.

There are many technical differences between the ASME and ISO tolerancing standards. This article will
not focus on these differences as much as the structural and organizational differences that might
influence a company to choose one set of standards over the other. A simple example, shown in Figure
1, shows an instance of how the standards differ. The location of a surface is being controlled relative to
a datum feature A. The notation shown in the figure is permitted by the ISO standards, in that the
position of the surface is controlled relative to the datum feature. In ASME Y14.5 standards, the use of
the position tolerance is reserved for features of size (spheres, cylinders, and opposing pairs of planes)
and some profile features. The single plane is not a feature of size, and so a position tolerance may not
be used. However, the same control is available using the surface profile tolerance.

While there are many such differences between the current standards, there is nothing—of which I’m
aware—that would prevent a designer from being able to specify exactly what they want. The primary
differences are in the default meaning of certain symbols (which can always be over-ridden with a
symbol or note).

Furthermore, I believe that more errors are made by designers not understanding the full implication of
the tolerances that they specify than by designers confusing the use of ISO versus ASME tolerancing
standards. In the shorter term, the choice between ISO and ASME may be less important than adequate
training for designers so that they can ‘encode’ their criteria in a drawing or model, and training for
inspectors so that they can ‘decode’ the meaning of the drawing or model.
MAJOR DIFFERENCES

The major differences between the ASME and ISO tolerancing standards have been classified in the five
categories that follow.

1. Boundary concept

The Y14.5 standard has always considered the control of all points on the surface of a feature. By
extension, the ‘mating size’ concept is used to describe the size of a feature, meaning every point on the
surface of a feature must fit within a boundary having the specified size. For example, if the diameter
specification for a cylindrical pin is 10.0 ± 0.1, the entire pin must fit inside a theoretically perfect
cylindrical shell of diameter 10.1.

Alternatively, the ISO standards consider the least squares size of a feature as the default. This means
that some of the points might lie outside of a boundary that is defined by the size specification, while
still conforming to the size specification. For the same size specification as above (10.0 ± 0.1), a pin
whose least-squares size is 10.1 would conform to the specification although points on the surface could
exceed the perfect boundary of diameter 10.1.

An added fly in the ASME ointment is that the Y14.5.1-1994 standard (mathematical principles of GD&T)
states that ‘all points on the surface’ refers to the points after some sort of smoothing operation. This is
necessary because the idea of a point on the surface of a part is somewhat nebulous when we consider
atomic-level models, and we have to make some assumptions about what the surface actually is. While
the reasoning behind the smoothing is sensible, there is some disagreement within the standards
committees as to what method of smoothing is required, or permitted.

The ISO standards specifically rely on a filtering operation in the modeling of the surface.

2. Specification vs. Verification

The ASME standard intentionally distances itself from Verification (measurement / gaging). In clause
1.1.6 of ASME Y14.5-2009, the standard states “This document is not intended as a gaging standard. Any
reference to gaging is included for explanatory purposes only. For gaging principles see ASME Y14.43
Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles for Gages and Fixtures.” In other words, the ASME standard
describes acceptable geometry of a part, not how the part might be measured.
The ISO standards express a duality between specification and verification. Whatever is done in the
specification process is mirrored in the actual measurement process. This is described as the “duality
principle” and ISO tolerancing standards are part of a “chain of standards” linking the designer’s intent
with the definition of the meter in the SI.

Link A: Symbols and indications

Link B: Feature requirements

Link C: Feature properties

Link D: Conformance and

non-conformance

Link E: Measurement

Link F: Measurement equipment

Link G: Calibration

The ASME mindset reflects a well thought-out principle that the designer may not care how the part is
inspected, but only cares about the part geometry. This is not contradicted in the ISO standards, but the
ISO standards do represent a more direct recognition of the links between design and verification.

3. Underlying Theory

The ASME standard is based on the idea of specifying geometrically perfect zones within which the
feature surfaces must lie. This is often referred to as a preference for “hard gaging,” as often gages can
be built that are a physical representation of the tolerance zones. A good example of this is the
cylindrical mating envelope described in the boundary concept section.

The ISO standards introduce a series of operators that take the user from the specification to extraction
of points from the part surface to calculation of values that are compared to the tolerances. Because of
this calculation element, the standards are often thought of as “CMM Friendly.”

While these are different approaches to tolerancing, the designer can explicitly specify a meaning
different from the default of that standard in use. For example, the designer can specify the envelope
principle for size evaluation by putting the appropriate symbol (a circled E) next to the specification, or
in the default tolerance block.

4. Number of Standards documents

The ASME standards are primarily the Y14.5 standard, supported by others: Y14.5.1 (mathematical
principles); Y14.8 (castings); Y14.41 (CAD representation); Y14.43 (functional gages). Additional
standards are being developed that cover the reporting of measurement results (Y14.45).

The ISO standards include different documents for all aspects of tolerancing: geometrical tolerances,
datums, size, as well as separate standards for various tolerancing theories. A partial list includes:

ISO 286 – limits and fits

ISO 1101 – form, orientation,

location, and runout

ISO 1119 – series of conical tapers

ISO 1660 – profiles

ISO 3040 – cones

ISO 5458 – position

ISO 5459 – datums

ISO 14405 – size

Note that many of these standards have multiple parts. For example, ISO 14405-1 (linear sizes), ISO
14405-2 (dimensions other than linear sizes), and ISO 14405-3 (angular sizes – under development)
describe the size of different types of features.

With the many different ISO standards available, it is sometimes hard to determine which standard is
appropriate (cones or conical tapers?) or which standard takes precedent if there is an inconsistency
between two different ISO standards.

5. Stability
The ASME tolerancing standard Y14.5 emerged in 1957 as an ASA standard, and has been revised, on
average, every 10 years or so. The pace of change is quite slow, and much negotiation is required to
introduce new concepts or notation.

By contrast, the ISO documents can change more quickly as they each focus on a narrower area of the
entire tolerancing spectrum. This allows more responsive changes when improvements are sought in a
specific area, but makes the application of consistent changes across all of the standards difficult.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The table summarizes the differences described in this article. Each of these differences can be viewed
as favoring one standard over the other, and I would like to emphasize again that the adequate training
of personnel is of great importance. As I expect many organizations, particularly international
companies, have legacy drawings that reflect both standards, the understanding of the differences is
equal in importance (in the short term) to the choice of standards for future documents.

subscribe to Quality Magazine

Edward Morse is with The Center for Precision Metrology at The University of North Carolina at
Charlotte. E-mail: [email protected]

Related Articles