
the process capability index. Most of the time, a components
parameter value, Ui, is equal to its Ti; and, tolerance value ti
is also equal to Si. Hence, i can be further simplified as
(ti) = ti/3Cpm. Then, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed
with known quality function Y = f(X1, X2, X3, %, Xn), where
Xi is a normal distribution as mentioned above. Each run
repeats a few times to obtain adequate samples for the next
statistical analysis. From the simulation output, the resultant
parameter value, UY, and the resultant variance 2Y are obtained.
Assume that the simulation output also forms a normal distribution with Y N(UY, Y). In a practical exercise, there may
be more than one quality function. In this regard, a subscript,
s, is added to Y. That is, Ys represents a situation where
multiple quality functions exist. Then, the values of UYs, 2Ys,
failure costs, and tolerance costs are substituted into Eq. (4)
to find the response value, TC, for RSM analysis. In the
following discussion, three examples will be introduced: They
are mechanical assembly design, machining process planning,
and electronic circuit design.
3.1

Dimension and Tolerance Design for Assembly

Assembly is the process by which the various parts and

subassemblies are brought together to form a complete
assembly or product which is designed to fulfil a certain

mechanical function. Since assembly in the manufacturing process consists of putting together all the component parts and
subassemblies of a given product, a proper allocation and
analysis of tolerance among the assembly components is
important to ensure that the functionality and quality of design
requirements are met. As illustrated in the preceding discussion,
tolerance design as well as component dimension (parameter
value) should be considered in an assembly, particularly when
the elements of manufacturing cost, asymmetrical quality loss,
and failure cost are considered together as the evaluation score
for assembly design.
Example 1. Figure 2 is a classic Bjorke gearbox assembly
which consists of components X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5 [21]. The
assembly function that describes the quality value Y is:
Y = X3 X4 + X2 + X1 X5

(5)

The associated component dimensions and tolerances, U1, U2,

U3, U4, U5; t1, t2, t3, t4, and t5, must be determined so that
the gap, Y, between the bushing and gear hub fall within the
functionality limits, T S, where T is 0.900 mm and S is
0.200 mm. There is only one assembly function (or quality
function) in this example, so, q is 1. The possible value for s
is 1. The associated low, middle, and high levels for input
factors Ui and ti are decided as shown in Tables 3 and 4
[13,20,22]. Of course, ti must fall within process capability
limits, and Ui must range within the design space (see Tables
1 and 2). Because CPm is assumed to be 1, the component
standard deviation is estimated as ti/3. Various levels of Ui
and ti are selected to have appropriate combinations according
to the experimental design matrix given in Appendix B [11].
The Monte Carlo simulation is performed by the above level
combinations with the inputs of Xi N(Ui, (ti)) and Eq. 5.
Then the outputs, UY and Y, are obtained in the eth experimental run, where e is 1, 2, 3, %, 170. The tolerance cost
for each level is also shown in Table 3. The quality loss
coefficients, K1 and K2, can be estimated from the loss due to
failure divided by the functional limits of the product [13]. In
this example, K1 and K2 are, respectively, 350 000 and 280 000,
5

m = 5, and the tolerance cost is CM(ti). Failure costs C1

i=1

and C2 are $500 000 and $300 000. The response value, TC,
for one particular experimental run is found through Eq. (4).
Using the RSM application with the found response values,
TC, the results are shown in Table 5. The approximating
response function is 297885t21 + 216534t 22 24343t 1t3 +
351028t23 + 552752t24 + 417614t 25 + 331544U 21 15245U2t3 +
618011U1U2 + 335663U22 + 15729U3t3 624542U1U3
628634U2U3 + 333626U23 666646U1U4 603914U2U4 +
649632U3U4 + 415561U24 652498U1 U5 635772U2U5 +
607027U3U5 + 596656U4U5 + 373403U25. The above second
model is used to predict a desired response within a restricted
range. Since there is no experimental error in computer simulation, the only error with the response function is lack of
fit. However, the fact that the value of R2 is greater than
0.95 indicates that the second-order model provides an excellent
fit. The optimal solutions are: t*1 = 0.037226 mm, t*2 = 0.042456
mm, t*3 = 0.057721 mm, t*4 = 0.024113 mm, t*5 = 0.025710
mm, U*1 = 15.995546 mm, U*2 = 17.991117 mm, U*3 =

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design

435

Fig. 2. The shaft assembly drawing.

Table 1. Process capability limits for each component.

Table 4. Parameter levels Ui for each component.

Component i

Lower limit (mm)

Upper limit (mm)

Component
i

Lower level
(mm)

Middle level
(mm)

Upper level
(mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

0.014
0.018
0.024
0.009
0.010

0.042
0.052
0.072
0.027
0.030

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

15.9879
17.9850
28.9792
1.7922
2.2913

16.0000
18.0000
29.0000
1.8000
2.3000

16.0121
18.0150
29.0208
1.8078
2.3087

Table 2. Feasible design space for each component.

Component i

Lower limit (mm)

Upper limit (mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

15.9879
17.9850
28.9792
1.7922
2.2913

16.0121
18.0150
29.0208
1.8078
2.3087

Table 3. Tolerance levels ti and tolerance costs CM(ti) for each component.
Component
i

Lower level
$ (mm)

Middle level
$ (mm)

Upper level
($) (mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

733.7
674.8
1385.8
541.2
522.8

579.8
541.7
975.0
436.5
425.6

517.5
497.4
899.3
403.6
398.7

(0.014)
(0.018)
(0.024)
(0.009)
(0.010)

(0.028)
(0.035)
(0.048)
(0.018)
(0.020)

(0.042)
(0.052)
(0.072)
(0.027)
(0.030)

28.991266 mm, U*4 = 1.799874 mm, U*5 = 2.292199 mm.

Owing to an error with the prediction function, the estimated
TC are subject to uncertainty. The response value, TC, at
optimal input levels = $3004.181474. The associated variance
of the prediction = 15.607191. Similarly, the precision of the
quantity for the response value has to be estimated by calculating confidence intervals given by TC TC, where
TC = t/2,df (V(TC)), that is, $3385.745176 30.985476. The
effect on the five components is significant at a 5% confidence
level. Test statistic F from Table 5 is used to rank the order
of importance of the components. The F value is the mean
square for a factor divided by the mean square for error. These
values indicate that input factors t3 and U3 should be closely
controlled. If design improvement is needed, t3 and U3 are
given first priority. For the purpose of analysis, the contour
and surface of the response is plotted as shown in Fig. 3 to
visualise its 3D shape. Each contour represents a specific
response value for combinations of the levels of the factors.
Various level combinations will be examined so that the design
feasibility and restriction is satisfied. It may not be easy to
solve the above systems manually; therefore, computer pro-

436

A. Jeang and C.-L. Chang

Table 5. Response surface analysis.

Response surface for variable TC
Response mean
Root MSE
R-square
Coefficient of variation

3385.745176
15.607191
0.9966
0.4610

Degrees of freedom
Residual:

Lack of fit
Pure error
Total error

Factor:

t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
1
2
3
4
5

95
9
104

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

Sum of squares
23670.00
1662.35
25333.00

482095
249282
2669789
261015
201897
897298
1804695
2611245
437054
439807

Mean square
249.162
184.706
243.584

43827
22662
242708
23729
18354
81573
164063
237386
39732
39982

F-Ratio
1.349

179.90
93.04
996.40
97.42
75.35
334.90
673.50
974.60
163.10
164.10

Probability F
0.3298

0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

grams such as SAS or S+, can be applied to find the solutions

without difficulty.
In order to explain the difference between combined and
non-combined design strategy, an additional experiment representing the non-combined design strategy is performed. In
this experimental run, only the tolerance values are considered
to be controllable factors (input factors) with the conditions of
TY = U3 U4 + U2 + U1 U5, where U1 = 16.0 mm, U2
= 18.0 mm, U3 = 29.0 mm, U4 = 1.8 mm, and U5 = 2.3
mm. Similarly, as when conducting the experimental run in a
combined design strategy, the associated low, middle, and high
levels for factors ti must also be pre-decided and are given in
Table 3. The experimental combinations should also follow
the suggestions from the design matrix which is shown in
Appendix C. The optimal solutions are: t*1 = 0.038585 mm,
t*2 = 0.041752 mm, t*3 = 0.058106 mm, t*4 = 0.023253 mm,
and t*5 = 0.025397 mm. The response value, TC, at optimal
input levels = $3031.994878. The associated variance of prediction = 140.058232. Apparently, the combined design strategy
has a lower response value and a lower variance of TC than
has the non-combined design strategy. This is due to the
inclusion of additional factors such as parameter values, which
increases the flexibility in the assignment of parameter and
tolerance values to reduce the total cost. Consequently, further
cost reduction and quality improvement can be realised.
3.2 Working Dimension and Working Tolerance
Determination for Machining Operations
Fig. 3. (a) contour plot and (b) response surface of total cost, TC, for
tolerances t3 and U3, [cost] = $, [t3] and [U3] = mm.

The blueprint (B/P) of a mechanical part translates the functionality requirements into a geometric sketch augmented by

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design

dimensional and tolerance information. This mechanical part

can be produced through a sequence of material removal
operations [16]. The dimension produced after each cutting
operation falls within a certain tolerance range, formed by a
stochastic process which depends on the working tolerance
(machine tool capability, or process tolerance) and the working
dimension (machine set point, or process parameter, or process
mean). Each B/P dimension is formed by a set of predetermined
cutting operations. The combinations of such cuts have an
effect on the distribution of the final B/P dimension values.
As in example 1, the component dimension value for each cut
is assumed to have a normal distribution with the mean value
of working dimension Ui and standard deviation of (ti), where
i is 1, 2, 3, %, n and n is the total number of machining
operations required to complete a part. The B/P dimension
value resulting from a set of cutting operations also has a
normal distribution N(UYs, Ys) 1, where UYs is the resultant
working dimension and Ys is the resultant standard deviation.
The value of s is 1, 2, 3, %, mC and mC is the total number
of B/P dimensions in a part. The quality function in describing
the relationship between the B/P dimension value and the set
of component dimension values is called the dimension chain
function in this study. As in the preceding discussion, the
response value, TC, and the optimisation technique, RSM, will
be applied for problem analysis in the following example.
Example 2. For the purpose of illustrating how the presented
approach is applied to the machining operations mentioned
above, an example is shown in Fig. 4 which represents the
B/P dimensions and specifications of the part that will be
introduced. The various combinations of component dimension
values X1, X2, X3, X4, and X5 from each cutting operation result
in five B/P dimension values. The B/P dimension values can be
expressed mathematically by known dimension chain functions
which are defined in Table 10. For example, the function in
representing the value of B/P dimension CE is in a function
of component dimension values X3 and X4. The function is:
Y2 = X3 X1

(6)

As mentioned in the preceding discussion, the associated

component working dimensions and working tolerances are U1,
U2, U3, U4, U5 and t1, t2, t3, t4, t5. These values must be
determined simultaneously so that all B/P dimension values
fall within their own specification limits. Table 6 summarises
the required machining operations, machining sequences and

437

associated process capability range. Table 10 also provides the

information regarding B/P design tolerances Ss, target value
Ts, quality loss coefficient K1s and K2s and failure costs C1s
and C2s. Both mC and m are 5 in the presented example. The
low, middle, and high levels for input factors Ui, and ti and
associated tolerance costs are shown in Tables 8 and 9. As in
example 1, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed with the
various level combinations of Ui and ti as suggested in Appendix B, the normality assumption, Xi N(Ui, (ti)), and the
dimension chain functions shown in Table 10. Then the outputs,
UYs and Ys, can be obtained in the eth experimental run,
where s is 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Similarly, the response value,
TC, can be found from Eq. 4. Then, the RSM optimisation
technique is used for problem analysis. A second-order model
TC predicting equation is: 291043479 117562t3 + 380417U1
+ 174918U2 2911813U3 3025876U5 + 4461.906
t21 + 5345.656t22 + 567.500t2t3 + 6456.104t23 + 6852.197t24 +
5322.510 t25 + 5601.811U21 + 740.599U1U2 + 4648.026U22
465.461U3t1 10909U1U3 8828.827U2U3 + 15839U23 +
1011.274U4t4 + 8709.004U24 + 11032U3U5 10083U4U5 +
11021U25. The value of R2 is 0.9940. When greater than 0.95,
this value indicates that the second-order model provides an
excellent fit. The optimal solutions are: U*1 = 12.982700 mm,
U*2 = 27.980633 mm, U*3 = 52.993812 mm, U*4 = 79.985634
mm, U*5 = 146.998618 mm, t*1 = 0.115444 mm, t*2 = 0.112752
mm, t*3 = 0.087976 mm, t*4 = 0.098570 mm, and t*5 =
0.097189 mm.
The response value, TC*, at optimal input levels =
$339.014770. The associated variance of prediction is
2.077859. Similarly, the confidence intervals of the quantity
for the response value is $394.545000 4.125242. The effect
on the factors t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 are
significant at a 5% confidence level. Test statistic F indicates
that factors t2 and U3 should be controlled closely. If design
improvement is needed, t2 and U3 are given first priority. For
the purpose of comparison, an additional experimental run for
non-combined design strategy is performed under the conditions
of TY1 = U5 + U3, TY2 = U3 U1, TY3 = U3 U2, TY4 = U4,
TY5 = U5 U4, where U1= 13.0 mm, U2 = 28.0 mm, U3 =
53.0 mm, U4 = 80.0 mm, and U5 = 147.0 mm. The associated
low, middle, and high levels for input factors ti are given in
Table 8, and the experimental combinations should also follow
the suggestion from the design matrix shown in Appendix C.
The optimal solutions are: t*1 = 0.110851 mm, t*2 = 0.095642
mm, t*3 = 0.110247 mm, t*4 = 0.099100 mm, t*5 = 0.110252
mm. The response value, TC, at optimal input levels is
$375.781581. The associated variance of prediction is
4.183660. Apparently, the combined design strategy has a
lower response value, and a lower variance of TC than the
non-combined design strategy owing to the inclusion of
additional factors such as parameter values.
3.3 Parameter and Tolerance Determination for an
Electronic Circuit Design

Fig. 4. The part for the presented machining process.

Circuit design is the search for a circuit with a specific

inputoutput behaviour [23]. Generally, an electronic circuit is
subjected to input in the form of voltage or a current provided

438

A. Jeang and C.-L. Chang

Table 6. Machining process and process capability limits for each operation.
Operation i

Working machine

Reference surface

Processed surface

Lower process
capability (mm)

Upper process
capability (mm)

1
2
3
4
5

Turret lathe
Turret lathe
Simplex mill
Simplex mill
Simplex mill

F
F
F
C
C

E
D
C
B
A

0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13

Table 7. Feasible process range for each operation.

Operation i

Lower limit (mm)

Upper limit (mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

12.9596
27.9596
52.9625
79.9625
146.9625

13.0404
28.0404
53.0375
80.0375
147.0375

Table 8. Tolerance levels ti and tolerance costs CM(ti) for each operation.
Operation
i

Lower level
$ (mm)

Middle level
$ (mm)

Upper level
$ (mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

98.1
98.1
75.1
75.1
75.1

71.3
71.3
56.8
56.8
56.8

64.6
64.6
52.1
52.1
52.1

(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)

(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)
(0.09)

(0.14)
(0.14)
(0.13)
(0.13)
(0.13)

Table 9. Parameter levels Ui for each operation.

Operation i

Lower limit (mm)

Upper limit (mm)

X1
X2
X3
X4
X5

12.9596
27.9596
52.9625
79.9625
146.9625

13.0404
28.0404
53.0375
80.0375
147.0375

by an independent source. Output is voltage or current associated with some components in the circuit.
There may be more than one input and more than one
output. The quality functions between inputs and outputs are
generally called transfer functions in circuit design. There are
two main processes in circuit design: circuit analysis and circuit
synthesis. Circuit analysis is the process of determining the
output, given an input and a circuit. Circuit synthesis is the
process of finding a circuit that gives rise to a predetermined
output when the input is applied. Circuit analysis and circuit
synthesis are like one hand with two sides which proceed
together during the design process. The component values in
electronic circuit design belong to the first type of inputs which
are tolerance requirements. Instead of the conventional twostage approach to the optimisation of parameter and tolerance
values in circuit design, the approach presented attempts to
optimise the components parameter and tolerance values in
one stage (combined design strategy). The following example
demonstrates this approach.
Example 3. An electronic circuit, as shown in Fig. 5, has an
alternating current with voltage UV = 120 V, tV = 1.8 V and
frequency Uf = 60.0 Hz, tf = 0.9 Hz. It also has the parameter
and tolerance values of resistance, R, and self-inductance, L,
unknown [5]. The transfer function in describing the relationship between output current Y, inputs of voltage V, frequency
f, resistance R, and inductance L is:
Y=

(R

(7)

+ (2fL)2)

Expensive or high-grade components normally lead to a

small component tolerance value. However, other than the
grade or process selected, the parameter value sometimes has
an influence on the tolerance value of a component. In this

Table 10. Relevant information for blueprint dimensions.

r

Blueprint
dimensions

Dimensions
chain r

Dimensions
chain
functions
Are

Blueprint
specification
Sr (mm)

Target value
of blueprint
dimensions
Tr (mm)

Quality loss
Coefficient
K1

Quality loss
Coefficient
K2

Failure
cost
C1

Failure
cost
C2

1
2
3
4
5

AF
CE
CD
BC
AB

53
31
32
4
54

X5
X3
X3
X4
X5

0.25
0.26
0.26
0.15
0.24

200
40
25
80
67

4000
7000
6000
1000
7000

7000
4000
3000
3000
3000

4000
6000
6000
2000
5000

7000
2000
3000
4000
2000

+ X3
X1
X2
X4

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design

439

failure costs involved in this example. The response value TC,

representing quality value Y at the eth experimental run, can
be found based on the following equation:
TC = k((UY T)2 + 2Y) + C(GR) + C(CL)

Fig. 5. Diagram of an electronic circuit.

Table 11. Tolerance levels ti for each electronic component.
Component i

Lower level

Middle level

Upper level

R
L

0.6700
0.0010

0.6800
0.0015

0.6900
0.0020

regard, the selection of parameter values and the use of grades

of component R and L are considered simultaneously in the
circuit design presented. Equation (8) represents the tolerance
as a function of the parameter value and grade level selected.
They are:
ti = UiGi

or Gi =

ti
Ui

(8)

where Gi is the grade level, ti is the tolerance value, Ui is the

parameter value, and i represents V, f, R, and L.
Among the four inputs, V, f, R, and L, the values of UR,
tR, UL, and tL are unknown and must be determined. Each
grade level Gi corresponds to grade cost function C(Gi). The
grade cost functions, C(GR) and C(GL), are, respectively,
900GR + 144 and 225GL + 283.5. C(GV) and C(Gf) are
absent because V, tV, f, and tf are given. The low, middle, and
high levels of input factors Ui and ti are decided as shown in
Tables 11 and 12. By following the suggestion from the
experimental design matrix shown in Appendix D, various
combinations of ti and Ui can be formed for the eth computer
simulation run. Then, as in previous examples, a Monte Carlo
simulation is performed to find the values of UY and Y. Of
course, a corresponding grade cost, C(Gi), is obtained based
on the level of combinations of ti and Ui from the experimental
design plan. The target value of Y is TY = 10 A. The quality
loss coefficient K for quality value Y is 40. There are no

Table 12. Parameter levels Ui for each electronic component.

Component i

Lower level

Middle level

Upper level

R
L

9.67081
0.02342

9.87000
0.02400

10.06918
0.02457

(9)

After RSM analysis, a second-order model TC response function is: 96850 16526UR 121527UL 38338tR 516765tL
+ 1404U2R + 4358834U2L + 183951t2R + 77655196t2L. The value
of R2 is 0.9927. A value greater than 0.95 indicates that the
second-order model provides an excellent fit. The optimal
parameter and tolerance levels are: U*R = 9.877115, U*L =
0.023945, t*R = 0.679345, t*L = 0.001495. The response value,
TC*, at optimal control levels = $369.742061. The associated
variance of prediction = 2.397876. Similarly, the confidence
intervals of the quantity for the response value is 400.730047
5.224971. The effect on all the input factors is significant
at a 5% confidence level. Among them, test statistic F indicates
that factors UL, UR, and tL should be closely controlled. If a
design improvement is needed, component L is given first
priority. For the purpose of comparison, additional computer
simulation for non-combined design strategy is performed under
the conditions of, TY = UV/(U2R + (2UfUL)2), where UV = 120
V, Uf = 60 Hz, UR = 9.870 ohm, UL= 0.024. The associated
low, middle, and high levels for input factors ti are given in
Table 11, and the experimental combinations should also follow
the suggestions from the design matrix shown in Appendix E.
The optimal solutions are: t*R = 0.684713 and t*L = 0.001450.
The response value, TC, at optimal control levels is =
$378.750064. The associated variance of prediction is
0.970335. Apparently, the combined design strategy has a
lower response value and a smaller variance of TC than the
non-combined design strategy. These phenomena are due to
the inclusion of additional factors such as parameter values.
3.4 Discussion

Using the RSM approach, the parameter and tolerance values

are optimally determined by the approximated response function, and suggestions for possible design improvement are
obtained by referring to the results from a statistical analysis.
Should the results be unsatisfactory, the engineer can alter the
parameter and tolerance values repeatedly using the response
function found from the RSM analysis. All these activities can
be accomplished very effectively using the approach presented,
eliminating potential problems during the product life cycle
which may require expensive alteration of the design or manufacturing process. Consequently, an economical and quality
parameter and tolerance design can be achieved during the
early stages of product or process development.

4. Conclusion
A statistical and mathematical optimisation oriented methodology, RSM, for parameter and tolerance determination in
assembly design, machining process planning, and electronic
circuit design through numerical simulation has been developed.
With the RSM approach, critical parameters or tolerances can

440

A. Jeang and C.-L. Chang

be identified, and optimal component parameters or tolerance

values can be determined based on response functions. This
approach enables designers to have immediate feedback for
design improvement. The results also show that the combined
design strategy is better than the non-combined design strategy.
Hence, the presented approach makes it is possible to have a
high-quality and cost-effective parameter and tolerance design
for product development and process planning, particularly
during the early stages of design.
Acknowledgements

This work 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 eManufacturing Center at Engineering School of Feng Chia
University, the Education Ministry of the Republic of China
and the National Science Council of the Republic of China
under grant no. NSC 892213-E-035023. I wish to thank my
research assistant, Mr Charles Liu, a graduate student in the
IE department.

References
1. V. N. Nair, Taguchis parameter design: a panel discussion,
Technometrics, 34, pp. 127161, 1992.
2. M. S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
3. D. H. Evans, The State of the Art: Part 1 Background, Journal
of Quality Technology, 6, pp. 188195, 1974.
4. S. Bisgaard and B. Ankenman, Analytic parameter design,
Quality Engineering, 8(1), pp. 7591, 1995.
5. L. K. Chan and P. H. Xiao, Combined robust design, Quality
Engineering, 8(1), pp. 4756, 199596.
6. A. Jeang, Optimal process parameter determination for computeraided manufacturing, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 15, pp. 316, 1999.
7. W. Li and C. F. J. Wu, An integrated method of parameter
design and tolerance design, Quality Engineering, 11(3), pp. 417
425, 1999.
8. S. D. Nigam and J. U. Turner, Review of statistical approaches
to tolerance analysis, Computer-Aided Design, 27(1), pp. 6
15, 1995.
9. W. J. Welch, T. K. Yu, S. M. Kang and J. Sacks, Computer
experiments for quality control by parameter design, Journal of
Quality Technology, 22, pp. 1522, 1990.
10. A. Jeang, Robust tolerance design by response surface methodology, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 15(6), pp. 399403, 1999.
11. R. H. Myers and D. C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 1995.
12. K. W. Chase, W. H. Greenwood, B. G. Loosli and L. F. Haugland,
Least cost tolerance allocation for mechanical assemblies with
automated process selection, Manufacturing Review 3(1), pp. 49
59, 1990.
13. G. Taguchi, Introduction to Quality Engineering, Asian Productivity Organization, Unipub, White Plains, New York, pp. 21
22, 1989.
14. A. Jeang, Tolerance design: choose optimal specifications in the
design of machined parts, Quality and Reliability International,
10(1), pp. 2735, 1994.
15. A. Jeang, Economic tolerance design for quality, Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, 11(2), pp. 113121, 1995.

16. A. Jeang, Tolerance chart balancing for machining process planning, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 12, pp.
355364, 1996.
17. A. Jeang, Optimal tolerance design for product life cycle, International Journal of Production Research, 34(8), pp. 21872209,
1996.
18. A. Jeang, Tolerance chart optimization for quality and cost,
International Journal of Production Research, 36(11), pp. 2969
2983, 1998.
19. F. H. Speckhart, Calculation of tolerances based on a minimum
cost approach, Transactions ASME, Journal of Engineering for
Industry, 94, pp. 447453, 1972.
20. C. F. Wu, S. S. Mao and F. S. Ma, SEL: A Search Method
Based on Orthogonal Array, in Statistical Design and Analysis of
Industrial Experiments, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1990.
21. O. Bjorke, Computer-Aided Tolerancing, 2nd edn, ASME Press,
New York, 1992.
22. R. N. Kacker, Off-line quality control, parameter design, and
Taguchi method, Journal of Quality Technology, 17, pp. 176
209, 1985.
23. D. E. Johnson, J. L. Hilburn, J. R. Johmson and P. D. Scott,
Basic Electric Circuit Analysis, 5th edition, Prentice-Hall, 1995.

Appendix A

The expected value of asymmetric quality loss function is:

Assume that the design target, T, does not coincide with the
process mean, U, and design tolerances (design specifications)
are different for two directions.
Let z1 =

T S1 U
T + S2 U
and z2 =
m
m

p(X1) = (z1) and p(X2) = 1 (z2),

where is the standard normal distribution function defined
z
1/(2) exp (.)z2)-z. The corresponding stanby (z) =
dard normal probability density function is (z) = 1/(2) exp(
.z2). Then,
P(z1) = P(X1) =
P(z2) = P(X2) =

TS1

h(U, m)-X

h(U, m)-X

T=S2

With the asymmetric case, the quality loss experienced by

consumers is different in both directions around the target.
Various K values are assigned for the two directions of the
design target, as shown in Fig. 1. The asymmetric quality loss
function is:
LA(X) =

K2(X T)2 (X T)
K1(X T)2 (X T)

The expected value of the assymmetric quality loss function

is derived in the following:

E(LA(X)) =

K1(X T)2h(U, m)-X

TS1
T+S2

K2(X T)2h(U, m)-X

Concurrent Optimisation of Parameter and Tolerance Design

= k1m

TU
T S1 U
(T U)
(T + S1 U)
m
m

+ k1[(T U)2 + 2m] p

+ k2m (T S2 U)

TU
T S1 U
p
m
m

T + S2 U
TU
(T U)
m
m

+ k2[(T U)2 + 2m] 1 p

T + S2 U
TU
p
m
m

TU
TU
=
.
m
m
And, let

where p

G11 = (T U)
G13 = p

TU
m

G12 = (T + S1 U)

T S1 U
m

TU
T S1 U
T + S2 U
p
G21 = (T S2 U)
m
m
m

TU
G22 = (T U)
m

T + S2 U
TU
G23 = 1 p
p
m
m

Then, E(LA(X)) can be simplified as:

(A1)
= k1m [G11 G12] + k1 [(T U)2 + 2m] G13
+ k2m (G21 G22) + k2 [(T U)2 + 2m] G23

Appendix C. Table of Box-Behnken Design

Factors = 5, blocks = 2, runs = 46.

t1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0

t2
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0

t3
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0

t4
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0

t5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0

Appendix D. Table of Box-Behnken Design

Factors = 4, runs = 27.

t1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0

t2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0

1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0

2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0

Appendix B. Table of Box-Behnken Design

Factors = 10, blocks = 2, runs = 170.

t1

t2

t3

t4

t5

1 2 3 4 5

1 0

1 1 0

1 1 0

1 0

1 1 0

1 1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1
0

1 0

1 0

1 1 1

1 1 1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 1 1 0

1 0

1 1 0

1 0

1 0
0

1 0
1 0
0

Appendix E. Table of Box-Behnken Design

Factors = 2, blocks = 2, runs = 12.

t1
1
1
1
1
1.414
1.414
0
0
0
0
0
0

t2
1
1
1
1
0
0
1.414
1.414
0
0
0
0

441