RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MATERIAL MODIFIERS AND FITS:
MMC, LMC & RFS MODIFIERS AND FIT TOLERANCES
The use of material modifiers in GD&T may seem quite abstract for beginners. When should we use MMC
(Maximum Material Condition), LMC (Least Material Condition) and RFS (Regardless of Feature Size)?
What are the practical implications of these modifiers? This text emphasizes the relationship between
material modifiers and fit conditions. Take note that this is just a conceptual introduction and that each
application should be considered in its particular circumstances.
Fits
Fits between cylindrical features (holes and pins) define the proper assembly of many mechanisms. ISO
standard [1] defines three main kinds of fits:
Clearance fit (Lắp ghép có độ hở): There is always a clearance between the hole and the pin. The lower
limit of the hole is always bigger than the higher limit of the pin.
Transition fit (Lắp ghép trung gian): Fit that can provide a clearance or an interference after the assembly.
Interference fit (Lắp ghép có độ dôi hay lắp chặt): There is always an interference between the hole and the
pin. The upper limit of the hole is always smaller than the lower limit of the pin.
Material Modifiers and Fits
1. MMC: More Clearance, Looser Fit Clearance fit
Why Use the MMC Concept?
MMC defines the worst case condition of a part that will still guarantee, because it is still within the
prescribed tolerances, the assembly between pin(s) and hole(s). When a hole is at its smallest (MMC) and a
pin is at its largest condition (also MMC), we can be sure that we will still be able to assemble that part.
Thus, MMC is widely used in cases where clearance fits are common.
Design Intent: Easier Assembly (Implied: Less Location Accuracy)
Worst Case Condition for Assembly: Maximum material condition
The design intent of the maximum material modifier being easy and guaranteed assembly, we don’t care if
the mating pin wiggles around a bit after assembly. So we encourage the hole to be larger, putting a
maximum material limit.
As the hole gets larger in size (hence moving from maximum material condition toward least material
condition), it provides a looser fit with the mating pin. The clearance gained can be used as a bonus
tolerance for position tolerance.
2. LMC: Less Clearance, Tighter Fit Transition fit
Design Intent: More Location Accuracy (Implied: Less Easy Assembly)
Worst Case Condition for Location Accuracy: Least material condition
The design intent of the least material modifier being more location accuracy, we don’t want the mating pin
to wiggle around so much after assembly. So we encourage the hole to be smaller, putting a least material
condition.
As the hole gets smaller in size, it provides a tighter fit with the mating pin. The tightness gained can be
used as a bonus tolerance for position tolerance.
The use of LMC can pose some risk in the assembly, as it is difficult to design and manufacture the correct
tightness limit for the assembly (as opposed to looseness limit in the MMC case). If the hole gets too small,
we can end up getting an unwanted interference fit.
3. RFS: No Clearance Interference fit
Part with Regardless of Feature Size Condition: As the location accuracy is of the utmost importance, there
is no relationship between the hole size and the position tolerance (Pin tolerance indicates a press fit and no
clearance).
Design Intent: High and Robust Location Accuracy
The design intent of the Regardless of Feature Size condition is the location accuracy. Once the pin is press
fit into the hole, the position of the pin is determined and it cannot wiggle at all.
The size of the hole has no relationship with the location of the hole. If the hole size gets larger or smaller,
there is no bonus added to position tolerance.
Summary
Hence, we could summarize the relationship between hole size and relative bonus tolerance as follows:
MMC: As the hole gets larger, bonus tolerance increases,
LMC: As the hole gets smaller, bonus tolerance increases.
RFS: There is no relationship between the hole size and the bonus tolerance.
References
ASME Y 14.5-2009, Dimensioning and Tolerancing. New York: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
ISO 286-1:2010, Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - ISO code system for tolerances on linear sizes -
Part 1: Basis of tolerances, deviations and fits.
https://www.faro.com/en/Resource-Library/Article/gdt-for-beginners-mmc-bonus-tolerance-explained-in-3d
https://www.faro.com/en/Resource-Library/Article/relationships-between-material-modifiers-and-fits-mmc-
lmc-and-rfs-modifiers-and-fit-tolerances
https://www.3dcs.com/what-are-material-conditions-mmc-lmc-gdt
