×
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

Inline Bores

Inline Bores

Inline Bores

(OP)
I'm updating a 50 year old part/drawing and making a few changes.  As I make the new drawing I would like to get it closer to today's standards.

I always struggle with the concept of inline holes and the best way to tolerence them.

This part has 2 bores that are to be held to .0005" dia.  The bores are inline and 9 7/8" apart.
I've used a positional tolerance on the bottom hole and a total runout for the upper hole relative to the bottom hole.  I've left the limit dimension to drive the form or the holes.

A single shaft will go between the holes and the lower portion of the part will contain gears to drive the shaft.

I've been doing machine drawings for 25 years but GD&T is fairly new to me.  I've only used it on a dozen or so complex parts.

Will this get me what I'm looking for?  Have I properly applies the correct symbols?

RE: Inline Bores

I give the large hole a true position (coaxial in this case) tolerance of .0000 at MMC to D at MMC.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
www.infotechpr.net

RE: Inline Bores

General question - which GD&T standard are you trying to follow, ASME Y14.5 or ISO? I believe ASME, but I am asking just to have it clear.

Here is another method that can be used:
Please take a look at fig. 5-53 of Y14.5M-1994 standard. Personally I like this one (especially when location of holes relative to datum reference frame is not so important as their coaxiality), but a lot of GD&T users freak out when they see positional tolerance without any datum reference frame, so this might look weird and incorrect at first glance.
 

RE: Inline Bores

I agree with pmarc's suggestion.  If one hole is made the datum feature and the other is toleranced relative to it, then the requirement is quite restrictive.  Any angular misalignment gets multiplied, because of the distance between the holes.  If it is really the holes' mutual coaxiality that is important, then the Fig. 5-53 method works very well.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Inline Bores

(OP)
Thank you for the reply.  I'll have to find the figure you are talking about.

I have a the following text book.
Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing
Application, Analysis & Measurement
per ASME T14.5-2009
James D Meadows
ASME Press

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