Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Circular runout Vs Total runout tolerance 3
- Thread starter Sa-Ro
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Burunduk
Mechanical
- May 2, 2019
- 2,580
You show them applied to different features therefore it is the requirements of each feature that dictate the tolerance value independently.
If for example you showed the two applied on the same feature and the circular was with larger or equal tolerance than the total, the circular would become redundant. Because the total "includes" the requirement that the circular imposes.
The circular smaller than the total would make sense geometrically (again - when applied on the same feature).
If for example you showed the two applied on the same feature and the circular was with larger or equal tolerance than the total, the circular would become redundant. Because the total "includes" the requirement that the circular imposes.
The circular smaller than the total would make sense geometrically (again - when applied on the same feature).
-
1
- #3
powerhound
Mechanical
In a nutshell, a circular runout tolerance only has to be less than the total runout when it is a refinement of the total runout tolerance.
John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech
John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech
- Thread starter
- #4
- Thread starter
- #5
If you have Y14.5-2009, that idea is contained in paragraphs 9.4.1 and 9.4.2. Notice how 9.4.1 mentioned "circular elements." But 9.4.2 mentions "all surface elements." Obviously, "all surface elements" includes circular elements, but includes other elements (specifically, longitudinal elements).
There's your ammunition to explain it to the supplier.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
There's your ammunition to explain it to the supplier.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
- Thread starter
- #8
I have referred both standards.
But there is no explicit statement or figure to show the relationship between total runout tolerance and circular runout tolerance.
Many of the statements in the standard need a expert advice to understand the statement.
If it is explicitly demonstrated, it will be easy to understand.
Thank you.
But there is no explicit statement or figure to show the relationship between total runout tolerance and circular runout tolerance.
Many of the statements in the standard need a expert advice to understand the statement.
If it is explicitly demonstrated, it will be easy to understand.
Thank you.
- Thread starter
- #10
- Thread starter
- #12
- Thread starter
- #13
Burunduk
Mechanical
- May 2, 2019
- 2,580
Regarding the figures from the 2018 standard, If the requirements were on the same drawing and on the same feature, the circular would need to be smaller because it would be redundant otherwise. Since they are't on the same drawing what relationship do you expect from them? I suggested you to use these figures to clarify the meaning of the tolerance zones. From the meaning of the tolerance zones one can draw the conclusion of their proper relationship when applied on the same feature in the same drawing.
- Thread starter
- #15
I understood the meaning with your first reply itself.
But my supplier mentioning, total runout will cover circular runout, circularity, concentricity, cylindricity, straightness. Hence even though the circular runout and total runout are specified in different features, total runout should be always more than the circular runout.
Supplier is asking for evidence in any drawing (may be from standard / some company) which is addressing total runout and circular runout at different features with equivalent tolerance in same part.
But my supplier mentioning, total runout will cover circular runout, circularity, concentricity, cylindricity, straightness. Hence even though the circular runout and total runout are specified in different features, total runout should be always more than the circular runout.
Supplier is asking for evidence in any drawing (may be from standard / some company) which is addressing total runout and circular runout at different features with equivalent tolerance in same part.
- Thread starter
- #17
![[dazed]](/data/assets/smilies/dazed.gif "[dazed] [dazed]")
- Thread starter
- #18
If you have no stress report or the result of a variation analysis to show the effects of these callouts then the performance may not matter. If there is nothing more than an argument over a picture then it's not a requirement worth discussing.
Burunduk
Mechanical
- May 2, 2019
- 2,580
No you don't.
All you need to do is to explain to them that unless otherwise specified, each geometrical tolerance applies to the feature to which it is associated (by a leader or a note). So when you control one feature with a total runout, it won't influence the variation on another feature. I don't even think there is a statement from the standard for that, because I doubt the committee ever envisioned something like that can be questioned. This is ridiculous.
All you need to do is to explain to them that unless otherwise specified, each geometrical tolerance applies to the feature to which it is associated (by a leader or a note). So when you control one feature with a total runout, it won't influence the variation on another feature. I don't even think there is a statement from the standard for that, because I doubt the committee ever envisioned something like that can be questioned. This is ridiculous.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question