Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
(OP)
When is ordinate dimensioning appropriate and when is it inappropriate?
My initial throughts are:
APPROPRIATE USE:
-Flat plate
-Single horizontal origin and single vertical origin
-?
INNAPROPRIATE USE:
-Hole patterns
-?
Please offer your thoughts.
Don
My initial throughts are:
APPROPRIATE USE:
-Flat plate
-Single horizontal origin and single vertical origin
-?
INNAPROPRIATE USE:
-Hole patterns
-?
Please offer your thoughts.
Don





RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
GK
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
I believe that method of dimensioning is no longer allowed by Y14.5. I believe that it went out many years ago. It is replaced by composite positional tolerancing.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
I admit that it's been awhile since I've used ordinate dimensioning, but it is still allowed per ASME Y14.5-1994.
While I could not find any examples of mixing GD&T with ordinate dimensioning, the standard does state (para 1.9)"Rectangular coordinate dimensions locate features... from a datum or an origin." If the dimensions are basic and the datums defined, this should be an allowable method of dimensioning.
I do agree however that composite positional tolerancing is the preferred method for this type of control.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
If you use datums and basic dimensions, the positional allowance has to be specified for the allowable variation.
That is where the composite tolerancing comes into play. It was formerly called 'PLTZ' and 'FRTZ'. Pattern locating tolerance zone and Feature relating tolerance zone.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
It is a given that the positional tolerance has to be specified. And I agree that composite tolerancing would be the preferred way to go. I was just pointing out that ordinate dimensioning is still a viable alternative, not necessarily better.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
If one uses GD&T positional tolerances IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THE PART IS DIMENSIONED! It's the feature control frames that impart functionality into the design. Granted, while it's useful to dimension the part to imply functionality, when the dimensions are basic then it really doesn't matter. If fact, Y14.5 does not require that dimensions originate from the datums; you just have to have a way "to get there" using the dimensions.
As for me, I mix ordinate dimensioning and normal dimensioning in any way that helps fit all the dimensions into the view.
Tunalover
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
Mixing was allowed WAY BACK WHEN!!!!
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
As far as use/don't use: use it when it works; don't when it doesn't. Do ordinate dimensions describe the part geometry in a satisfactory manner? If so, no problem to use, end of debate.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
Your statements indicate that maybe you are confusing the term "ordinate" with "bilateral."
You also said "I still believe that the standard DOES NOT allow the mixing of such in the locating of a pattern of holes or such" seems to indicate that you believe that bilateral, ordinate (or both) and basic dimensions may not be mixed. This is also not true. I recommend you alleviate all doubt and get back to the "horse's mouth" by revisiting Y14.5M which, incidentally, is "Dimensioning and Tolerancing..." not "Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing..." (sorry but I had to get that in there because there are many people who have the misconception that it is only GD&T).
If you take a good look, you'll find that bilateral ordinate, bilateral extended, basic ordinate, and basic extended dimensions are perfectly acceptable (but not necessarily desirable) in any combination on any given drawing.
Tunalover
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
I see no problem in mixing the various methods on a given drawing. My statement stands that basic and plus/minus CANNOT be combined in the dimensional locating of a pattern of holes.
Stated differently: Datums and bilateral or unilateral tolerances not mix. Do we agree on that?
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
You're right. Although Y14.5 never says it directly. A feature control frame (fcf) applied to a hole pattern controls the positional tolerance of each hole within. The spec says that in order for the fcf to apply, the pattern-locating and in-pattern dimensions must be basic. This excludes the use of lateral tolerances.
Lastly, the fact that a part has datums does not rule out the use of lateral tolerances (some features can be located with lateral dimensions and some by basic dimensions). Of course if the drawing had datums but no fcfs then the datums would be unecessary. In this case, while the datums would be redundant their presense would technically not be a violation of Y14.5M.
Tunalover
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
Don
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
I apologize for not stating my position better. It was Fri afternoon, and my mind was already out of here.
When I suggested that ordinate dimensions and GD&T could work together, I had assumed that any ordinate dimensions used would be basic.
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
-It is acceptable but not necessarily desirable to mix ordinate and other types of dimensioning. This requires judgment on the part of the designer/drafter.
In order to guide the designers/drafters where I work my thoughts are to provide examples of appropriate and inappropriate use of ordinate dimensioning.
Thanks,
Don
RE: Ordinate Dimensioning - When to use
I hope you were able to glean something from this.
It is my opinions that Y14.5 in general, advocates the strict usage of GD&T, in-as-much as there is no standard for the strict interpretation of +/- tolerancing. That is to say you don't know which end to start for your measurement.
Opinion ONLY.