Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
coordinate dimensions
- Thread starter Chann
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
We have a person here (a Senior Designer) that dimensions from a theoretical datum in the center of the part and uses the coordinate system. I think this is way wrong. I think that coordinate dimensioning is an easy way out of dimensioning correctly.
Chann,
Coordinate dimensioning is perfectly legal, meaningful and interpretable. Running all your dimensions from two orthogonal datums makes fabrication and inspection easy, and it makes for a relatively neat, simple drawing.
On the down side, it does not show design intent with absolute clarity.
Machine and sheet metal shops easily can place holes on a flat part all accurately with respect to each other. If you show each separate pattern with composite feature control frames (FCF), they cannot take advantage of it. If you have somebody punching holes manually, a composite FCF might allow someone to make a punching template.
When I started doing mechanical design, I was told by machine shops that coordinate dimensioning was strongly prefered. Today, most shops go straight to CNC, so your dimensioning style is less critical for fabrication. I think coordinate dimensions are easier to inspect.
There is no such thing in ASME Y14.5M as a theoretical datum. Datums are defined by features that can be accessed for fixturing. If the width of the part is defined as a datum, then you can dimension from a centreline defined by the width. Your positional tolerances need to be thought out because fixturing is not absolutely simple.
JHG
Coordinate dimensioning is perfectly legal, meaningful and interpretable. Running all your dimensions from two orthogonal datums makes fabrication and inspection easy, and it makes for a relatively neat, simple drawing.
On the down side, it does not show design intent with absolute clarity.
Machine and sheet metal shops easily can place holes on a flat part all accurately with respect to each other. If you show each separate pattern with composite feature control frames (FCF), they cannot take advantage of it. If you have somebody punching holes manually, a composite FCF might allow someone to make a punching template.
When I started doing mechanical design, I was told by machine shops that coordinate dimensioning was strongly prefered. Today, most shops go straight to CNC, so your dimensioning style is less critical for fabrication. I think coordinate dimensions are easier to inspect.
There is no such thing in ASME Y14.5M as a theoretical datum. Datums are defined by features that can be accessed for fixturing. If the width of the part is defined as a datum, then you can dimension from a centreline defined by the width. Your positional tolerances need to be thought out because fixturing is not absolutely simple.
Agree with Drawoh - the coordinate dimensioning itself is OK, has advantages and disadvantages compared with alternatives.
The problem seems more the 'theoretical datum'. Perhaps if you can post a sketch or sample or something we can say more.
The problem seems more the 'theoretical datum'. Perhaps if you can post a sketch or sample or something we can say more.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question