RFS surface interpretation versus axis interpretation 1

[gabimo]

Is the surface interpretation taking precedence over the axis interpretation for features of size with no modifiers in the positional callout?

In other words, a hole positional callout RFS, does it have two interpretations, surface versus axis. So, if the actual surface of the hole does not violate the inner boundary (MMC minus geometric tolerance) the part is considered good even the axis of the unrelated actual mating envelope is outside the positional tolerance zone.

Am I correct?

 

[pmarc]

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=420236

See my post from 28 Jan 17, item #4.

 

[greenimi]

Copy-paste for everyone's convenience:

- ISO - no difference for position tolerance applied at RFS, but when applied at MMC or LMC ISO standards use only the surface interpretation.

Thank you again pmarc

 

[CheckerHater]

According to ISO 1101 Position tolerances control points, axes, median faces and plane surfaces.

Could anybody provide a reference for ISO mentioning boundary?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[pmarc]

From ISO 2692:

 

[CheckerHater]

OK, thanks.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future