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!

Grouping "Separate Requirements"

Status
Not open for further replies.

KevinNM

Mechanical
Nov 29, 2012
2
US

I have relatively complicated mechanical envelope drawing that has a few connectors. After applying all the GD&T, there are many call outs to the same DRF. I'm wanting to break out the connector call outs as "SEP REQT". However, I still want every call out on each of the connectors to checked at the same time. The way I understand the standard; each call out with "SEP REQT" attached to it is checked individually.

Is there a clean way to show what FCFs I want grouped together?

~Kevin
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you


If your connectors are all the same (“pattern of patterns”), the note “INDVIDUALLY” comes into play (see Y14.5-2009 Fig.7-37)

If connectors are unique, you probably have no other choice but create separate datum framework for every connector and create 2 or more multiple single segment FCFs.

Hard to tell without more detailed description of your design.
 
Kevin

Would mind to post a sketch? this will be easier to understand what you really need.

SeasonLee
 
I had a post awhile back were I was doing something like that for relating bearing bores to their respective shoulders. It was based on a company book I wrote to explain just such issues. The main problem is the clarity of intent. My GD&T instructor once told us: "remember, you still may have to resort to note for special cases".
That is the way I see this stuff. We had always had a practice of showing the bore numbered (for section views) so it seemed logical to make the datum an "-AX-" with a note saying "X to be replaced by the bearing bore number" and of course an "individually" statement. The shoulder tolerance was to "AX" with an "individually" statement.
The standard can't cover everything, which is why I am more in favor than some of "extensions of princple". IMHO, Those of us who have had to use this stuff in the real world, on real world parts, realize these things are really needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top