×
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

GD&T Positional tolerancing
5

GD&T Positional tolerancing

GD&T Positional tolerancing

(OP)
  Can you have a positional tolerance feature control frame on a hole without referance to any datums? If this is a correct way of dimensioning, then what is it controling? Perpindicularity, hole to hole, something else?
 

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

A positional control without any datum to be controlled relative to serves no purpose that I am aware of.  

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

No!

One could have a perpendicularity of a hole to a datum surface but that is it.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

For a hole pattern, a position tolerance without any datum reference, it means to control the spacing within the pattern.

rwild : Would you mind to post a sketch, it will easy to catch the designer's intent.

SeasonLee

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Yes!

Coaxial pattern of features.

See Fig 7-59 pg 153 of ASME Y14.5-2009  

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

I cannot think of a situation where the FCF in the provided sketch has a definite meaning.  It needs datums.

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing


Obviously, its a hole pattern, composite position callout should be used for this case, and the "position tolerance without any datum" should be the lower segment (FRTZF) of the composite position callout.

SeasonLee

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

There are two cases in Y14.5 standard which allow using position control without any datum reference:
1. Lower segment of composite position tolerance - then it controls spacing between the holes within the pattern.
2. Coaxiality control for cylindrical features shown in line on a drawing.

However you must be careful, becasue if you follow ISO standards, they allow such callouts for position of pattern of elements.  The location and orientation of the pattern depends on the considered actual features of the workpiece.

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Is it possible they are using the Model Data Set for the definition?

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

To me the (this) drawing also needs datums. Without them it becomes a guesing game.

SeasonLee -
to my knowledge a (PCD) hole pattern still needs at least one datum (on a concentrical bore).

This way the origin of the PCD is constraint and as such one has a reference to measure from.

http://www.tec-ease.com/tips/november-98.htm
 

 

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

321GO

If one datum reference on the lower segment (FRTZF), it means to control the spacing within the pattern and the perpendicularity of the pattern relative to the datum refered to.

If no datum reference on the lower segment (FRTZF), it means to control the spacing within the pattern only.

You will get more detailed information from fig 19-6 of the book by Alex Krulikowski "Advanced Concept of GD&T"

SeasonLee

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

(OP)
Is it a common practice to have just the lower segment of a composite feature control frame?

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

rwild,

It is not a common practice simply because Y14.5 std. does not allow using single-segment position tolerance without any datum reference in pattern of holes applications.  

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

The only time datums can be omitted on a position tolerance is if you care only about hole-to-hole relationship.  As mentioned above, there is the example of "coaxial holes," but I suppose you could also do it for a pattern of holes laid out in a flat plate -- as long as perpendicularity is not important to you.

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

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Season,
I know this has been discused before, do you agree with John's last statement? It was certainly OK in earlier versions of the standard. (MIL-8 & 1966). I believe dingy had a srong opininon on allowing it too. I have been telling people (based on the discussions in this forum), it is still allowed though not tecnically what they want in many cases, agree/thoughts?? The fact is it exists the question is is it still allowed?
Frank

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

fsincox

John mentioned "hole-to-hole relationship", I think this is exactly same as what I said "to control the spacing within the pattern" if no datum referenced on the lower segment (FRTZF).

I don't have the standard of MIL-8 & 1966, sorry for I can't give you a reply regarding it.

SeasonLee

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Positional tolerances without a datum is allowed. Imagine a group of spheres in infinite space. The spheres are not dimensioned to any other feature except the other spheres in the group. They may have a positional tolerance, so that any sphere in the group automatically becomes a datum for the position of any other sphere in the group. No datum is declared.

In real life the position of the group may not matter, but the relative postion of the holes to each other does (e.g. to align with a mating part). The holes may be dimensioned from an edge to a single hole in the group. The dimension to the group of holes does not need to be controlled by the positional tolerance (unboxed dims). The hole positions are still only controlled by the positional tolerance relative to each other as if they were in infinite space.

If you constrain the position of the holes unnecessarily to a datum you add cost to the manufacture of the part, and unneccessary rejections.

Dave
 

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

I can imagine a case when datum reference in a single segment positional FCF for pattern of features is not needed at all - as Dave just said, we can consider pattern of 4 spheres where, for the functional reasons, the spacing within the pattern is more important than the location of the pattern itself. And that's fine for me, because spheres are very specific features which do not have any orientation defined. So the mating part with 4 spherical hollows in it will fit as long as a spacing within the pattern is sufficient.

But if we consider mating of two parts like: a flat plate with a pattern of 4 cylindrical holes and similar plate with 4 pins, and we do not use any datums for position of these patterns, we will not be controlling perpendicularity of holes/pins in relation to mating surfaces at all. So there might be a case when pattern of holes is tilted in one direction and the pattern of pins in opposite direction, and then the alignment is not possible.       

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

You are of course correct pmarc, there is a risk the lack of perpendicularity of the fixings and holes could disallow assembly. If there is a risk the parts will not go together the designer should specify a tolerance.

However, we also need a bit of common sense to avoid building in cost. If I am bolting together two thin plates for instance, I wouldn't bother with a perpendicularity tolerance. So we must allow pos tols withot datums where appropriate.

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

dakeb:

You, of course, would assume perpendicularity with the face. I would suggest that the face should then become a datum and should be referenced in the feature control frame. It may not have any real relevance but would be part of the datum development.
   

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

As has been said many times before, common sense isn't all that common, and we know what "assume" can lead to.
In a well done drawing per the ASME standards there is no room for assumptions.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Yes, ideally we should fully define every element of a part. Ideally we would like to be able to check that the part is delivered to the drawing. In reality though, we are not gonna cmm some M6 clearance holes going thru a 3mm sheet for perpendicularity. So it's pointless putting it on the drawing.

Envisage we are fitting, say, an electrical module with four M6 tapped fixing holes, into a fabricated 3mm thick drawer base in a 19" rack. We don't care exactly where on the drawer base the unit is sited, so standard linear dimension tols will do for group position to the first hole. The hole centres need to be controlled to match the cots item, so a pos tol with no datum is fine.

Perpendicularity will not be a problem because it is harder to drill a hole at an angle than it is to drill it face-on. Clearances in the holes will be specified sufficiently to allow for a reasonable lack of perpendicularity in such a thin sheet.

My point is if I specify a pos tol with a datum face called up for perpendicularity, no matter how big a tol value, the manufacturer will add a few £££'s just for the hell of it.

Dave

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Some vendors will add a few $$$/£££'s for every FCF or similar.

I'd suggest the solution, if they wont educated them selves/be educated, is perhaps to find new vendors.

Though I realize that's a bit of a pipe dream in many situations.

If it's a functional requirement, then having it on the drawing allows you to reject parts that don't meet the requirement at the vendors cost.

However, the debate of if GD&T is really worth it, or only for critical applications etc. has been beaten to death here before, though not for a while so maybe we're due.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

I lost this no datum on a single segment non-coaxial pattern control with Don when we last debated (see thread1103-2146890) but I thought that subject was further debated prior to the newest standard release... just don,t know the outcome.

RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing

Sounds like the exact same conclusion and the exact same clarity as it was then, too. I see no difference fundamentally from the "position" that I stated before. Composites was an easy call.
Frank

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