×
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

Hole Position Tolerance Question

Hole Position Tolerance Question

Hole Position Tolerance Question

(OP)
Hello,

In the attached jpeg, There are two datums defined for the position of the Diameter 5 holes. The GDT box defines the position of the holes with respect two Datums A, B and C.

There is no defined relation for the location of Dia. 5 holes with respect to Datum C (dia 3 hole). How are the location of the Dia 5 holes effected wrt to Datum C? How should the tolerance table for these holes shape up with respect to changes in the datums?

Best regards

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

Datum C is only used for anti-rotation about datum B. All dimensions come from the centre of the part which is created by datum B. I see that datum C is also in alignment with two (2) of the positional holes in question so there definitely is a relationship.

This drawing is one of the better ones out there and it reflects that the Designer has a relatively good understanding of GD&T.
 

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

(OP)
Thank you for your response.

What I understand from your explanation is the Datum C only relates the orientation of the two holes. It does not express any relation with respect to dimensions.

In the attachment, there is a slightly modified orientation of the holes. What do you say about this version. Is it correct in terms of meaning usage considering the tolerance of the holes with respect to Datum C?

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

Both drawings are good except the last drawing required a theoretical dimension to the hole shown as datum C.
 

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

Actually Datum C on the original drawing locates all 4 holes.
It's just the basic angle dimensions are "invisible"; 0 deg and 90 deg basic angles are usually IMPLIED.
From the appearance of the dimenssions the drawing is coming from ISO country. Does anybody know if there is big difference between ISO and ANSI/ASME when it comes to implied angles?

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

Generally saying there are no significant differences between ISO and ASME in terms of implied angles. If we are talking about patterns of holes, ISO does not have SEP REQT note for 'separate requirements' concept - it uses more descripitive texts under the FCF. ISO 5458 deals with this thread.

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

Thank you pmarc,

It was my general impression, but it is always better if someone knows for sure. :)

RE: Hole Position Tolerance Question

(OP)
Thank you very much for all the answers.

Best regards,
Oykun

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