Search results for query: *

axym, Thank you for your response. It looks like you interpreted my question roughly as intended despite my lack of explanation. I'd be interested to learn more about the organization of the in-person meetings. I didn't find much information on www.asme.org or cstools.asme.org about past or...

What did ASME contribute to the development of this new standard? pylfrm

Presumably you could measure runout of datum feature D with respect to D-E, where datum feature E is the feature on the left end of the 4th shaft that locates it relative to the right end of the 3rd shaft. Similarly, you should be able to measure runout of datum feature A with respect to A-F...

chez311, Your proposal should work with a slight modification: This scheme can be used in either direction, so it should allow a UAME size of (15.040 + max(flatness, parallelism)). A different scheme would probably allow a UAME size of (15.040 + flatness + parallelism). I realize this may...

If the runout is actually controlled at the individual part level, what is the purpose of runout tolerances at the assembly level? The difference relates to the datum feature references. ASME Y14.5-2009 is somewhat vague on the subject. ISO goes into more detail in ISO 5459:2011, but it's...

giangnguyen92, Can you post an image showing a section view of the spool assembly with the bearing seats and spline connections labeled? Do you intend to treat the spool assembly as a single rigid body for the purpose of these runout tolerances? Is the runout of the assembly significantly...

Could you (or anyone else who agrees with the quoted statements) please describe the shape of a part that meets the requirements of flatness, size, and .003 parallelism, but has UAME size of 15.045? Kedu, I am curious: Why do you ask this question? If the UAME size is relevant, why wouldn't...

AFish66, Regarding the metal collar idea, this Spears product brochure may be of interest. They claim a patent. pylfrm

It's never the case. The two definitions describe completely different requirements. They just produce similar answers in some circumstances. Even without the large angular deviation used in your example, the disagreement between the two interpretations can be approximately double the size...

dsmemr, The two explanations of the tolerance are not equivalent. ASME Y14.5-2009 says the surface interpretation (virtual condition boundary) takes precedence. The simple solution is to always use the surface interpretation and forget about the axis interpretation. The two explanations...

3DDave, I don't think violation of the requirement causes any problem for interpretation of the tolerances. I've always assumed that the only purpose of the requirement is to prohibit specification of a redundant tolerance. This was the formatting: ⌀5.0±0.2 THRU ⏤⌀1.0Ⓜ ⌖⌀0.5ⓂABC And this...

All right. I guess we agree that the position tolerance establishes a cylindrical boundary of diameter 4.3 in that case. Now consider a hole specified as follows: ⌀5.0±0.2 THRU ⏤⌀1.0Ⓜ ⌖⌀0.5ⓂABC This scheme violates the following requirement: Would you say the tolerances have undefined...

3DDave, Imagine a hole is specified as follows: ⌀5.0±0.2 THRU ⏤⌀0.1Ⓜ ⌖⌀0.5ⓂABC Interpreting this per ASME Y14.5-2009, would you say the position tolerance establishes a cylindrical boundary of diameter (5.0 - 0.2 - 0.1 - 0.5) = 4.2 which the surface of the hole is not allowed to violate? pylfrm

axym, For the modified version of Fig. 4-2, what would you do if you wanted both profile tolerances to be evaluated in the same alignment? Apply SIM REQT notes to the FCFs? Consider a further modification of Fig. 8-16 with |profile|0.2|A| applied to the small upper flat surface...

axym, Consider a modified version of ASME Y14.5-2009 Fig. 4-2 where the hole diameter dimension is basic, the position tolerance is not present, a profile tolerance of 0.2 without datum feature references is applied to the hole on the left, and a profile tolerance of 0.3 without datum feature...

I wasn't actually thinking about cases involving more than one FCF segment. I guess I glossed over the "all of the applicable FCF's" portion of your statement. Do you have an example where that would apply? The reason for the common alignment is my main focus. Consider ASME Y14.5-2009 Fig...

I don't think you've said which dimensioning standard you're aiming to meet. Is it some version of ASME Y14.5? Does your drawing specify that it be interpreted per this standard? What you've show appears unclear. The "2X 7/16" apparently doesn't have a tolerance, so it doesn't express any...

Was "single alignment for each position or profile feature control frame segment" one of the alternative explanations you looked at? If so, what inconsistent results did it give? pylfrm

The functionality that allows you to incorrectly create an offset section view is the same functionality that allows you to correctly create an aligned section view. I think it's unreasonable to expect the software to prevent the misuse you illustrated. Drawings are intended to be understood...

I don't disagree with this, but I don't see any reason they can't also be considered one feature. The paragraphs quoted in my previous post refer to a single true profile and a single tolerance zone, making no exception for non-contiguous cases. Combined with "The actual surface [...] must be...