In fig. 6-30, does the UOS profile apply to the 36 basic diameter? If not, what if the diameter needed to be additionally controlled with profile 0.5 to A|B?
If in fig. 6-30 the profile tolerance applied to the 36 diameter had no datum feature references, would the UOS profile appply then?
cm_eng,
If it's critical that each counterbore is controlled by its corresponding thru hole, then I don't think the approach you are trying to take is the best one, especially if the part requires extreme precision.
I would recommend to control each counterbore relative to the corresponding...
Yes, I was referring to the fact that the diameter of the tolerance zone to which the feature axis must conform could be negative. This simply shouldn't let anyone think that the actual value for axis interpretation is not determinable.
Okay, I admit that the most recent example I made up reveals some issues with the axis interpretation as defined in the math standard, but that still doesn't mean that finding the actual value (that is, the value that would immediately and meaningfully tell by how much the feature axis deviates...
You're welcome.
I would generally agree that "the most sensible definition of "actual value" is the one that allows direct comparison with the tolerance value", however I'm not sure it makes "determination of conformance very simple" and that "the tolerance is satisfied if and only if the...
(1) and (4)
That's the whole problem here. The formulas for actual value (for axis interpretation) that you and I provided (I agree that mine is just a rearranged version of yours) were derived with the assumption that the actual values for the surface and axis interpretation of a MMC callout...
I have some questions:
1. If I am getting the formula correctly, it may produce a negative actual value. This would happen if, for example, a hole axis was perfectly oriented and located (D=0) and the hole UAME size was greater than the MMC size. The very last sentence of the paragraph for...
This wasn't to provide a definition of simultaneous requirements, so let me try from another angle by using the following - maybe not too realistic - example:
An inspector is told to evaluate the conformance of the feature from my illustration to the MMC MAX callout with the use of axis...
Because it is a single callout applied to a single feature.
Because 2009 standard doesn't say that for MMC and LMC callouts the surface interpretation is the default. It says that when the axis and surface interpretations give conflicting results (i.e., when one gives FAIL, while the other...
I wasn't thinking about it this way. The picture below should help to clarify my point. My apologies that it shows external FOS rather than internal FOS as in Fig. 6-15.
For the part as shown:
- When both callouts are separate requirements, the measured perpendicularity value for the RFS...
To nit-pick a bit, as long as '94 or '09 version of Y14.5 governs the drawing, the combination of position and two perpendicularities, as suggested by pylfrm, isn't technically identical with what is shown in Fig. 6-15. The perpendicularity tolerances are not subject to simultaneous requirement...
Shortly speaking, the thicker the part the smaller the size of MMB of datum feature D. Thickness of the part matters because maximum material boundary of datum feature D resides inside the part (hole), not outside of it, and so its size (diameter) changes as the thickness of the part changes.
I...
I don't think this can be answered correctly without knowing the maximum possible thickness of the part.
Also, cases 2(b) and 2(c) don't look OK.
3(a) and 4(a) should simply be 6.9.
I am not sure what you mean by this sentence. What I meant, however, was that as long as the profile callout in the note is not clearly applied on the all-over basis (or it doesn't use any of the mechanisms mentioned in the pattern definition that I referred to), one can make an argument that...
The problem with this example is that the general note (2) uses datumless profile and because of that it's not clear if the features subject to it are to be treated as a pattern or individually. That's probably why the quality inspector is raising concerns and suggesting to add ALL OVER to the...
Yes, that's what I am referring to and yes, I think that profile of a surface applied to both faces of the 50 mm width is the best choice. As soon as you start tolerancing other features of this part, that haven't been discussed here, you will notice even more how powerful profile tolerance...
