ISO 2768-mK and gage size 3

[Andera]

If an outside cylindrical surface (defined on a drawing calling out ISO 2768-mK and DIN 7167) has a diameter of Ø12mm (+0.2 / -0.1) what would the correct “GO” gage size dimension (inside diameter of the gage) to verify this OD requirement?

I would appreciate someone with ISO knowledge to help me getting the right gage size.

I looked up online for DIN 7167 and found some recommendation such as: ”The issuing body recommends using DIN EN ISO 14405-1:2011-04 .”

I did not see DIN 7167 having the envelope requirement by default so, I am little bit confused about the appropriate gage dimension.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

 

[pmarc]

If the gage is to verify combination of all effects, I would vote for 12.5 (12.2 for maximum local size + 0.2 for circularity + 0.1 for straightness).

 

[greenimi]

Pmarc,

I’m kind of got stuck in the ISO net. Could you, PLEASE, help me get some “freedom”?

DIN 7167 (as per the OP stated drawing standard) is withdrawn, but *IF* it is still shown on a drawings does that mean it is still legally active or you have/ must use it’s direct replacement (if replacement available and suitable)?

Why am I asking? Because DIN 7167 states, that in case of a drawing based on DIN Standards on tolerances and fits with no specification to the contrary (e.g. reference to ISO 8015), the envelope requirement shall apply for all features without its being separately indicated on the drawing.
Therefore, if DIN 7167 is considered “alive” then the GO gage size dimension would change accordingly and no circularity and/or straightness would be involved and only the maximum size dimension is considered.

Again, I am asking for your qualified opinion.

 

[pmarc]

greenimi,
I missed the DIN 7167 part of the discussion entirely.

In that case the question to OP is if ISO 8015 is referenced on the drawing or not. Because if it isn't, then I would say the envelope requirement applies, despite that 7167 has been withdrawn.

 

[Andera]

Pmarc,

Just a quick remark: drawing calls for DIN 7167 (which, as far as I understood, from this discussion enforce envelope requirement) and ISO 2768-mK.

Does not mention anything about ISO 8015 and its Independency principle.

But here lies the dilemma: ISO 2768-mK is shown as written (and not ISO 2768-mK-E), so isn’t it a conflict or a small disagreement between these two cited standards?

Which one take precedence?

DIN 7167 (with its envelope) or ISO 2768-mK (with no envelope)?

 

[pmarc]

Andera,
If the dtrawing doesn't mention anything about ISO 8015, then I would say DIN 7167 applies even if ISO 2768-mK callout doesn't contain E modifier. That's just my personal opinion and I can imagine a good lawyer proving in the court that the opposite conclusion is valid.