Introduction to Root Sum

Squared (RSS) Tolerance

Analysis
A how to guide to statistical tolerance analysis for
mechanical engineering applications.

William Burke
Five Flute Founder & CEO

The best in engineering and hardware product development on the web -

straight to your inbox.

Enter your email Subscribe

A bit of housekeeping! Since you care about tolerance analysis I'm guessing you also
make 2d drawings. If so, you might be interested in how Five Flute can be used to
streamline your drawing review process. Click here to see how it works, we'd love to help
you if we can. Now on to the nerdy stuff! Cheers!
Introduction
The goal of this article is to familiarize you with how to conduct root sum squared (RSS)
statistical tolerance analysis for mechanical engineering applications. The reality of
designing physical products is that manufactured parts always have some degree of
dimensional variance as a result of manufacturing processes. As engineers and
designers, it’s our job to understand how this dimensional variance will impact the as-
built functionality of the products we design. It sounds simple, but in practice it is a
multidimensional challenge that requires a variety of mathematical and statistical tools
to tackle effectively. In this article we’ll be building your foundational understanding of
the RSS tolerance analysis method by first reviewing the underlying math and statistics,
discussing the practical application to manufacturing problems, running through a few
examples to put this knowledge into action, and then closing with key takeaways that
you can apply to any tolerance analysis problem you face in your career.

Note: If you are interested in worst case and/or monte carlo analysis check out our
ultimate guide to tolerance analysis.

The root sum squared (RSS) method - an overview

The root sum squared (or RSS) method is a statistical tolerance analysis method that
allows you to simulate the expected outcome for a population of manufactured parts
and their associated assemblies. But why is it even important to understand this
method when specifying tolerances for production parts? Worst case tolerance analysis
is almost always too conservative to apply to large manufacturing runs, resulting in an
over specification of manufacturing tolerances (ie: tolerances are unnecessarily too
tight). This results in extremely expensive parts and/or significant scrap as a result of
rejected parts in quality control.

Simulating a population of manufactured parts

So how does RSS help us get past the shortcomings of worst case tolerance analysis for
production runs? Fundamentally, RSS tolerance analysis leverages the fact that in an
assembly composed of multiple parts, it is unlikely that all components will have as-
manufactured dimensions that are both far away from the mean and all biased to one
side of the target dimension (ie: all parts are too large). A much more likely outcome is
that some parts will be larger than desired, and some parts will be smaller than desired.
When these groups of parts are assembled, this symmetric variance results in a relatively
low probability that the assembly will be out of tolerance despite sometimes large
variances in individual dimensions.

RSS tolerance analysis is a method that allows you to characterize the variance in the
manufacturing process of all critical dimensions, and then sum these individual
dimensional variances to determine the behavior of a population of assemblies.

The normal distribution and it’s application in

manufacturing
So how do you simulate the behavior of 1000+ mechanical assemblies? Statistical
inference, that’s how! The key is to leverage the properties of the normal (or Gaussian)
distribution. For many manufacturing processes, it is safe to assume that the critical
dimensions of a part will follow a normal distribution with a mean and a standard
deviation. The mean describes the average value (for a single dimension) of a population
of parts, and the standard deviation describes the range of variability (again for a single
dimension) across the entire population.
Take for example, the thickness of a cold rolled steel sheet. 14 gauge cold rolled steel
sheet has a specified thickness of 0.075” and a tolerance of ±0.005”. Using a normal
distribution we can safely assume that the average sheet thickness is 0.075”, meaning
the manufacturing process is centered around the target specification. But how do we
translate the specified tolerance into a dimensional variance that describes the range of
thickness outcomes? A standard assumption is that a manufacturer will be able to
produce parts such that three standard deviations fall within the specified tolerance
range. In practice this means that 99.7% of all manufactured components will lie within
the desired tolerance range

For our sheet metal example with a tolerance of ±0.005” the probability distribution
looks like this. Note: the vertical lines represent standard deviations across the sheet
thickness range.
So what exactly does this probability density function mean practically? You can think of
it as a normalized representation of dimensional outcomes. A quick glance reveals that it
is extremely unlikely that the sheet thickness will be below 0.0715” or above 0.0785”. Now
imagine that two other manufacturers can supply 14 gauge sheet at thickness
tolerances of ±0.002 and ±0.010 respectively. How likely will the average sheet purchased
from each of these manufacturers fall between 0.0715” and 0.0785”? You can get a quick
intuitive answer to this by plotting the probability density functions for all three
tolerance values on the same plot. Note: the plot below includes standard deviations
indicated by the vertical lines in colors corresponding to each tolerance specification.
Building your tolerance stack-up by adding variances and means
So what does this all mean in terms of assembly level behavior? For independent
variables (like a critical dimension on multiple parts or different features of a single part)
variances are additive. This incredible property allows us to sum variances across
multiple dimensions and then compute a standard deviation for the entire system (or
tolerance stack). By computing the system standard deviation and then applying that to
the average value of the dimensional stack, you can build a probability density function
for the functional assembly. This will allow you to simulate scrap or rejection rates for an
entire manufacturing and assembly process with relatively straightforward math.

Here’s how you compute the system standard deviation.

Stacked sheet example
So let’s continue on with our sheet example but this time using three sheets stacked on
top of each other. Let’s assume that the minimum allowable thickness of the three sheet
stack is 0.216” and the maximum allowable thickness is 0.234” (ie: target stack thickness
= 0.225 ±0.009”). Which of the three manufacturers can supply sheet that meets this
assembly level target consistently?

Manufacturer A can produce 14 Ga sheet that is 0.075 ±0.002” thick at $25/square foot.

Manufacturer B can produce 14 Ga sheet that is 0.075 ±0.005” thick at $20/square foot.

Manufacturer C can produce 14 Ga sheet that is 0.075 ±0.010” thick at $15/square foot.

A back of the envelope worst case analysis would indicate that only manufacturer A can
consistently hit a stack tolerance under ±0.009” but this may be unnecessarily costly.
Applying the RSS method we can compute the system standard deviation for
manufacturer B as follows.

Once you know the assembly standard deviation, you can compute the assembly
symmetric tolerance by multiplying the standard deviation by three (remember our
assumption about three standard deviations, or 99.7% of parts falling within the
specified tolerance).

Results for all three manufacturers are shown in the table below.
Mean shifts and how to model process shift and drift
One of the key assumptions behind the RSS method is that dimensions are linearly
independent (like orthogonal vectors). This is the reason that RSS tolerances are less
conservative and more realistic than worst case tolerance analysis. In reality, however,
not all dimensions of a part are guaranteed to be linearly independent. They may vary
uniformly together, causing all critical dimensions to be larger or smaller than the
specification.

Imagine an injection molding facility without indoor air temperature control. Despite
individual mold cooling, the average temperature of the injection molding tool may be
50 degrees hotter during the summer months than the winter. This will result in
significantly larger parts coming off the mold in the summer due to thermal expansion
of the tool. This type of dimensional variance can be characterized by shifts in the mean
value of the manufactured component’s critical dimensions.

A standard practice in RSS tolerance analysis is to analyze the impact of a mean shift of
1.5 standard deviations for one or more critical dimensions in the stack-up. Simply add
(or subtract) 1.5σ to the mean (target specification) value of those dimensions that you
think are subject to process drift or shift. Then compute your assembly tolerances as we
did in the previous example.

Applying mean shifts to our 3 sheet example

Continuing on with our 14 Ga sheet steel example we can compute the impact of a 1.5σ
mean shift on the assembly level performance. Remember that the mean shift does not
impact the variance of the process. Recalculating the 3σ minimum and maximum
material conditions for the stack-up while including a +1.5σ shift in mean thickness gives
us the following results. Recall that the minimum allowable thickness of the three sheet
stack is 0.216” and the maximum allowable thickness is 0.234” (ie: target stack thickness
= 0.225 ±0.009”).

As you can see from the results, the mean shift is significant enough to cause the
maximum material condition for the plates made by Manufacturer B to be out of spec.
Note that this is no longer a symmetric failure as all assemblies fall within the least
material condition limits. Mean shifts cause failures on either the left or right tail of the
distribution.

Returning to our thermal drift example for the injection molded parts, these asymmetric
(tail biased) failures make sense intuitively when you think about how an increase in
mold temperature would lead to larger parts, and assembly failures above the
maximum material condition limit for the stack-up.

Piston o-ring example

Now let’s put RSS into practice on a more realistic example. In this case you are
designing a hydraulic piston assembly as part of a custom actuator project. The actuator
body is comprised of an off the shelf cylinder, a custom piston rod, a machined piston,
and an off the shelf 1/16 fractional, dash 032 o-ring seal. You have been given
manufacturing tolerances for the cylinder inner diameter and the o-ring cross section
diameter. You are designing a custom machined piston and you need to specify a
machining tolerance for the inner diameter of the o-ring groove. The o-ring seal will
function well if you maintain a static compression of 10% - 30% of the o-ring nominal
diameter. The machine shop can hit a standard tolerance of ±0.005” on the piston
diameter. Any further reduction in tolerance will increase machining cost. Will this
standard tolerance work? If not, what is the tolerance that will ensure assembly
functionality in production while minimizing machining cost?

Solution Steps
To solve this assembly tolerance problem we will go through the following steps.

1. Construct a tolerance stack equation to represent how the dimensions sum in the
assembly.
2. Compute the acceptable limits for assembly behavior that satisfy the tolerance
equation. You can think of this as establishing maximum and minimum material
conditions, or go/no-go limits on the tolerance stack.
3. Calculate the standard deviation and variance for each dimension.
4. Plug the mean value of each dimension into your stack equation. Additionally, sum
the variances of the individual dimensions and then take the square root of the
sum of variances. This is your stack equation result and associated assembly
standard deviation.
5. Convert from standard deviation back to a plus/minus tolerance at the assembly
level.
6. Compare the assembly tolerance (via max and min conditions) to the limits
established in step 2.
7. Iterate on individual component tolerances until you find a solution.
Solution
First build your tolerance stack equation to represent how the dimensions sum in the
assembly. In this case we can construct a stack equation that sums the radial
dimensions of the components and the diameter of the o-ring and computes the static
o-ring compression, X.

Then establish dimensional targets for the entire stack-up (ie: what conditions satisfy the
tolerance equation). In our case, we first need to compute the target limits on o-ring
compression in order for the seal to function (shown below as Xmin and Xmax).

Now simply plug the mean value of each dimension into your stack equation to
compute the nominal o-ring compression. Then calculate the standard deviation and
variance for each dimension in the stack based on the tolerance for each dimension.
Recall that we are assuming that the manufacturing process is capable of delivering
99.7%, or three standard deviations, of units within the specified tolerance. The variance
is the square of this standard deviation. These values are shown in the table below, along
with the minimum and maximum condition of each dimension.

Now you can compute the assembly standard deviation by summing the variances of
the individual dimensions and then take the square root of the sum of variances. With
the standard deviation in hand, you can convert back to a plus/minus tolerance at the
assembly stack level by multiplying by 3 (unwinding our ±3σ assumption). Results for the
assembly are shown below along with min and max conditions for o-ring compression
based on the computed assembly tolerance.

Now you can compare the minimum and maximum conditions for o-ring compression
to the target specification for the stack-up that we computed in step 2. Recall Xmin
(based on 10% compression) is 0.007”, which is above the calculated minimum condition
of 0.0056” based on our RSS assembly tolerance. Xmax is 0.021”, which is below the
calculated maximum condition of 0.0224” for the assembly. Based on these individual
component tolerances, its safe to conclude the assembly tolerance is not sufficient to
ensure that 99.7% of units will have a functional seal.

If however, we tighten the piston radius tolerance up from ±0.005” to ±0.0015” and
recalculate the assembly tolerances...

...you can see that the o-ring compression now falls just barely within the target spec!
With RSS tolerance analysis it’s simple to iterate dimensional tolerances until assembly
performance is within the target specification.

Takeaways
Key assumptions
In order to use RSS tolerance analysis in real world applications, it’s critical to understand
the assumptions it is based on so you can apply it judiciously and accurately. The first
assumption is that the manufacturing processes used to create all critical dimensions
can be accurately modeled by the normal distribution obeying the central limit theorem.
This implies that tolerances are symmetric around a mean target value. The second key
assumption is that all dimensions are linearly independent, and to the extent that they
do not behave this way, the behavior of the as-manufactured parts and as-built
assemblies can be reasonably approximated by mean shifts representing process shift
and drift due to external or endogenous factors. It’s your job as an engineer to think
through these assumptions very carefully and apply the RSS method conservatively.

Pros of this approach

There are a few key advantages to the RSS tolerance analysis method that are worth
highlighting.

RSS tolerance analysis allows you to compute system level behavior for entire
populations before you ever manufacture a single part. That alone is incredibly
powerful!
RSS tolerance analysis is generally much more realistic and less conservative than
worst case analysis. This can reduce part cost by allowing you to relax individual
dimensional tolerances to easily achievable levels while maintaining high quality at
the assembly level. Your machinists and manufacturing partners will thank you!
The RSS method is relatively quick and flexible and can be applied to most
manufacturing processes. To the extent that a process doesn’t follow a perfect
normal distribution or is likely to be impacted by external environmental factors,
the mean shift computation offers a conservative method to understand how a
manufacturing process will respond and perform under those external factors.
The RSS method and careful application of confidence intervals allows you to
estimate scrap rates in manufacturing. When a critical dimensions fall outside the
desired specification, RSS and confidence intervals can allow you to compute the
probability and estimated cost of those failures in production. This is invaluable
when you encounter unexpected issues in production.

Cons of this approach

Conversely, there are a few disadvantages to the RSS tolerance analysis method that are
important to understand before putting it into practice.

The underlying assumptions that RSS is based on are not always true! It’s important
to understand if the manufacturing processes involved behave in accordance with
the above assumptions.
Specifically, and perhaps most importantly, not all processes follow a normal
distribution. Due to the fundamental physics of different manufacturing processes,
the human error elements, internal and external factors, many processes follow
asymmetric distributions where failures are expected to be biased towards one tail
 of the distribution. Instead of RSS, Monte Carlo tolerance analysis methods can be
extremely helpful in these cases.

Closing thoughts
The RSS tolerance analysis method strikes the perfect balance of ease of computation,
accuracy in real world applications, simplicity and extensibility to a variety of cases. Now
that you understand the basics, give it a try on your project. Or check out our free online
RSS tolerance analysis calculator. If you enjoyed this article or have any follow up
questions please email support@fiveflute.com and we’d be happy to help.

Tolerance analysis and design reviews

Tolerance analysis is just one component of a good design review practice. If you
struggle to get consistent and actionable feedback on your work, you should try Five
Flute. It’s the fastest way to share, review, and improve your engineering designs.

Learn more: Here’s how Five Flute works for design reviews and drawing reviews.

Want to know more?

Sign up for a 20 minute demo to learn how Five Flute can accelerate your
team’s development

GET A DEMO Your work email

Engineering Resources
Engineering Articles

Guides & Playbooks

Tools, Charts & Calculators

Section View

Use Cases
Design Reviews

Drawing Reviews

Customer Stories

Pricing
Contact

Five Flute Inc. © 2024 Privacy Policy and Terms of Service