Tolerance analysis methods for the application of ISO and ASME GD&T to mechanical component - 2D and 3D case studies

Oct 29, 2026

This study examines the application of two- and three-dimensional tolerance analysis methods in accordance with ISO 2768:2017 and ASME Y14.5-2018 standards to assess dimensional and geometric compliance in mechanical component assemblies. Through a set of case studies, including a simple shaft-hole coupling and a complex pulley assembly, it compares deterministic and statistical approaches such as Worst-Case Scenario (WCS) and Root Sum Square (RSS). The results show that 3D tolerance methods capture complex geometrical interactions and cumulative deviations more accurately than traditional 2D methods, especially for assemblies with intricate mating features. Key differences between ISO and ASME standards—such as the envelope principle (ASME Rule #1) and the independence principle in ISO—are clarified to support practitioners in selecting the appropriate standard for specific applications.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Engineering drawings and the need for tolerances

Dimensional and geometrical specification in mechanical design

Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) standards

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Science and Technology 5(3) (2025) 2025020 Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Science and Technology [jamst@jamstjournal.com](jamst@jamstjournal.com)；[jamst2020@126.com](jamst2020@126.com) [www.jamstjournal.com](www.jamstjournal.com) ISSN: 2709-2135 eISSN: 3008-0991 Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Science and Technology 《先进制造科学与技术》国际期刊 Scopus数据库收录 CiteScore 2023=4.1 大连理工大学&航空发动机先进制造技术教育部工程研究中心主办 Tolerance analysis methods for the application ofISOANDASME GD&T to mechanical component: 2D and 3D case studies Rocco FURFERI* Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Florence, Italy Received 8 October 2024; revised 5 November 2024; accepted 16 December 2024; available online 23 December 2024 Abstract: This study examines the application of two-and three-dimensional tolerance analysis methods in accordance with ISO 2768 :2017 and ASME Y 14.5-2018 standards to assess dimensional and geometric compliance in mechanical component assemblies. By analyzing a se‐ ries of case studies—including a simple shaft-hole coupling and a complex pulley assembly—the study compares deterministic and statisti‐ cal methods, such as Worst-Case Scenario (WCS) and Root Sum Square (RSS), to explore their effectiveness in real-world design. The analysis demonstrates how 3D tolerance methods can capture complex geometrical interactions and cumulative deviations more accurately than traditional 2D approaches, particularly for assemblies with intricate mating features or spatial dependencies. Key differences between ISO and ASME standards, such as the implications of the envelope principle (ASME Rule \#1) and the independence principle in ISO, are highlighted to help practitioners choose the appropriate standard for specific applications. Keywords: ASME Y14.5 :2018; ISO GD&T; tolerances; mechanical drafting; assemblies 1. Introduction The computation method of unsteady transonic flow based on NS equations should be best accurate, but to three-dimensional com‐ plex problems, it can be achieved. As widely known, engineering drawings without dimensional, geometrical tolerances and datums are difficult for manufacturers to interpret and may result in non-functional manufacture of com‐ ponents. Insufficient and unclear part tolerancing in engineering drawings not only increases the cost of manufacture and inspection, but it also makes it difficult to validate complaints of faults and in‐ creases legal liability1. Accordingly, when approaching reliability design from the standpoint prevailing in modern“quality engineer‐ ing,”the designer is required to specify dimensional and geometric tolerances2. In addition to defining two levels of judgment (accept‐ able and unacceptable) during the part's production phase, this ap‐ proach requires strict control of the parts geometry3. Since indus‐ trial production is impacted by the normal uncertainty of a part and, by extension, of an assembly, it is well known that it is impossible to manufacture exactly identical parts4. Furthermore, during its op‐ eration in real environment, the mechanical part could be subjected to geometry modifications because of, for instance, wear and me‐ * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [rocco.furferi@unifi.it](rocco.furferi@unifi.it)(Rocco FURFERI) Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of JAMST DOI: 10.51393/j.jamst.2025020 2709-2135©2025 JAMST chanical/thermal deformations. The features of the environment that a product is meant for must be considered by the designer, however this is rarely covered in enough detail. Dimensional discrepancies are not only determined by random components possibly occurring during manufacturing of parts; sys‐ tematic mistakes, such as wear-induced flaws during a machining process, also play a significant role. Consequently, individual parts must fulfil certain dimensional constraints to be assembled into subassemblies and function correctly. In turn, t

FAQs

What standards does the study use for tolerance analysis?

The study applies ISO 2768:2017 and ASME Y14.5-2018 standards to evaluate dimensional and geometric compliance in mechanical assemblies.

Which tolerance analysis methods are compared in the case studies?

It compares deterministic and statistical methods, including Worst-Case Scenario (WCS) and Root Sum Square (RSS), across multiple mechanical assembly examples.

Why can 3D tolerance analysis be more accurate than 2D approaches?

3D methods better represent complex geometrical interactions and cumulative deviations, particularly for assemblies with intricate mating features or spatial dependencies.

Oct 29, 2026

Upload by Alexandar