Run-out in ISO versus runout in ASME

[gabimo]

I do not have access to ISO GPS standards (I have only ASME), but I would like to ask one of you, if there is any difference between the definition of runout in ASME versus definition of runout in ISO?
The runout is verified on one of our inspection equipment based on ISO 1101, but the print is defined based on Y14.5-1994.

 

[mkcski]

The definitons appear to be the same. However Y14.5 uses different nomenclature: "circular runout" and "total runout" an no terms radial and axial.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

 

[CheckerHater]

Y14.5 allows for total runout apply to conical surface.

1101 only allows cylindrical and flat. Hence radial, axial, but not "on the angle"

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

 

[Belanger]

Y14.5 allows for total runout apply to conical surface.

It does?

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

 

[powerhound]

^^^Yeah, I'm kind of curious about that too^^^

John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech

 

[Belanger]

I'm not knocking CH's comment -- I hope it's true. Total runout on a cone has been discussed in the past (see this thread), but it constantly meets resistance.

Also, relative to the OP's question...apparently ISO is more friendly to the cone idea than ASME. The thread given above mentions Georg Henzold's ISO-based book which shows total runout on a cone. I wish ASME had shown such an example.
In the end it might be a non-issue since the next ASME version will have "dynamic profile" which serves the same purpose.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

 

[greenimi]

I agree with J-P. I would say in 94 and 09 total runout is allowed on the cone as long as the included angle is basic. In the new y14.5 draft this option is no longer allowed and dynamic symbol should be used on the profile callout.

Also, and here please correct me if I am wrong, Iso versus asme, in one standard the measurement should be taken normal to the surface and in the other along the included angle. Not very sure about my last statement. Help needed and I will stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[CheckerHater]

Y14.5 has Para. 9.4.2.1 that says: "Where applied to the surfaces, constructed around a datum axis, total runout may be used to control ... angularity, taper ..."

1101 has Para. 18.16.1 Total radial run-out tolerance and Para. 18.16.2 Total axial run-out tolerance. No other kind of total tolerance is even defined in the standard.

Make your own conclusions. This topic was already discussed to death in this thread:

thread1103-315985


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

 

[pylfrm]

Y14.5 allows for total runout apply to conical surface.

It does?

I realize this is a topic of much debate and little consensus, but I suppose I'll take the bait.

ASME Y14.5-2009 Fig. 9.1 shows a conical surface as one of the three example "surfaces constructed around the datum axis". Para. 9.4.2.1 makes no attempt to restrict the application of total runout to some subset of those surfaces. I certainly don't have answers to the inevitable questions about angle tolerances, but I have no objection to a total runout tolerance applied to a conical surface with a basic angle.

I think section 9 generally does a poor job of actually defining the runout tolerances, and would benefit from a rewrite that doesn't involve inspection methods.

Also, instead of adding new terminology and symbology for dynamic profile in the next version, I think it would make more sense to just expand the definition of total runout. Something along the lines of the following perhaps:

The boundaries of the total runout tolerance zone are equally distributed about a geometric shape which is a variable facsimile (a "normal expansion or contraction") of the true profile. The toleranced surface must lie within this zone.​

Any thoughts on the relative merits of this approach? Based on the 24 November 2015 draft it's clear the committee doesn't agree with me, but as far as I can tell they are just adding unnecessary complication.


pylfrm

 

[CheckerHater]

Also, and here please correct me if I am wrong, Iso versus asme, in one standard the measurement should be taken normal to the surface and in the other along the included angle.

In both standards runout is measured perpendicular to the surface in question.

With one exception: ISO 1101 has special kind of runout in Para. 18.15.4 Circular run-out tolerance in a specified direction.

It allows you, if necessary, explicitly specify angle of the measurement. 2012 version of the standard clarified that angle must be specified as TED ("BASIC")

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