Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
(OP)
A practice I've seen some engineers use for a patterned row of holes is to show the linear dimension between the first two with the added statement "NON-ACCUMULATIVE".
In my view, this is a poor practice, since the engineer needs to make a choice to apply the tolerence to the overall length of such a pattern or apply tol the spacing between the individual elements (for a tol stack-up). Stating "non-accumulative" is an under-specification or even a non-specification.
ASME Y14.5 does address patterns in paragraph 1.9.5. However, the methods shown seem to incur a tolerance stack up between the elements. What is the preferred ASME compliant method to apply a tolerence to the overall pattern, rather than incurring a tol stack-up (without using GD&T)?
In my view, this is a poor practice, since the engineer needs to make a choice to apply the tolerence to the overall length of such a pattern or apply tol the spacing between the individual elements (for a tol stack-up). Stating "non-accumulative" is an under-specification or even a non-specification.
ASME Y14.5 does address patterns in paragraph 1.9.5. However, the methods shown seem to incur a tolerance stack up between the elements. What is the preferred ASME compliant method to apply a tolerence to the overall pattern, rather than incurring a tol stack-up (without using GD&T)?
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter





RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
Patterns of holes are the very first thing I apply GD&T to, largely because it is a mess to do anything else. What happens when two holes fall on the same dimension line you toleranced at ±.005"? What happens when your part is maximally out of square? Do you measure your holes from the angled edge, or from a corner? Remember, there are no datums specified. Your post above adds to the confusion.
A GD&T FCF is the neatest, simplest way to solve the problem.
The non-GD&T solution would be to apply ordinate dimensions. These would have absolute tolerances as per ASME Y14.5. In the absence of any standard, your notes mean whatever you choose them to mean at your end, and whatever I choose them to mean at my end.
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
I don't think there is a robust not GD&T way to even try and do it without unnecessarily tightening tolerance.
Ordinates, or at least coming from common origin, as drawoh says may sort of achieve what you want, depending on your complete requirement.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
As you well know, GD&T scares the average engineer.
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
Are you suggesting we give up on all of those too
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
Challenge this engineer to make a functional, non-mis-interpretable drawing without GD&T and ASME Y14.5. He can put it up here, and we will see if we cannot mis-interpret it.
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Mythical non-accumulative tol callout on patterns
BTW im not scared to talk to pretty girls or of GDnT, Just the rest of Kenat's list.