Coming to the rescue...or at least I hope.
"I would say there would be no difference in ISO between both scenarios. In both cases the hole and slot would be fully filled by the associated feature, and the reason being - as you pointed out - that ISO does not enforce the associated features to...
Gentlemen,
I would appreciate if we can focus on my original question and leave the "unnecessary" distraction alone.
Burunduk,
Did I answer your question?
Would you mind now, to provide your pertinent opinion about my initial inquiry?
Thanks
Burunduk, jassco, greenimi and all,
My source is Applied Geometrics training material for 1994 standard (ASME Y14.5M-1994), but I think the year is irrelevant for my question.
I know the name has been changed (as explained in the picture), but I don't think the concept changed at all so my...
So, if only one surface flatness is specified (not two surface flatnesses) is the statement above make sense or does not anymore?
I mean the original statement: "When a surface flatness has been specified, the DMP flatness is inherently also controlled, but the converse is not true. In other...
Do you find these statements ambiguous or incorrect?
When a surface flatness has been specified, the DMP flatness is inherently also controlled, but the converse is not true. In other words, when a DMP Flatness is specified, the surface does not have to be flat at all, although it must now be...
So why the situation feature has been introduced in ISO? What is its purpose?
Is it more like a "general term" that groups together other ISO terms (like planes,lines, points) ?
Is there an equivalent in ASME of this name "situation feature"?
Looks like you clarified that TGC in ASME is the...
Pmarc,
I would like to ask, if you don't mind to use this discussion, what is "situation feature" in ISO? Burunduk mentioned it above and I read it a bit in ISO5459 with no chance for me to understand it or even see a good application of such term.
If you guys prefer I can open a new discussion...
MBD environment and settings
Should we model at "the nominal" or at "the mean"?
Looks like design-inspection preference is "the nominal" and manufacturing is "the mean".
Creating a derivative for manufacturing looks like it is NOT a GREAT solution (could be an OKAY one however) due to the...
Per a discussion on a different platform, I would like to ask the members of this group the following questions:
What means “Engineering Check Processes” in the MBD world (otherwise stated what checkers are looking for when a MBD model is verified)?
What tools checkers are using to verify the...
I am working on a part similar to the one shown with model based definition geometrical controls. The part’s product definition should be based on the ISO GPS (8015, 1101 and 14405-1)
The center hole is considered as a datum feature for the 6 small holes. I have 24 of those instances (24 inside...
If a feature of size tolerance is large enough, can it vary in form to a degree such that the angle between surfaces can be larger than an "UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED" block angle tolerance allows…?
In addition to Rule #1, can/must form also be limited by block
angle tolerance? Another way I've...
How to deal with withdrawn ISO standards still shown on drawings?
What is your best recommendation? How your company is doing it?
Nevertheless, withdrawn standards can still be used within an industry, community or by a government, and this is often what happens when there are no replacement...
Regarding the above statement only:
If you have Y14.8 Casting standard see fig 4-9
position 0.5(M) |Z|Y|X|
position 0.2 |A|B|
which is datum feature's C definition
Are you using the Independency symbol or maybe the part is subject to free state variation (using the F symbol)? Are you using AVG symbol?
If not then why cylindricity is not refinament of size ? 0.7 cylindricity versus 0.2 size.
Then use composite profile
upper segment 0.03 |A|B|C|
lower segment 0.01 A|B|C|
Upper segment will locate the surface, lower segment will orient your concerned surface
