×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
Hello, I'm having a debate with others to interpret the assumed flatness or straightness on a thickness or "bow" callout. The spec is Ansi 14.5M-1982. The thickness callout is .2787-.2745. Do I get RFS and the measured "bow" or do I have to place the part down and the entire form has to fit within the maximum of the tolerance. Thanks, Rich

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

I'm not clear what you mean "bow" callout.
Is it a flat part, or curved into a "bow" shape?

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
yes it has a .002 curve along length of part

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

If all you have to go on is a thickness dimension, I don't think you can assume anything about flatness or straightness without a specific callout, especially if the measured thickness including "bow" meets the dimension.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
People are telling me that my flatness is assumed to be the total tolerance zone eg. .2787-.2745= .0042. That would be fine, even though I don't know if that is even correct, but they take it a little farther and state that if I run at the high end of the tolerance I have .0000 allowable flatness tolerance and on the other hand if I run at the low end of the tolerance I get the full .0042.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Without a specific callout, I'd have to agree with them.  All you have to go on is your dimension and its tolerance.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
People are telling me that the assumed flatness callout would br the total tolerance of the thickness callout eg. .2787-.2745=.0042. Even if I agreed with them about that, which I don't, they take it another step and say that if I run to the max of my tolerance (.2787) I will have .0000 tolerance for flatness. And on the other hand if I run at the low end I will have .0042 tolerance for flatness. I have Interpretation of Geometrical Dimensioning and Tolerancing by Daniel E Puncochar and I don't see anything about it in there.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Creech,

   I brought that specific question up when I took my GD&T course.  Your assumption makes a lot of sense, but it is wrong as per ASME Y14.5M-1994.  I am not 100% certain about the 1982 version of the specification.

   According to ASME Y14.5M-1994, the thickness specification is the thickness at the point measured.  It has nothing to do with flatness.  If you want flatness, you must specify it.

                      JHG

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

I agree, but from a practical standpoint it may not be measured at two opposing points, but from a flat surface upon which the part lies.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

I agree with the others.
I suggest upgrading to ASME Y14.5M-1994.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
I think I found it.

  For anyone who is interested. In Modern Geometrical Dimensioning And Tolerancing by Lowell W Foster along with the National Tooling and Machining Association or NTMA, the following was stated:

  Rule 1 - Limits of Size Rule. Where only a tolerance of size is specified, the limits of size of the individual feature prescribe the extent to which variations in its geometric form as well as size are allowed.

   It continues later in the same rule: The surface, or surfaces, of a feature shall not extend beyond a boudary (envelope) of perfect form at MMC. This boundary is the true geometric for represented by the drawing. No variation is permitted if the feature is produced at its MMC limit of size.
 
Chris We're a machining job shop and the prints states the specification. We cannot change it unfortunatly

Thank you all

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Good news. Congrat's!
Also (should be another thread) I'll bet the dwg states ANSI Y14.5M-1982, but all GD&T is per ASME Y14.5M-1994. Very common.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Where is it written that all drawings are to be interpreted
by the 1994 version, even if prepared and stated to the 1982 version?

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

ringman,

   I referred to the 1994 standard because that is what I keep lying around.  If drawings are prepared to the 1982 standard, they should be interpreted to the 1982 standard.

                     JHG

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Some differences between the two.
My experience with military design, whatever is called out, you follow that standard. It will be checked.
I am looking to see if/where it is written.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

There are minor but nontheless significant differences in the callouts between the different versions.  This can and does understandably lead to some misinterpretation.  The standard that is called for on the drawing MUST be the one applied for the interpretation of callouts.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Rule 1 applies to form as well of thickness since this is a feature of size. Make sure that the drawing stated "complies with ANSI Y14.5-82" or ASME Y14.5-94" but people on the shop floor don't really know this rule.

Most people on the shop floor will just measure the thickness and that is it - nothing else unless you specify straightness or flatness, etc.

To confirm that the thickness does not exceed the form of .2787 (MMC) , one would need 2 parallel planes of  .2787 apart which is MMC. Measure the thickness of the part (micrometer) and then make sure that it goes between the 2 parallel planes.

Hope this helps.

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

Creech,

Just curious, but when was the drawing being discussed prepared?  Do you have confidence in it being in conformance with the stated version of Y14.5?

RE: Assumed Straigtness or Flatness

(OP)
ringman

I have no idea when this drawing was prepared. From what I understand we have been making this part for a couple of years and to dingy2's point we have not considered this up until this time. The only reason it even came up is that there was gross curvature on a part (rocking on the surface plate) and it raised some flags. We dug in to it and found we haven't been checking this feature correctly all this time. Functionally I think we're OK. Perhaps the designer didn't consider it either or we just lucked out.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources