×
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

Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
Hello All,

I have a small cylindrical part that has a hole drilled into it. I am trying to decide if the OD and the ID (really the diameter of the hole) should be called out as a wall thickness or a concentricity tolerance.

The part is molded out of plastic. I'm leaning towards wall thickness because the fixturing to measure it would be much easier to make.

Thanks for any help in advance!

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

As the designer, only YOU know what is important for the functionality of the part.

Your dimensioning and tolerance scheme should be based on functionality, not ease of making inspection fixtures.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

For minimum wall thickness vs. hole size, true position w/ LMC works well.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Mint is right but just to try and help.

At least with ASME concentricity is rarely the right control except for things like long prop shafts etc.  Consider if Position or one of the runouts is appropriate based on function.

Position may allow even easier gauging, especially if you can use MMC on both the hole & OD datum feature.   

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Doh, Tick is right, if you're really concerned about wall thickness looking at LMC may be an idea.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

TheTick is correct that the hole could be shown with a positional tolerance at LMC rather than MMC to control the minimum wall thickness.

I would suggest that you reflect the hole in either circular or total runout using the OD as the datum. This will control the wall thickness a little bit easier than positonal.

Both will achieve the same results.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
Thanks for the help guys!

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

You could use position @ LMC to control minimum wall thickness if that is your intent, otherwise total runout is a popular alternative, but my preference is surface profile ... you check the size & location of the surface all in one setup instead of 3 (Full-form check @ MMC, 2-pt check at LMC and then finding the actual center for position, or doing a runout check).  You cannot, however, use concentricity ... it involves the Derived Median Line, and that's not a place you ever want to go ... it's beyond hard to check, and concentricity doesn't mean what it did in high school.  In high school, concentricity means that the two surfaces remain equidistant from each other, under Y14.5, it means that you compare the location of the derived median line (not the feature axis) to the datum axis at each section along the length of the workpiece.  That's a significant difference.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

ME2QE,

Go ahead and use wall thickness if you want! If the part is not rigid then its form may vary to some degree. Using the controls for position, profile, or runout will penalize that deformed part even if it has acceptable wall thickness. As others have said "consider the function in specifying the control".

Concentricity is definately not what you want because concentricity does not control size or form... only location. For instance... the OD and ID  could be perfectly straight and perfectly concentric yet have elliptical shapes where the max ID and min OD are 90 degrees "out of phase" naturally wall thickness would exhibit the extremes resulting from size for each.

If there was a wall thickness requirement one of the sizes would not be required.
 
Paul
     

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

ctopher,
 
Maybe I shouldn't be answering your question... forgive me but for rigid parts I would Yes! However for ME2QE's original question... with a plastic part and his leaning to specify "wall thickness" and his assertion that gaging would be easier... I would say it doesn't explain the size and "wall thickness" option.

Paul

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Paul,
I understand. There are some good suggestions above and I was just adding some additional info for ME2QE to use (future reference).

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Paul, the OP doesn't state if the part is (relatively) rigid or flexible.  I've had molded plastic parts that weren't really what I'd call flexible.  

He also talks about a hole being drilled, which would suggest reasonably stiff/rigid part, unless they just mean a hole co-axial to the OD, not specifically created by drilling.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
Kenat,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The plastic part is molded with the hold in it. Its a pretty compliant part (soft plastic).

The hole mates to a shaft. At its smallest, the hole is already .001 larger than the OD of the shaft.

I'm not designing the part, just trying to fix the drawing so that we keep a specific wall thickness intact.

I haven't used GD&T in a while so I'm taking a long time to understand what you are all saying. Anyone know where I can get a refresher of sorts? I'd even take a class all over again if I could.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

ME2QE, there are public seminars around N.America.  Tec-Ease is a popular source (& I just happen to be a trainer there ... coincidence...).  There are other instructors who contribute to this site also (see Dingy2 above for example), so they will hopefully also provide their sites for your reference.  Public sessions are scattered around, so there should be something relatively near to you.  Sessions usually range from 1 day (VERY quick review course) to 3 days (lots of Q&A), and a couple of providers now offer Webinars as well.  Maybe I'll meet you at a seminar. Good luck.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

Hi guys, Here is my two cents: Just dimension from the edge of the hole to the edge of the outside diameter and state the minimum edge dimension. Now inspection measures the two sizes and the minimum edge distance.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

WhitmireGT, your approach won't control the centering relationship between the features.  The hole could be shifted to one side, and you'd have no way of limiting it.   

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
dingy2,

you mention to hold the OD as a datum for a runout tolerance on the ID. Is it the same if i hold the ID as the datum and runout the OD?

 

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

ME2QE:

The results would be the same but I caution that both total and circular runout are appropriately applied on small cylindrical parts. Your part is cylindrical so it would work.

Sometimes it is easier to have the ID as the datum (place in chuck)and perform the runout on the OD. That is from a measuring perspective.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
Dingy2,

What my inspectors would do is put a pin gauge into the hole, zero off the pin gage, and then runout the OD.

Thats why I just wanted to make sure that the opposite works.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

(OP)
I've been going back and forth on runout and position with LMC. I decided to try position. I've attached a sample drawing.

assuming i dont want the wall thickness to fall below .0085, does this tolerance make sense? I don't want to submit this to a vendor and have them laugh in my face.

Thanks for all the help! You are all teaching me a lot.

RE: Concentricity vs. wall thickness

My my my.  First, the datum feature of size (FOS) must have a tolerance on it.  Second, the outside diameter must have a tolerance on it.  Without the tolerances for size, there's no way to tell what the minimum wall thickness could be.  Third, the position callout must be attached to the FOS dimension callout.  Fourth, the tolerance in the Feature Control Frame needs a leading-zero ... the nominal diameters are in millimetres (since they have a preceding zero), so the tolerance must also be in millimetres, and therefore must have a preceding zero also.   

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

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