Would a simultaneous requirement applied to multiple holes referencing only datum A constrain only the orientation of the holes? I'm not sure how that would also control location of the holes.
PtoMonty,
What is the function of the part? If you want to control the location of the 11 mm hole relative to the 9 mm hole, you'd likely be better off keeping your existing datum A and setting the axis of the 9 mm hole as datum B. Then you can control the location of the 11 mm hole without...
I just ran across some articles online that confirm what I thought I heard on this forum recently, that you can only locate features of size with a +/- tolerance. I'm not sure where this example falls. The two opposed surfaces are a feature of size, but the individual surface that you would be...
Assuming ASME and profile of a surface are being used, profile can control the location of the surface, but it doesn't need to. If the distance between A and the parallel surface is located with a +/- tolerance, the +/- tolerance should locate the surface and profile becomes a refinement of...
Garland23, it seems that the OP just wants to make sure that the measurement is taken parallel to the long sides. Isn't the original drawing sufficient to express that? GD&T could help, but I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary.
Hi MattEdwards,
The way the dimension is shown in your picture means that the measurement would be taken from the tip of the radiused portion to the topmost tip of the hole, with the measurement axis being parallel to the dimension line. Therefore, I believe you dimension matches the goal you...
SDETERS, thanks for the sketch. I see two options:
1. Follow 3DDave's advice and use a hole.
2. Put a tighter position tolerance on the slot. This will constrain the rotation of the slot to the level you determine is acceptable. This will allow you theoretically looser tolerances compared to...
Can you clarify what you mean when you say, "The slot is rotated 1.5 degrees about the center of the slot?" It sounds contradictory that the center is correctly located, but that the slot is also rotated.
Thank you both for the explanation. The article that greenimi linked led to me trying to formulate the point that pmarc articulated better than I could, that runout controls form and position together in a way that deviations in form take away allowable position deviation, while for a position...
Yes, sorry that I left out the detail that I am asking in reference to ASME Y14.5 2009. I agree that position is an axial control. Since form is not controlled by the runout, how does the distinction between axial control and surface control impact measurement and performance as they relate to...
Hello,
I'm encountering an issue on one of my drawings similar to that shown in the picture below (see also this link: https://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=170#:~:text=Although%20changes%20in%20size%20are,the%20runout%20could%20be%20large.)
The size tolerance on the shaft is smaller...
This background may be helpful. The current dimensioning scheme is based off an angular tolerance with no GD&T applied. Our supplier can't seem to hit the tolerance, and I'm wondering if there is something wrong with our callout. I'm trying to think of a better way to express the fact that...
Thanks, Burunduk. My question is more related to the practicality of measuring such a requirement. Is it even valid to reference a centerplane of a timing tooth, since there are no nominally parallel planes from which to derive the centerplane?
I was looking at one of our drawings and we have a drawing for a timing pulley that requires the centerplane of a particular tooth to be aligned to the centerplane of a keyway within 0.5 degrees. Currently, the requirement is that the centerplane of the tooth is aligned to the keyway and not...
Short answer: unless there is a general profile tolerance in the notes, option 1 is correct.
Longer answer: parallelism is an orientation tolerance, and not a location tolerance. Therefore, it can't locate the flat .351 from datum A. You need some location tolerance (coordinate or geometric) to...
Thanks, Wuzhee. I wasn't 100% sure if I could use CF on a feature that's not a feature of size. It seems the standard (2009) is inconsistent in whether that's allowed.
I apologize for the miscommunication. B and C are coplanar/parallel. I definitely agree that if they were perpendicular to each other, I couldn't use them as a single datum. Datum B and C are located on the wide faces of the tab with the clearance holes passing through them.
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Alex,
Thanks for your response. In the example I attached (a dumbed down version of the actual model), the tabs marked datum B and datum C are perpendicular to the surface marked datum A.
When you reference rotation about Z, are you saying that Z runs vertically through datum A (nominally...
