Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations Danlap on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Flatness and Parallelism (again)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ligo

ligo

Mechanical
Feb 25, 2009
26
I've seen a number of posts on the forum about combined flatness and parallelism call outs, but it seemed like the discussion was limited just to whether or not a call-out was allowed. And not so much to the physical result.

Lets take two casses,

1) A plate with one side set as datum feature A and a .002 flatness applied to it. Then and parallelism tolerance applied to the opposite side, also .002 (referencing datum A).

2) A plate with one side set as datum feature A and a .002 flatness applied to it. In this case the opposite side also has a .002 flatness applied to it. Then a parallelism tolerance of .004 is applied between the two (referencing datum A).

(The same basic thickness applies in both cases)

Does the practical outcome of these two dimensioning schemes give the same result?

i.e. A plate that varies within .002 on either side, resulting in a potential .004 thickness variation between any two points on opposite sides?

Right now I'm thinking that they do, but I've thought about it too much and need a second opinion. Any analysis of why or why not, would be helpful.

thanks!
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
I agree with your thinking...
Let's see what the pro's have to say.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, they are different.

On 2. while flat .002 to itself, the second face is only parallel to the first within .004. It could be at an angle so the variation in thickness could be .006.

I think, you've gone & got me confused now too.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ligo,

A flatness tolerance means that the face is fixtured horizontal, and the face is tested to verify that there is not more than .002" variation in height.

I would have guessed that a parallelism tolerance means that the datum face is fixtured horizontal, and the specified face is tested to verify that there is not more than .004" of variation in height.

I am just now looking at ASME Y14.5-1994, Section 6.6.3.1 Parallelism Tolerance. The definition is that there are two planes parallel to the datum, within which the centre plane of the feature must lie. The figures show features with flat or cylindrical features located within the two planes. This definition is messy if your parallelism is close to your achievable flatness, because parts of your feature are allowed to be located outside the two planes. The inspection procedure is not obvious to me.

Moral of story

Do not specify parallelism unless your flatness is much better than your parallelism.

Critter.gif
JHG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm only learning myself, but I agree with KENAT. If you think of the second face being out-of-parrallel as much as possible, the high end will be at the .004 limit. Add an additional .002 out-of-flatness and you are closer to .006.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JLang17,

I would have guessed that the total variation would not exceed .004", but based on the definition, the total variation can be .006".

You can define a flatness of .01" and parallelism of .001", and you can draw a feature conforming to this. The inspector definitely will have to kill you.

Critter.gif
JHG
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks everyone,
It was suggested by the instructor of a GD&T class that I took last year, that practically speaking, if one has a plate that is .002 flat on both sides, then it would be impossible to actually manufacture the plate with better than .004 parallelism. Which says noting about the technical correctness of a smaller parallelism, and also doesn't help me understand exactly what a .002 flatness on one side combined with a .002 parallelism would actually produce when manufactured.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I dont see it the same way. The flat tolerance is to the surface itself. The parallel does control flat but also orientation to A.

I believe the most angular tolerance is the .004 max to A and within that angle tolerance the surface must be flat within .002.

What would be wrong with the example shown on the attached JPEG? (I just used big tolerances on example so the differences can be visible.

What am I missing here?


DesignBiz [stpatrick2]

"Quality is in the details"
 
 http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=0d65a551-09ef-4bcb-88f9-b9fec33c7191&file=PARA-FLAT.jpg
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here's a thought...

On your jpeg the flatness FCF is attached to the parallel FCF, so it's saying "flatness tol zone is within the constraints of parallel tol zone". But I was thinking they were separate, then would the flatness be allowed to break the parallel's constraints?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JLang17,

I interpret them as separate. In figue 6-51 on page 193 of the standard there are 2 FCF's sharing a horizontal FCF line with total runout of .02 on top and under that cylindricity .005. I see the posted jpeg as a similar callout. The parallelism is inspected to A and the flatness is to itself. These are 2 separate inspections right? I dont believe since the FCF's touch that this combines the tolerances. They are separate where the flatness refines the surface beyond its orientation to A.

DesignBiz [stpatrick2]

"Quality is in the details"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
BTW people,
I do see that haste makes waste, while trying to put graphics out there to show my point of view. The tolerance zone decimal places dont match the FCF and I forgot the flat 2.0 on datum A. Hopefully my point gets across though.

DesignBiz [stpatrick2]

"Quality is in the details"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, I've avoided combining flatness with para for the reason that I couldn't figure out this issue out myself. I'll normally just let the parallism control the feature.

However, looking at the example, and referencing Y14.5, the surface must meet both requirements, first the parallism and second the flatness. Any flatness zone must still reside within the parallism spec. There's several examples of hiearchical fcf's in the standard, if I remember correctly.

Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DesignBiz's diagram is right on the money. It illustrates the distinction between the flatness and parallelism zones very well. The only thing I would nit-pick is the way the datum feature is drawn. Datum A should be the tangent plane of the datum feature - on the diagram it appears to coincide with the boundary of the flatness zone instead.

With regards to "hierarchical" FCF's, or one zone having to reside within the other, I don't picture it that way. The parallelism requirement and the flatness requirement are separate, but the feature must reside within both zones. The only connection between them is that the flatness tolerance must be smaller than the parallelism tolerance.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rkrz
  • Locked
  • Question
Parallelism between coaxial cylinders? 1
Replies
2
Views
244
Eric Gushiken
Eric Gushiken
Mech1595
  • Locked
  • Question
ISO - Flatness CZ of Offset Features
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Woosang
Woosang
random_guy
  • Locked
  • Question
Parallelism on a Slot 1
Replies
9
Views
308
random_guy
random_guy
V
  • Question
Why flatness tolerance associated with a FOS must be less than the size tolerance? 1
Replies
8
Views
3K
drawoh
drawoh
Kedu
  • Locked
  • Question
When a surface flatness has been specified, the DMP flatness is inherently also controlled (ASME)?
2
Replies
31
Views
588
3DDave
3DDave

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom