Design Guide 

This document will outline some design suggestions or factors that drive the costs of machined components. It will
help the engineer make choices during the design process which may reduce the cost of the end product.

Choosing Materials:

When choosing materials, allow the use of different forms of the material such as bar stock and plate. There can be
significant differences in the cost and lead time of acquiring different forms. The Table below shows approximate $/lb
and machinability ratings for common metals. Consider the strength vs. machinability rating as well when choosing
materials. Choosing an annealed but heat treatable alloy of steel for example and then not specifying any heat treat
will just drive cost with little benefit in material performance. As you see below, some aluminum can have even better
performance than some grades of steel with significantly better machinability.

Alloy, Temper and Spec Machinability Ultimate Tensile Price in

Rating / Yield Strength $/lb. (Feb
(1212 steel is (ksi) typical 2009)
100%)
6061-T651 Extruded Bar - ASTM B221, AMS 4150, QQ-A- 320% 45 / 40 $1.60
200/8
6061-T651 Wrought Plate – ASTM B209, AMS 4027, QQ-A- 320% 45 / 40 $3.20
250/11
2024-T351 Extruded Bar – ASTM B221, QQ-A-200/3 380% 68 / 47 $3.15
2024-T351 Wrought Plate – ASTM B209, AMS 4035, QQ-A- 380% 68 / 47 $3.95
250/4
7075-T651 Extruded Bar – AMS 4154, QQ-A-200/11 340% 83 / 73 $3.35
7075-T651 Wrought Plate – QQ-A-250/12 340% 83 / 73 $4.25
MIC-6 Cast Aluminum Plate – (Very Stable) 340% 24 / 20 $3.25
304 Stainless Bar – ASTM A276, ASTM A479, AMS 5639, 45% 90 / 40 $1.45
QQ-S-763
303 UNS Stainless Bar – ASTM A314, ASTM A320, ASTM 78% 90 / 35 $1.89
A582, AMS 5640
416 Stainless Bar – ASTM A314, ASTMA582, AMS 5610 110% 75 / 40 $1.65
17-4 PH Stainless Bar – ASTM A564 Type 630, AMS 5643 48% 150 / 110 $2.25
1018 Steel CF Bar – ASTM A108 78% 67 / 45 $1.10
A36 Steel HR Plate – ASTM A36 72% (58-80) / 36 $1.10
12L14 Steel Free Machining Steel Bar – ASTM A108 193% 78 / 70 $0.80
4340 Alloy Steel Bar (annealed)– ASTM A322, ASTM A304 57% 110 / 66 $1.40
Price can be significantly affected by the total weight being purchased and cut sizes, and these prices below assume a decent
amount of material is being purchased.

Geometry Considerations - Radii:

One of the single biggest cost drivers for machined parts is
the length of time it takes to machine it. The rigidity and
strength of the actual cutting tools often determines how
much time it takes. Very simply, the shorter a tool is, the
faster it can feed, and the less the part will cost to make. The
selection of these cutting tools is determined by the design of
the part and a few simple rules can really help reduce
machining time.

When designing parts that have pockets, or other features

with vertical inside corners, you will need to leave a radius as
the machining process uses rotating tools. Use the largest
Fig. 1: Short and Rigid tool can cut this.
radii you can get away with. The tool that is used to machine a particular feature will obviously have a diameter of 2x
the radius that you put in your model. If you design a part with a 1/8” radius, it will require a minimum of a 1/4” tool to
cut that feature.

The larger a tool that can be used in that corner, the faster it
can feed through the material. As the length of that corner
increases, the length of the tool must increase as well and
that tool must be fed much more slowly to avoid deflection
and breakage. The relationship is worse than linear. For
every doubling in length, the feedrate is more than cut in
half. When figuring costs, assume that a double of the ratio
equates to a double of the cost of that feature. A good ratio
is less than 3:1. Once you get up to 4, 5, or 6 to one, the
feedrates are much slower. See figures 1 and 2. Under
normal circumstances, 8:1 is the upper limit and is very slow
and expensive to cut.
By using these simple guidelines, significant savings can be
achieved in the cost of your machined parts.
Fig. 2: Long and flexible tool needed.
Sometimes you just need to have a long small radius
because of assembly issues. There are still options to
reduce the cost of features like this. Figure 3 shows how
you can make a virtually square corner with very little
intrusion into the surrounding walls. This is a great
technique if for weight or assembly reasons you can't
tolerate a larger radius.

The key to this feature is to not put the center of the radius
on the intersection of the inside edges. Put the center point
inboard and then you can adjust it to fit your application.
Use the biggest radius that fits the application as well.

It isn't uncommon for engineers to put a radius both on the

Fig. 3: Virtual sharp or small corner radius
floor and wall intersection as well as the vertical walls (see
fig 4). With the "apply round" or fillet feature on most 3D CAD systems, the easiest thing to do is to select both that
floor intersection and the wall intersections and just apply the same size radius to all those. But in fact, what saves
you a few seconds work to have just one feature, can cause enormous headaches for the machine shop and cost you
a lot of money in the long run.

It isn't obvious what it takes to machine the area in the corner. It is much more complicated if the floor radius is
smaller than the wall radius. Because of the equal wall and floor
radii, two tools must be used to clean up this area completely. The
wall needs to be cut with a ball end mill (an end mill with a full radius
on the tip). The floor of the part needs to be cut with a flat end mill,
but this will leave a triangular shaped section in the corner that
neither tool can
reach. (See fig 5).

This condition can

be avoided by
modeling the floor
radii smaller than
the wall radii (see
Fig. 6). This enables
the shop to machine
Fig. 4: Equal Radii on floor and wall this entire area with
one tool that has a
costs 10X.
flat bottom but also
has radii on its tips. In the last issue of Pro Tips we identified that the
larger the vertical corner radii can be, the faster the tool can travel
and the cheaper the part will be. Generally speaking the smaller the Fig. 5: Material in blue is hard to
remove.
floor radii can be, the better, with a 0 radius being the easiest of all.
In the US, tools are readily available with tip radii in .01"
increments up to .125". And when indicating a tolerance of this
floor radius on your drawing, make it as generous as possible to
allow the shop greater flexibility in choosing tools.

To put it into perspective, the equal corner radii detail will easily
cost 10x what the unequal corner radii detail costs. That should
offer enough incentive to spend a couple extra minutes modeling
the optimum radii on your part, and reap the benefits for the life of
the part.

Material Shape and size:

The size and shape of your part is nearly always driven by the
function. Sometimes the constraints are hard and fast but other
times you have some flexibility to design the outer size and shape. Fig. 6: A larger wall than floor radius is
There is a good opportunity to design out some cost by considering
much faster to machine.
what size material the part might be made from. We already saw
above in the material table, that if available, bar stock is always cheaper than plate material. When bar stock is
chosen as on material option, it is best to consider what size stock your part might fit into.

In Fig. 7 we see a part that is .74" thick x 3.3" wide. This part fits nicely into bar stock that is 3.5" wide, but it isn't quite
thin enough to be made from .75" material. With only .01" clearance between the part and material we can't
guarantee the tolerances and clean up the faces. In this case, we have to use 1" thick material which costs 25% more
and spend time to remove extra material as well. If the
part could have been designed at a maximum
thickness of .65" or less, it is likely that .75" material
could have been used. There are some creative
methods of minimizing excess material. For smaller
parts that get clamped in a vice, .05" is probably about
the minimum amount of excess that is needed. For
very large flat parts that are held down with fixtures,
occasionally even less can be left. If you are unsure,
consult your manufacturer early on in the design
phase where changes cost the least amount of money.

Occasionally, designing a part to be exactly the size of

the raw material can be done if the tolerances and
cosmetic requirements are very low and "stock"
surface and tolerances are expected. If you need to
have all sides finish-machined, a safe rule of thumb is
to leave approximately .1" on the length and width and
at least .125" on the thickness. The side the thickness
would be measured along would be the one where the
primary material removal is occurring. With some
Fig. 7: This part could be cheaper if it were a little designs, it isn't clear which way the part would be
thinner. machined and it is prudent to engage the machine
shop early on for advice on where they will need to hold onto the raw material, and how much of it they will need
when they machine it.

Tolerances
Nothing can drive up costs on a part more quickly than tight tolerances that are difficult to machine or measure. Some
tight tolerances are not any problem at all to achieve, while others are very challenging. All too often we see drawings
with poorly applied tolerances which drive up the cost of the part or worse, potentially not fitting together with its
mating parts. A better understanding of the machining process will allow the engineer to specify an intelligent
tolerancing scheme which serves their needs well but doesn't needlessly drive up costs.
As a rule of thumb, features that are created by the machine tool capability will be relatively easy to hold to a high
tolerance. On the other hand, features that are affected by operator handling and loading into subsequent fixtures will
be much harder to hold at a high tolerance. An obvious example of an easy to hold tolerance is the dimension
between two steps on the same side of a part as seen in Figure 8. The same tool will be used on these faces and the
positional accuracy of the CNC machine will be the primary contributor to variability (essentially zero). With a
positional accuracy of around .0001" [.0025mm] on an
average CNC machine, this should be much tighter than
most applications require. So if you need to specify a
tolerance of .002" [.05mm] this shouldn't pose too much of
a problem. Conversely, if you need to specify a high
tolerance to the opposite face of the part, like in Figure 9,
this would be much more challenging. The reason for this
is because in most cases the part will be removed from the
CNC machine, manually flipped upside down and re-
clamped in order for the back side to be machined. There
are a lot of variables introduced with this process and a
tolerance of .002" [.05mm] would be much harder to
achieve. There would likely be more complicated fixturing,
longer machine set-up, longer loading times per part, and a
higher scrap rate. These would all drive cost considerably.

Given the above, parts will still generally be less expensive

to make when tolerances are looser. Often engineers rely
on the tolerance block to help communicate their needs
such as .xx = .01”, .xxx = .005", .xxxx = .001" (or metric
equivalent). Sticking with these general tolerances is easy
to specify but may drive cost needlessly. If .005" is too
loose of a tolerance, it doesn't mean that .001" is the only Fig. 8: Faces on the same side are easier to hold
other option. Why not specify something in the middle, tightly.
such as .003" or even .0035"? An intermediate tolerance
may be much easier to achieve and subsequently less expensive. When working with smaller tolerances, a small
difference can be vastly easier - .0015" is 50% more tolerance to work with than .001". Depending on the application,
that extra .0005" might make the difference between hitting your parts cost budget or not.

With every application there is a point of diminishing

returns where loosening up the tolerance won't lower the
cost of the part. If the process employed to make the
feature can easily hold the tolerance, then making it
looser will not reduce price, unless it becomes loose
enough that a different and less expensive process can
be used. For example, a part's tolerances could be
loosened enough that it becomes feasible to use profiling
technology like laser cutting, abrasive waterjet, or routing.
You may also consider the option of supplying a mating
part for an in-process fit check. It may also be sufficient
to perform a "program check" where the programmer
verifies that the feature will match the model but there is
no physical verification done. Discussing specific
applications with your manufacturer is the best way to
determine if changes might apply in your application.

It is becoming common to apply a global profile tolerance

to an entire part. While easy to specify, this may require
Fig. 9: Faces on opposite sides are more significant inspection costs to prove. Even if a part does
difficult to hold tightly. fall inside a profile tolerance, the manufacturer would
need proof of that being the case. This would require a
significant number of hand measurements or a full CMM report, either of which is costly. While profile tolerances have
a real purpose, be sure you are using them effectively.
 Threaded Holes
Threaded holes can vary widely in cost. One thing to keep in mind is that depths of threaded holes are harder to
control and costs can increase quickly for threaded holes with tight depth tolerances. The reasons behind the high
costs are very low first part yield and requalifying a replacement tap and subsequent scrappage. The most common
mistake is to leave a threaded hole depth dimension with 3 decimal places so it defaults to the title block tolerance
(typically +/- .005"). The reason this is a problem is that taps are not very consistent between their tip and the first full
thread. A "bottoming" tap typically has between 1.5 to 2.5 leading threads before the thread profile is complete. We
can measure the tap and try to approximate the amount of lead for any specific tap but it is much easier to specify a
looser depth tolerance. There aren't many circumstances where the threaded hole needs to be held tightly. One
circumstance this tolerance might need to be high is if you have a blind threaded hole where you need a minimum of
threads but it can't break out through the other side of your part. In these cases, we are generally faced with also
having a very short distance between the bottom of the pre drilled hole and the bottom of the threads. Again here, the
limiting factor on the distance between the full thread and the bottom of the hole is the tap itself.

In figure 10 we see an example of a hole where the minimum distance from the shoulder of the drill to the first full
thread is illustrated. In this case, a 1/4"-20 hole would need a minimum of .125" (.05" pitch x 2.5 threads). Any greater
than that will not save money but any tighter than that will take more adjusting and cost more.

We also see in yellow text the most cost effective way to

notate this thread on the drawing. The depth is called out as
.88 min rather than .875. We also see that there is no pre-drill
size specified. Cut and roll taps use different sized predrilled
holes so the predrill size should not be specified unless there
is a very specific reason for doing so. The chamfer diameter
in this example is also just two decimal places which is much
less expensive than using three decimal places. To give an
example of how costs can be affected by these tiny details, if
this hole callout specified a predrill size, a .875 depth, a .270
chamfer and had less than .125" clearance to the drill
shoulder, this hole could easily cost 3x - 5X what it does as
represented in yellow text.

Here are a few other notes about best practices or cost

drivers for threaded holes. It is advisable to avoid 6-32
threads; the ratio of major to minor diameter is greater than
other thread sizes which makes the tap more likely to break Fig. 10: How much clearance to leave and
than other sizes. Also, don't specify threaded holes that are
deeper than you need. They become expensive as taps are
the cheapest way to specify the hole
more likely to break the deeper you go. If the thread depth is dimensions.
greater than your fastener will thread, the result is wasted
money. If you do have a deep thread that is through the part, make sure you specify if all the threads need to be from
one side or if tapping from both sides is acceptable. A shop might assume they can tap from both sides, in which
case the threads will not be contiguous which may or may not work with your design.

As mentioned above, threads such as in this example can be made with cutting taps, roll forming taps, or thread-
milled. If executed well, formed threads are stronger than cut threads and the taps generally are stronger and last
longer so they are less expensive to create. Formed threads have their own unique challenges for the shop though. If
the minor diameter is not held extremely close then the threadform may not be perfect leading to issues with installing
threaded inserts. Roll forming does not create chips down in the bottom of the hole which is an advantage. Some
materials do not lend themselves to being formed though. Really hard and soft materials will generally be cut
threaded and medium hardness materials like aluminum and softer steels respond well to roll forming. Generally
though, leaving the option up to the manufacturer is advisable unless your situation specifically precludes an option.

Sometimes you need threads that are stronger or more durable than your base material can offer. In these cases a
threaded insert is a good option. With plastics, the only realistic option is a heat staked or ultrasonic staked insert
such as a PEM insert. They are inexpensive and easy to install. With metals, there are more choices. STI (Helicoil)
inserts, Keenserts, and solid female threaded PEM inserts are all options. Generally speaking, Helicoils are less
expensive to buy, install and service later. In our experience, engineers often specify threaded inserts but after
discussing their needs threaded inserts are unnecessary. If you can engage your fastener at least two times its
diameter in threads, then even in aluminum there's is a good chance the threads will be stronger than the fastener
itself. Depending on the application, it may be cheaper in the long run to occasionally repair a thread than to specify
them all as inserts. We estimate that a typical Helicoil costs approximately an additional $1 - $3 to buy and install
compared to a plain threaded hole. The bottom line is to really consider if you need that insert and try to transcend
the argument that you need to include inserts because it’s the way your company has always done it.

Anodizing and Chemical Conversion Coating

Chemical Conversion Coating

In reference to coating aluminum, this process is known by many common names - chem film, Iridite, Alodine,
conversion coat or chromate. Chemical films are gelatinous films used to provide corrosion protection to aluminum
alloys. The coating also improves adhesion of subsequent coatings such as paint and powdercoat. They are typically
either clear/colorless or gold and yellow with a tint of brown. It is important to note that different material alloys may
appear different in color when processed identically. It is not generally considered a cosmetic process as color can
vary. The distinction between clear and colored may be specified on the drawing, but colored will be used by default.
Chem film is a cost effective substitute for anodizing when abrasion resistance is not needed; it also has the benefit
of maintaining electrical conductivity which anodizing will not.

The military specification (also used commercially) for this plating process is MIL-DTL-5541F. MIL-DTL was
introduced in 2006 and superseded MIL-C-5541E which was the standard for many years. Although MIL-C is
obsolete, it is still commonly specified on drawings today (Yes, I'm talking to you). There are two classes, 1A and 3.
Class 1A is thicker and provides maximum corrosion protection but has greater electrical resistance; it is generally
darker in color. Class 3 is thinner, providing less corrosion protection but has better electrical conductivity. The new
MIL-DTL spec has introduced Types I and II. Type I contains hexavalent chromium which was the only option in the
now obsolete MIL-C spec. Type II contains no hexavalent chromium which makes it compliant to RoHS, the
restriction on certain hazardous substances. More plating companies are now offering Type II but it is not yet
ubiquitous in the industry. If no type is specified on the drawing, then Type I is the default. Similarly, if the coating
class is not specified, then Class 1A is recommended. An advantage to this coating type compared to anodizing is
that it can be repaired with an approved touch-up method. Per the MIL spec, up to 5% of the surface may be touched
up unless the contract states it can be more or less. Unless your application has zero margin for error, it is prudent to
allow the use of a touch-up method because chem film is relatively easy to scratch, especially if there are assembly
processes after plating. The touch up methods still provide a very good level of protection.

Chem film does not add any measurable thickness so in most applications provisions for plating thickness do not
need to be taken into account at the design or machining stages. The pricing for chem film is significantly cheaper
than anodize on a per-part basis - typically about 60% less, but minimum lot charges will apply and generally vary
from $60 to $120.

Anodizing

Anodizing is an electrolytic process which converts the outer surface of metals to an oxide layer, protecting the
underlying metal from corrosion. It is most commonly used on aluminum but can be used on some other non-ferrous
metals. The two most common types controlled by MIL-A-8625A, are Type II and Type III. Both types are called
sulfuric anodizing with the thickness being the primary differences.
Type II is considered cosmetic anodize and can vary in thickness from .00007 to .001" (1.8 μm to 25 μm) with .0003"
being an average (+-.0002" tolerance). It can be clear (Class 1) or colored (Class 2). If you specify Class 2 you must
specify a color as well. There are a wide range of colors available with Type II Class 2 although getting close matches
can be very difficult. If precise color is important, it is best controlled with boundary samples. The subjectivity of the
color can often be a very challenging aspect of anodizing and can lead to significant costs and delays. Different alloys
will color differently which should be considered if you have a cosmetic assembly with machined and sheetmetal
parts made from different alloys for example.

Type III is also called hard anodizing. It is much thicker than Type II varying in thickness from 0.001" to 0.006" (25
and 150 μm). If a thickness is not specified then the nominal thickness is to be .002". Hard anodizing penetrates the
substrate as much as it builds up and thickness includes both the buildup and the penetration. Type III hard anodizing
offers significant wear resistance, scratch resistance and thermal and electrical resistance compared to cosmetic
Type II. When maximum abrasion or wear resistance is needed, a final sealing step should not be used. For
maximum corrosion protection a sealing process is used, and the type of sealing should be left to the plating
company unless you have a specific requirement for sealing. It is interesting to note that abrasion resistance does not
improve with additional thickness and will decrease above .0025". The same color classes are used with Type III
(Class 1 for clear or Class 2 for colored). Hard anodizing is not considered a cosmetic grade and most plating
companies will not guarantee the color results as they will with Type II. It is possible for hard anodize to look fairly
nice but it is not going to be consistently so. One additional note is that Type III "clear" is really not clear at all, and is
often dark grey with shades of green.

It is prudent to specify where you would prefer to have racking marks. These marks are unavoidable and can damage
close tolerance features.

There is also a Type I (and variants IB and IC) anodize called chromic anodize. It is far less common but is good for
use on fatigue critical components as it is the thinnest type of anodize. It is important to note that Type II and III may
significantly reduce fatigue properties, and the thicker the coating, the greater the reduction will be.

Because of the thickness associated with anodizing, care must be taken to ensure the finished part functions as
needed. There are a few ways to approach this: 1) Machining features accordingly to accommodate the plating
thickness expected, 2) asking for zero growth of the after-plating dimensions, or 3) masking critical areas before
plating. Specifying before and after dimensions is fairly straightforward in most cases. It requires a bit more detailing
on the drawing, but can take the guess work out of the process. If the tolerance range of the anodizing is tighter than
the finished machined dimension needs to be then this approach can be successfully used. But if the finished part
needs to have higher tolerances then masking would be better. As an example, if you have a 0.500" hole with
tolerance +-.0005" after plating, and the thickness tolerance for Type II is +-.0002" (which would apply to both sides
of the hole), then the variability of the after-plating hole diameter would be +-.0004". This would leave only .0001" of
tolerance for the machinist which is not really practical (read: economical). Plugging the hole is the best option unless
the surface must be plated. Asking for zero-growth can also work in many cases. The plater can acid etch the parts
longer before anodizing to remove material so the buildup of plating has the minimum affect on overall size but this
can come at the cost of surface finish. Threads can be particularly troublesome, especially with Type III anodizing.
Because the plating thickness builds up on both sides of the hole and both angles of the thread helix, the reduction in
pitch diameter is close to 4x the plating thickness. Oversized taps can be used but the thickness tolerance can make
it nearly impossible to achieve a thread class. If the application can tolerate no plating on the threads, then plugging
them before anodize is the best option. Plugging holes and threads is relatively inexpensive while masking broad
surfaces adds considerable expense, lead time, and the chance for non-conformances.

We have seen applications where a part requires both anodize and chem film on different surfaces. If you don't ever
have a need for this, count yourself lucky. This is a pretty expensive and trouble-prone option but can be successfully
executed. There are two basic options to achieve this requirement: partial machining - anodizing - more machining -
chem film or: machining complete - first plating process -masking - second plating process. The complexity and
shape of the area with the different finish will help determine which of these applications is used. The former has
advantages of no masking cost and the delineation between the plating types will be very clean and crisp. The
disadvantage is longer lead time, shipping costs and an
additional machine set-up. An example of such a part is seen
in Fig. 11. The entire outside of the part needs to be
anodized for cosmetics while the inside needs to be
conductive and have corrosion protection. An anodized
surface will not be affected by submersion in the chem film
process which is the key to allowing these processes to be
used. If the area required to have chem film is relatively small
and simple in shape (such as a flat grounding surface around
a hole) then the most cost effective method is to mask the
area, anodize the part and then chem film once the masking
is removed. If your application does not require compliance to
the MIL spec, then it is possible to get fairly good protection
with a chem film touch up method only.

Fig. 11: This part required anodize and

chem film. Two stage machining was
used.
It is possible to install stainless steel hardware before chem film
plating but not before anodizing. Depending on the application, this
may not be advisable because chemicals may be trapped between
the hardware and the part and leach out at a later time. If you are
concerned about this, you should specify that hardware be installed
after plating. In our experience with hardware such as Helicoil
inserts, we have yet to see residue or leaching after the fact related
to the hardware. Installing the inserts during the machining process
rather than as a batch operation after plating, can save significant
costs and lead time.

If you have a requirement for plating on certain surfaces, or even

paint with masking, the clearest way to communicate it is with
colored isometric views on the drawing. Most 3D CAD systems
days can generate shaded full-color views on the drawing. Put a
front and back view on the drawing showing which areas to mask.
See Fig. 12. This even works well with different levels of cosmetic
requirements in different areas, such as Class A (highly cosmetic)
on the front face and Class C (seldom seen) on the back.

Fig. 12: Indicate masking or different

surface conditions with shaded views
on your drawing. Front and back
surfaces shown.

Undercuts
Sometimes it is impossible to avoid creating a feature that can't be made with a standard end-mill; often this means
using an undercut feature. See Fig. 13 for an example. These features are generally more expensive because they
require a custom ground tool (see Fig. 14) in most cases and the cutting feeds are slower to accommodate the more
fragile neck (N) diameter. Both the speed of the cutter and also the determination of whether or not the cut can even
be made is based on the ratio of the cutting diameter (D) and height of cut (H) vs. the neck diameter (N) and neck
height (NH). There are no hard
and fast rules about what ratio
of D:N is possible, let alone one
that will be inexpensive to
produce. Because the length of
the neck (NH) is also a critical
factor, as is the cut height (H), a
review of the D:N ratio is
insufficient in calculating
difficulty and cost. When any
one factor, or a combination of
factors, becomes too extreme
the cutter would be so fragile
that the risk of breakage at any
reasonable feedrate would be
extremely high.

It isn't uncommon to see an

engineer specify an undercut
feature that is not possible to
Fig. 13: This image shows a feature that must be machined with make. The design of the
an undercutting T-Slot tool.
undercut is such that there could be no neck diameter or it would be so small as to be impossible. There is a pretty
simple way to avoid this situation. If you are modeling a feature that requires an undercut, you can sketch in both the
cutting and the neck diameters as shown in Fig.
14. We can see in this example, that the ratio of
D:N is about 1.5:1 which is a very reasonable and
inexpensive feature. You should also note the
ratio between the cut height H and heck height
NH are also at a reasonable ratio. The neck
height is very short so the cutter will not be too
fragile. (This part had much worse ratios before
the customer consulted with Pro CNC). When you
do this with your own part, measure and take
note of these ratios to see if they seem too
extreme and therefore expensive. It is also
important to note that these two diameters share
a common axis. That is not often the case and
makes this exercise even more important in
determining what the size of the cutting tool will
be.

Figure 15 shows a poorly designed undercut and

the corresponding tool that would need to be
Fig. 14: This part has a well designed undercut. used to make the part. This design would require a
tool with a 3.8:1 ratio; the tool needed would be very fragile and must be fed very slowly as the chance for breakage
is very high. You may have a difficult time finding
a machine shop willing to take this on or worse
end up with parts that don't meet your
requirements because of an interference from the
omission of the tricky undercut. At best, you will
pay a great deal for undercuts that border on
impossible.

By following these steps and being aware of what

type of cutting tool will be needed to machine your
part, you can reduce costs and frustration levels
often associated with these types of features.

Fig. 15: This part has a poorly designed undercut.

Total Surface Profile

The use of GD&T has increased significantly over the last several years. Engineers are being trained to use it and
becoming more familiar with it. It can be a great way to specify what tolerances and features are important to your
design. There is also a trend in the industry to adopt minimally dimensioned drawings and rely on the 3D model to
control feature shape and location. Unfortunately, these two trends can be at odds and can add unnecessary
expense to making and inspecting a part. There is no faster way to add expense than with a misused profile callout.
We will explain how best to use this powerful tool.

For companies that are ISO-9001 or AS9100 certified - or really any company with a comprehensive quality system -
if a customer specifies a quality requirement, then the manufacturer must guarantee that the requirements have been
met. This is the crux of the problem with a profile callout; it adds a requirement for all surfaces specified to be
guaranteed to the profile tolerance. Typically, only a few surfaces are very critical to the function of a part and the rest
are much less important. If you are creating a minimally dimensioned drawing, you want the less significant surfaces
to be controlled by the model. This process describes the intended purpose of a minimally dimensioned print; you will
spend less time making your drawing when compared to a fully dimensioned drawing and it should take the
manufacturer less time to inspect the drawing which directly reduces part cost. However, if you dimension the few
items you care about and then specify a callout like the one in Figure 16 what you have actually done is increase the
inspection requirement by an order of magnitude.

There are very few cases

where this requirement is
needed. By specifying all
undimensioned features you
are specifying every radius,
every chamfer, every hole
diameter - truly every surface
Fig. 16: Bad use of a global total surface profile callout.
on the entire part. Ensuring
that all those features are
within 0.005" is very expensive to manufacture and measure. It is reasonable to think that with modern CNC
machines and CAM programs this requirement would be easy to meet, but it is not. While it is true that the part will be
programmed from the 3D model and modern CNC machines are very accurate there are always obstacles to
perfection. Even if the entire part is manufactured within 0.005", the work is only half done. The rest of it is proving the
manufacturing, either with hours of manual measurement or hours spent programming a CMM to check the part.

The key to solving this problem is to not use a numerical value with your callout (for example, see Figure 17). It is the
numerical value - no matter what the value is - that is the cost driver. Even if you specified that all undimensioned
features only needed to be within 0.05", it still needs to be proven. The reality is that the part will be programmed to
the 3D model, and that the part will be very close to the modeled and programmed size; probably well within 0.005" in
many cases. If that assurance isn't good enough for any given feature, then you should specify a specific tolerance
for that feature. And if you cannot trust your manufacturer to remain accurate and precise without a numerical value,
then you probably need a new manufacturer.

As mentioned above, when you

truly do need to control the
profile of a given feature, then
make sure you use a profile
callout such as:

Fig. 17: Good use of how to control undimensioned features.

This type of GD&T not only controls the profile of the feature, but with the addition of the datums it also controls the
location of the feature to the same tolerance. The addition of the datums can be appropriate if needed, but can also
drive cost. Particularly with large and flexible parts, you may consider adding a note about checking the profile in a
restrained condition. This may make the inspection significantly easier than in a free state. An alternate method for
controlling the profile shape of a feature but allowing more leeway on location is with a compound profile callout such
as:

This will allow .010" locational tolerance to the datums but only .003 on the shape of the
feature.

We hope this issue has given you some good suggestions on how to keep the cost of making and inspecting your
parts to a minimum. Few companies these days can afford to add cost to their product without adding value.

Bilateral vs. Unilateral Tolerances

Bilateral tolerancing (also known as symmetric tolerancing) is a method of tolerancing a dimension using equal plus
and minus deviations from the nominal dimension. Unilateral tolerances (also known as asymmetric tolerances) on
the other hand specify a deviation in only one direction, either plus or minus, from the specified nominal dimension.
Unilateral tolerances may also take the form of plus and plus-plus, minus and minus-minus, or plus or minus some
amount and plus or minus a lesser amount.

In the old days of hand cranked mills and lathes, it was quite easy for the machinist to decide on what dimension to
arrive at while machining a part. If a customer specified a dimension with a unilateral tolerance such as: 2.500" +
0.000/ - 0.010" the machinist would either shoot for 2.495" (the safest place to be - in the middle of the tolerance
range) or if he was a nice guy would shoot for 2.499" in an attempt to get as close to the dimension the engineer
specified. There was more risk in being close to the limit but with a good machine and a skilled machinist the level of
risk was low. I'm sure you are thinking at this point that with modern CNC machines it should be even easier to
achieve whatever dimension the engineer desires. In some regards this is true. We can "comp" (use cutter
compensation) a CNC machine 0.0005" one way or the other and it will do it handily. But the real difficulty with
unilateral tolerances lies in the programming of the part. Nearly all CNC machines these days are programmed from
a 3D CAD model using CAM software. The programmer chooses edges or surfaces on the model to drive toolpaths.
Figure 18 shows a basic rectangle with one side having a bilateral tolerance and the other having a unilateral
tolerance.

This is a pretty common example. In

this case, the easiest way to program
and manufacture this part is with a
profile cut from the top of the part
which establishes both the 4.000"
and 2.500" dimensions at the same
time with the same cutter. The CNC
program by default will drive the tool
at the nominal size of the CAD
model. It will create a rectangle that
is 4.000" x 2.500". But the sides with
a 2.500" dimension will be practically
out of tolerance as programmed
since we cannot be on the plus side
of nominal at all. And with the typical
small amount of cutter deflection
outward, the 2.500" dimension will
likely be out of tolerance. This makes
the programming of the part take
much longer as the programmer will
have to compensate for this with Fig. 18: Part with both unilateral and bilateral tolerances.
manual adjustments to the program,
adjustments to CAM parameters or a separate program with tool paths for each side. The set-up of the part on the
CNC machine may also take longer if the machinist needs to apply cutter compensation in order to bring the part
closer to the middle of the tolerance zone. In an extreme example, if you had a tolerance of + 0.005"/- 0.000" on the
4.000" dimension, it would be virtually impossible for either dimension to be in spec without major tweaking to the
program. This brings up the other point about
unilateral tolerances. Most CNC shops want to
run the dimensions in the safest range to
minimize the chance of scrap. So in the case
of the part in Fig. 18, they would likely try to
run the 2.500" dimension at 2.4975" which is
exactly in the middle of the + 0.000"/ - 0.005"
range. This somewhat defeats the purpose of
specifying a unilateral tolerance in the first
place. It would be easier for everyone involved
if the engineer put a symmetric bilateral
tolerance at 2.500" or 2.497" because more
than likely it is what will be delivered anyway.

The issue of unilateral tolerances is not as

much of an issue with holes (see Figure 19).
Very often it is more critical to be able to hold
odd tolerances on holes to achieve proper
slip, or press fits, etc. Because most holes are
machined with drills or reamers the same
problem with programming does not exist. The
size of the hole will be established with the
tool, not the program. So if you need a .2500"
hole for a press fit for a 1/4" pin then the shop

Fig. 19: Unilateral tolerances on holes are not a problem.

will select the exact size reamer needed. In the case of an odd sized hole that doesn't match a common drill size or
reamer size, the problem may exist to a small degree. A hole such as that can be programmed with a circular
interpolation using a smaller endmill to create a larger hole. Since that is more of a "stand alone" type of feature, the
parameters can be more easily tweaked to achieve the desired tolerance without affecting other features on the part.

Armed with a bit of knowledge about which tolerance scheme is easier to machine the engineer can achieve their
desired design objectives without adding cost to the product... an idea that we can all unilaterally agree is a good
idea.

Countersinks and Chamfers

Any machined part that has holes in it probably also has countersinks. Countersinks are used as a lead-in for
threads, for flathead screws, and just as a general edge break or chamfer on any type of hole where a lead-in is
necessary. In many cases, the diameter of a countersink is not very critical and can often be dimensioned at a lower
tolerance than the standard tolerances for the part. Unfortunately, we see all too often that the diameter tolerance is
left as a 3 decimal place dimension which would assign a higher tolerance than is needed - generally ±.005". See
Figure 20. Normally that much tolerance is no
problem for CNC machining. So why would this
drive additional cost vs. a lower tolerance feature?
There are a few reasons why this is a special
case. Generally a countersink feature is specified
as the diameter of the outer edge and the included
angle. This feature is machined with a countersink
tool and the Z-depth of the tool will determine how
large the countersink is. If you recall back to your
days of high school trigonometry, with a 90°
Fig. 20: Expensive countersink callout. included angle on the tip of the tool, for every .001"
change in Z-depth the diameter will change by
.002". See Figure 21. With a 100° or 120° tool the condition is further exacerbated - .001" of movement with a 120°
tool equates into .0034" change in diameter. So to hold ±.005" on diameter, the Z-depth of the tool needs to be held
to ±.0015" which is not easy to do.

Even high quality countersink tools are notoriously

unreliable on the dimension from their tip to X diameter
along their cutting edge. This makes dialing in the tool
more challenging the first time and after any tool
replacement. Any additional time adds costs to the
part. The higher tolerance that you need to hold the
diameter to, the longer it will take to dial it in, and the
more closely it will need to be watched while running
the parts.

If the countersink is being used for a flathead screw, it

might be possible to make the tolerance looser,
possibly by removing a decimal place as shown in
Figure 22. In this example, the countersink tolerance
with one decimal place is .5mm or approximately
Fig. 21: Diameter vs. Depth relationship.
±.020": a very generous and inexpensive tolerance. If
you need to ensure the fastener head is not proud, then make the countersink a little deeper. To really ensure it is
never proud, put that exact note on the drawing and specify the part number of the fastener that will be used. Having
a "GO" gage is always a positive and quick way to check a feature.

For machined chamfers that are not on holes, consider the use of
the feature and tolerance it accordingly. Again, many engineers
forget to loosen the tolerance and the shop is stuck dealing with a
more challenging feature and overprocessing the manufacturing;
ultimately, the customer is stuck paying for it.

Fig. 22: Inexpensive countersink

ll
Designing and Machining Plastic Parts
There are many applications where it makes sense to design a machined part to be made from plastic rather than
metal. There are many types of plastic each with their unique strengths and applications. There are also some
details that are good to know about how plastic responds to machining. Here are a few of the most common
plastics we work with.

ABS comes in both natural (off white) and black and with various levels of glass fill. It is a relatively low-cost plastic
that is easy to machine. It holds tolerances reasonably easily and sands and paints well. It has great impact
strength and abrasion resistance. Be aware it is also hygroscopic which means it will absorb moisture from the air
affecting dimensional stability. The tensile strength is approximately 6 KSI and it is generally available in round bar
up to 4" diameter and plate up to 3" thick.

Acetal or (widely known by the brand name Delrin) is one of the best plastics to use for machined parts. It is a
medium-cost plastic with good dimensional stability and excellent machinability. It has very low water absorption
which improves dimensional stability. It is available in white, black, various levels of glass fill, or as Delrin AF which
has Teflon fibers for increased wear characteristics. It has up to 10 KSI tensile strength and is generally available in
round bar up to 6" diameter and plate up to 4" thick.

Acrylic is also known as PMMA. It is a low-cost plastic that has decent machining characteristics. With the right
cutter geometry, very fine finishes can be achieved. It is a relatively hard and rigid plastic which makes it susceptible
to chipping; avoid designing thin sections and sharp edges. Model radii and chamfers on outside edges to help
reduce the chance of chipping. The main reason to design with acrylic is its excellent light transmission and optical
properties. It has good impact strength but not as good as polycarbonate. It has better dimensional stability than
many of the softer plastics although it is still susceptible to changing size with temperature fluctuations. It is also
slightly hygroscopic but much less than most. Acrylic can be purchased in a MIL-P-5425 grade which is preshrunk to
improve its dimensional stability. In our experience, if acrylic is to be painted after machining, then an additional
annealing step is required to ensure it doesn't shrink further when the paint is cured. If threaded inserts are to be
installed, it is advisable to rough-machine the material, install the inserts, anneal and then finish machine to reduce
the chance of cracking induced by stress of the inserts being installed. Acrylic responds quite well to vapor polishing
or flame polishing in applications where machining marks cannot be tolerated. It has about 9 KSI tensile strength and
is available in round bar up to 6" diameter and plate up to 2" thick. (Shameless plug: Pro CNC is particularly good at
turn-key acrylic parts!)

Nylon has a lot of great properties but comes with several disadvantages for machining. It is a low- (Nylon 6) to
medium- (Nylon 6/6) cost plastic. It is pretty strong with tensile strength of about 11-12 KSI, but it is softer than acetal
and much more hygroscopic. It tends to warp easily and it seems to move around when you machine it. It is terrible to
deburr as it is very stringy and leaves behind fuzz unless cutters are razor sharp. It does have great toughness, wear,
and abrasion resistance which is probably why it is harder to machine. Unless there is a specific property that is
needed with Nylon, we generally advise acetal be used. There is also a grade of Nylon called MD or MDS. This grade
has molybdenum disulfide in it which makes it more wear resistant than regular nylon and improves the machinability
.

Polycarbonate has superior impact resistance. It is a medium-cost plastic. It comes in clear and black grades as well
as myriad filled grades. It machines well, although like acrylic, can also be susceptible to chipping. It is a pretty stable
material with very low water absorption and holds higher tolerances well. It has pretty good thermal resistance and
resists deformation up to 265 degrees F. It also vapor polishes very well and can give excellent finishes. It has tensile
strength of about 10 KSI and is available in round bar up to 6" and plate up to 2" thick.

Ultem is a translucent amber color and is a very high performance engineering thermoplastic. It is an expensive
material but offers lots of great properties. It can handle very high temperatures: up to 340 degrees F. It is very stable
dimensionally and has very low moisture absorption. It is also rigid but this rigidity contributes to the tendency to chip
which is one of its drawbacks for machining. It is also slightly more abrasive than some plastics which increases tool
costs. Ultem 1000 is the basic unfilled variety, with 2300 being the 30% glass version. It is extremely strong with
about 17 KSI tensile strength and is available in round bar up to 4" and plate up to 2" thick.

Nearly all the materials above also come in more exotic flavors, such as carbon filled, stainless steel fiber filled,
blends of different plastics, abrasion resistant, static-dissipative, tinted colors and even aramid fiber and glass bead
filled. There are also many other common machining grades of plastic such as UHMW, HDPE, and PVC. We will
discuss these in future issues.

All plastics are less stable than metals. They have much higher thermal expansion and are affected by humidity if
they are hygroscopic. These factors need to be taken in to account when designing and tolerancing your part.

It is not uncommon to have a machine shop machine and verify a part is in tolerance. A few weeks later, when the
parts are inspected at the customer, the results are different, which may result in an out-of-tolerance condition. Care
should be taken to reduce the chance of this happening. The best solution is to change the geometry to be more
stable or increase the tolerance to allow natural variations to occur without becoming out of tolerance. Suggestions
for improving the dimensional stability include designing thicker sections, adding ribs, allowing large fillets and adding
corner radii. In contrast to injection molding recommendations, it isn't important to have the wall thicknesses be
uniform and thin. Unless weight is a big factor, thick solid sections will be more stable and less costly to machine. The
length to diameter recommendations for vertical cutting tools are similar to that for aluminum, if not a little less
stringent.

In general we recommend allowing approximately +/- 0.001" of tolerance per inch of part size. There are some lower
performance plastics that would need approximately double that much to be consistently easy to process and stay in
tolerance. Because of the lower thermal (up to 10x greater than metal) and geometric stability of plastics it can be
more costly to achieve higher tolerances. This is more true as parts get larger and sections get thinner. Sometimes
the measurements themselves can cause deflection in the part which leads to erroneous readings. An example would
be measuring a large ring with a caliper where the pressure from the caliper will elongate the ring causing it to appear
out of tolerance. Non-contact measurement methods can be employed to reduce this problem.

If you are designing a round part that is a bearing, sleeve, or some type of part that will mate with a metal component,
consider the application of an average diameter callout. It is common for round parts with thin wall thicknesses to
ovalize which may not matter at all to the function of the part but may cause a big hassle for the part inspector.
Alternatively, you can specify the type of fit you desire and provide a representative mating part for inspection.

As mentioned above many plastics are available with glass fill. This can add significant cost to the material itself as
well as the machining cost; the glass fibers are very abrasive and tool wear becomes a significant factor. Depending
on the amount of machining involved and tolerances required, some cutting tools may last less than one part, which
adds considerable complexity to the manufacturing process. The higher the percentage of glass, the stronger, stiffer,
and more dimensionally stable the parts will be. However, they will likewise be more expensive as well.

Threads and Plating

When a part has threaded holes and it is plated, there is always a potential to have problems with the thread class.
All types of plating have a thickness. The plating thickness will vary greatly depending on the type of plating - from
.0001" or less for Class 3 Chemical conversion coating, all the way up to .002" or more for Type III Hard Anodizing.
The smaller the threads are, the higher a percentage of the pitch diameter tolerance will be used by up by the plating
thickness. The same is true of high tolerance threads with a high thread class and a corresponding tighter pitch
tolerance. The single biggest factor is the fact that the plating is applied to both sides of the thread profile on both
sides of the hole. This translates into a 4x
build up of plating on the threads. See Fig.
23. There are a two primary ways to negate
this effect. One is to mask the hole during
the plating process. This is the preferred
method if the application does not require
plating on the threads. The other method is
to use an oversized tap during the
machining process so that once the plating
thickness is added onto the threads it still
meets the thread class. Because plating
thickness can vary, this method isn't 100%
guaranteed to work, especially on smaller
threads where the tolerance range is so
small. If the resultant plating thickness
doesn't match the oversize tap then you
may still have the condition where the
Fig. 23: 4x plating buildup on threaded holes. thread class is not in tolerance.
When masking holes, there is a chance of some of the chemicals bleeding into the hole. With proper masking
techniques this should be minimal but it is still a potential and allowing a thread to be chased with a tap or cleaned
out is advisable.

Blind holes present a few other problems to be aware of. Most types of plating require a good flow of chemicals over
the surface metal to achieve good coverage and thickness. At the bottom of a blind hole, the chemicals do not have
an opportunity to do this. This will often result in little or no plating at the bottom of the hole. There are two problems
presented in this situation. One is that there will not be protection offered by the plating and the second is that if the
thread was oversized in anticipation of the plating thickness, they the thread class might be out of spec on the large
side of the tolerance. For plating types that are very thin, the issue of thickness may not be a factor at all, but the lack
of coverage may be. Adding a note to the print that full coverage is not required at the bottom of the holes may head
off potential problems.

Another common occurrence is that chemicals will be trapped in the bottom of the hole after the plating process is
finished. Plating companies should blow out holes with compressed air to eliminate this problem but they do not
always do it consistently. If you have blind holes from several sides, this is further exacerbated as you cannot rack
the parts so that the plating solution can drain from the holes. With cosmetic plating types, such as colored anodize,
often the chemicals can bleed out after the dying step of the process and cause runs to appear on the outer surface
of the part, ruining the cosmetic nature of the finish. Another type of defect that can happen with blind threaded holes
is that the chemicals that get trapped at the bottom actually dry out and then cause corrosion. We have seen this
several times with chemical conversion coating. This underscores the importance of the plating company blowing out
the holes.

As an engineer, you can try to avoid blind holes where possible, and allow masking of the holes during the plating
process. By giving the option but not the requirement to do masking, you can leave that decision to the manufacturer
and/or plater. Based on the configuration of the part, the type of plating, and orientation of the holes they can best
make that decision. You can also specify a lower thread class or leave it out all together depending on the nature of
your parts if you do require that plating be on the holes.

Raw Material Sizes

Earlier in the design guide, we discussed how costs can be saved by trying to minimize the size of raw material that is
used in your design. What are the available sizes that one can design around? This answer certainly depends on
what type of material you are using. It also depends on what your local material distributors happen to stock, or else
you will be looking at getting something shipped in specifically for you which may not save money. Out here in the
Pacific Northwest, in Boeing's backyard we are fortunate to have a very wide variety of aerospace grades of material
available to us. It may vary around the country but we will discuss what is available around our area which hopefully
is fairly representative of the country. We'll start with the materials we most often work with.

Aluminum
In the most common grade - 6061-T6 or -T6511 there are a wide variety of sizes available. In rectangular bar shapes,
the thickness generally starts at 1/8" and goes in 1/8" increments up to 1.5" thick and then goes in 1/4" increments up
to 6". The widths generally start at 1/2" wide and go in 1/4" increments up to 12" wide depending on the thickness.
2024 and 7075 alloys come in fewer sizes, and tend to follow 1/4" or 1/2" increments. Square bars are generally
available in 1/4" increments with some smaller increments available under 1.5". The amount of material that is
required to clean up a machined face is a consideration when trying to optimize the size of material that will be used.
As we recommended in our December 2008 newsletter, it is advisable to leave 0.1" on the width dimension for
square or rectangular bar stock unless you are expecting to leave the stock surfaces and tolerances in your finished
part. On thickness, .125" is the minimum amount of extra material needed, primarily for work holding reasons. But the
thicker the part, the more extra material is needed. On a part made from 4" or thicker bar, as much as .25" might be
needed to hold on to the part. Consult your manufacturer to see what they suggest.

In aluminum round bar, a very wide variety of diameters are available. The sizes start at 1/8" diameter and go in 1/16"
increments up to about 2", after which the increments are 1/8" up to about 5", and then 1/4" or 1/2" increments after
that up to 20". The amount of excess stock that is needed to clean up is much smaller compared with rectangular
shapes. But it varies considerably depending on the diameter of the material and the type of material (ie - extruded vs
cold finished). As little as .020" can be anticipated to be cleaned up on the outer diameter for smaller diameter
materials. So if you were going to design a part to fit into 1.0" diameter bar stock, then try to make it no larger than
.975" on the OD. This is a safe rule of thumb. There are cold finished grades of material which come with much
tighter mill tolerances on the OD, allowing even closer dimensions to be achieved. Cold finished aluminum in a 1.0"
diameter has a +/- .0025" tolerance, making it possible to design a .990" diameter part to be made from cold finished
material. Extruded material on the other hand, has a much looser stock tolerance - +/-.012" on a 1.0" diameter, which
is why it is prudent to leave at least .020" for clean up. The larger the material becomes, the looser the material
tolerance, and you need to leave more room for clean up. 6" diameter extruded aluminum for example has a +/- .044"
OD mill tolerance. So it would be advisable to leave at least .062" between the finished part diameter and the raw
material. There are so many factors at play, the best option is to ask your manufacturer up front in the design phase
so you can optimize the size needed.

Aluminum Plate
6061-T651 plate starts at .25" thick and with the exception of .3125", it comes in 1/8" increments up to 1.5" thick and
then comes in 1/4" increments up to 3.5". After that, it is available in 1/2" increments up to about 8". With plate,
similar to round bar, the thicker the size, the looser the mill tolerance will be and the more you should anticipate will
need to be cleaned up. The thickness tolerance range is approximately .023" on 1/2" plate and .075" on 3" plate to
give a rough idea.

Stainless Steel
There are such a wide variety of stainless steels, all of which seem to come in different sizes. The more common
grades such as 303, 304, 316 and 416 come in nearly every size of round bar you can hope for. In rectangular sizes,
the choices are more limited as some alloys come primarily in round and square sizes (for parts typically made on
CNC turning centers). Tolerances on cold drawn round, square and rectangular bar are generally very good. Hot
rolled variants have much lower tolerances and this needs to be accommodated for in your design.

Brass
Being a popular grade for turning, brass is available in very small increments up to about 6" round bar. The selections
for square are decent, but your options are very limited for plate and as far as we know, rectangular sizes are not
available at all. Mill tolerances are fairly good so not a lot of excess material is needed to ensure your part gets
cleaned up from the raw material.

Steel
There are so many varieties and alloys of steel that it would be an enormous undertaking to describe them all. Similar
to stainless steel, tolerances on round, square and rectangular bar are generally very good, especially in the cold
drawn varieties. So allowance for material tolerance is not a big factor. Our recommendations for rectangular sizes of
.1" on width and length and .125" on thickness would generally still apply. Recommendations on round parts are
similar to those above for aluminum.

For all the materials we did cover there are far too many sizes available of all these materials to put in a chart for this
newsletter, so we created a spreadsheet with all the most common sizes of material available. You can find the
table Raw Material Sizes on our website. There are tabs at the bottom which allow you to specify which form of
material you are looking at - round, square, rectangle, etc. Please bookmark this page and return often as you design
your parts. If you would like to see additional materials included, please drop me an email to [email protected].
This list may be missing some items, and may show some items that aren't always available but it is a good starting
point for deciding what size material to use in your design. And please remember our advice about bar stock vs.
plate! Bar stock generally costs about half that of cut plate - at least in aluminum. So if you can find a size that works
for you, you'll save a lot of money right off the bat.