Search results for query: *

I was afraid this would be the case. So it got to be checked with an optical measurement system...

The question now is how to check this with a gauge if possible.

So like this:

So this one?

I'm trying to find out what the correct call-out would be for the depicted range of allowances.

So this call-out without datum shift would cover the minimum distance requirement already?

Problem: 2 concentric holes that need to maintain a minimum distance between their walls. If the larger hole, which provides the reference datum, is at its maximum tolerance the smaller hole can be more off its ideal position - see large view in below image. Which would be the correct...

Is it actually required to put a "THRU" or "THRU ALL" on a through-hole? ASME Y14.5 (2009) specifies: "Where it is not clear that a hole goes through, the notation THRU follows a dimension." Any other cut-out geometry is by default assumed to go all the way through a part body if no depth or...

As I understand it, a continuous feature is a feature interrupted by a gap or cut (as shown in figure 5-13 above), but not by a protrusion. At least that is what all the examples in ASME 14.5Y suggest.

Yes, they should be coplanar as if they were made as one surface. It is somewhat a continuous feature situation, only that I don't think you can actually apply the continuous feature symbol here as it isn't really a feature created in one "cut".

ASME Y14.5-2009 has this for Two Coaxial Datum Features defining a Single Datum Axis: Would it be OK to use this also with 2 sets of parallel planes like this:

If the thickness tolerance for all parts is larger than the allowable variation within one part then maybe something like this could work:

If the min/max values of the envelope not matter due to deformation/waviness but the material thickness should be constrained then it may be a case where you want to invoke independence:

This defines the axis of the cylinder as the reference. Placing the Datum on the surface of the cylinder instead on the diameter dimension would define the cylinder surface as the reference which really doesn't make much sense. This image would be of a flat or rectangular part where it...

The length gives you the permissible straightness deviation. This has to be considered as well for a gauge.

Also, always keep this one in mind:

I would say your maximum envelope should be 12.3 mm (12.2 mm + the 0.1 mm for the maximum allowed straightness deviation) while your minimum envelope (perfectly straight, perfectly round) would be 11.9 mm

How long is that cylinder?

After having another look at ASME Y14.5 (2009) I think I found the solution: So I think the drawing indication should be something like this:

Is there a way to indicate that the envelope principle should not apply when defining the thickness of a flexible part, for example a gasket made of a flexible rubber sheet? This is how the part should be allowed to look like this when not constrained: But on the drawing (and if installed) it...