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
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
rwild : Would you mind to post a sketch, it will easy to catch the designer's intent.
SeasonLee
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
Coaxial pattern of features.
See Fig 7-59 pg 153 of ASME Y14.5-2009
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
Attached is the sketch that you requested.
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
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
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
RE: GD&T Positional tolerancing
Frank