×
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

Composite Frame for Single hole
4

Composite Frame for Single hole

Composite Frame for Single hole

(OP)
Hello,

Please see the attached drawing.
Figure-1 : A composite Position frame is applied for the hole.
Figure-2 : The same hole uses Position control and a perpendicularity control.

Question : 1) Can Composite position frame be applied to single hole.?
2) I have a doubt that,composition position frame is used only when there is a pattern of holes, as ASME says the upper frame 'PLTZF' and lower frame is 'FRTZF'.
3) Is figure-1 is legal specification? or do I need to dimesion the part as shown in Figure-2. or both is Fine?

Plz suggest.
 

Madhusudhan Veerappa
Mechanical Engineer

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I am not an authority, but here is my take.

Figure 1 in not appropriate as a composite for the reason you mentioned.  If you make it a two line position tolerance you can achieve what you desire (same as what you have except two position symbols).

Figure 2 is perfectly acceptable.

-Dustin
Professional Engineer
Pretty good with SolidWorks

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I have always been told no to a composite pattern on a single feature, which do not think is specifically stated anywhere in the actual standard.
BUT:
1) KISS principle, if all you want is orientation say it.
2) Composide position tolerancing is laid out under section 5.4 Pattern control (1994 version), using the pattern relation definitions: FRTZF & PLTZF.
Frank

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

You cannot have a composite feature control frame on a single hole. The bottom section or FRTZF is utilized inside a pattern of holes and perpendicular to datum A.

The second example is correct where there is a positional requirement and then a perpendicular one which is a refinement of the position. The feature control frame outline for both top and bottom sections should line up on the left side.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Agree with Dave. Composite FCF should not be applied to a single feature of size. Paragraph 7.5.1 of Y14.5-2009 states that: "Composite positional tolerancing provides an application of positional tolerancing for the location of feature of size patterns as well as interrelation (constrained in rotation and translation) of features of size within these patterns".

Second figure is correct.

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

2
Dave and the others are correct.  The position symbol cannot be used if the only quality being controlled is orientation (perpendicularity).   It's a common mistake -- there's even a Tec-Ease tip that promotes such a practice!
But paragraph 7.2 of the Y14.5 standard states that position is "the location of one or more features of size..."   And by definition, "location" means that there is a distance involved.  So if perpendicularity is all that is being controlled, then you don't want to use a symbol whose function is to control a distance.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Quote:

...by definition, "location" means that there is a distance involved
I don't think it is quite that simple... the definition of "location" also includes position, and while you may not want to use the symbol for orientation only, it does control orientation.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I agree that orientation is automatically covered when a location tolerance is given, but the original question was the opposite: using a location symbol when the ONLY quality desired is orientation.  That's very different.   Anytime we use the position symbol, that means there must be a distance involved.   

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P, I do not think that OP's intent is to control orientation only. He wants to control position too. The question is whether composite position FCF is equally legal to 2 separate FCF's (position and orientation) or not and which is correct?

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Yes, pmarc -- thanks.  I guess I was focusing on the bottom part of the composite, though, to explain why it doesn't fall under the banner of the position symbol.  (I guess I can't really call it a FRTZF?).  But like you, I would go with the second option that he presents.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

2
I would say that Figure 2 is correct and preferable because of its simplicity and directness.  The Perpendicularity tool exists, so let's use it.

I would also say that Figure 1 would apply exactly the same controls as Figure 2.  There is absolutely no difference that I can see.

Whether Figure 1 is legal or not is an interesting question.  I would agree that applying composite Position to a single hole is a very poor practice, but I'm not sure that it violates any rules.  JP, the "location requires a distance" argument doesn't hold enough water for me.  There are plenty of statements in Y14.5 that are correct in a general sense but also have exceptions.  For example, the passage you quoted mentions features of size.  But Position can also be applied to irregular features that are not features of size, when the Boundary tool is used.  Further, the PLTZF and FRTZF acronyms don't hold up to scrutiny either.  The PLTZF doesn't really locate the pattern, it locates the features.  The FRTZF usually does more than just relate the features - it can orient the features and can locate them as well.  It all depends on the specific configuration of considered features and datum features.
 

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I hate to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it seems pretty clear to me.  Think of it this way:

Position controls location and orientation.
Perpendicularity controls orientation only.

similarly:

Parallelism (surface) controls orientation and form.
Flatness controls form only.

When you guys say (or imply) that it might be OK to use the position symbol just for its orientation effect, it's akin to saying that it's OK to use parallelism if I just want flatness control.  I would say no: parallelism has orientation as its unavoidable duty, and the flatness effect is a free by-product.  Same here: position's intrinsic purpose is to control location, and orientation is a by-product.  So I'm just saying that logically you can't use a symbol for its fringe benefit and totally ignore its main purpose.  

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P:

I totally agree with you on this one. Positional tolerances on a single hole to datum A doesn't make sense. If one was trying to reflect a perpendicularity, use it.

FRTZF does not exist in the first example. We do not have features inside a pattern since we don't have a pattern so, thus, I do not agree with Evan. The only relationship the single hole has with datum A is perpendicularity. That's it.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Quote:

Whether Figure 1 is legal or not is an interesting question.  I would agree that applying composite Position to a single hole is a very poor practice, but I'm not sure that it violates any rules.
Evan, isn't the meaning of paragraph 7.5.1 of Y14.5-2009 enough to say that applying composite positional tolerancing to a single feature violates the rule?  

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

(OP)
Hello JP,

I understood your point that we should use orientation control when I am interested to control the perpendicularity, rather than using position to control the same. I understood that it is a poor practice to use the composite position frame for single hole.

As PMARC mentioned in above string,

1) As per ASME, using composite position frame to a single hole is legal or not? Is it documented any where?

I dont have a copy of 2009 standard to refer the session 7.5.1 mentioned in the above string and i have seen drawings where they use composite position frame to control single hole? I have confusion whether is legal or not.

Madhusudhan Veerappa
Mechanical Engineer

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Madhusudhan,
If you have Y14.5M-1994 take a look to paragraph 5.4.1. Meaning of its first sentence is very close to the statement from 7.5.1 of 2009 edition which I cited a few posts above:

[1994] "Composite Positional Tolerancing. This provides a composite application of positional tolerancing for the location of feature patterns as well as interrelation (position and orientation) of features within these patterns".   

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I agree that the second example is preferable... I just took exception to the statement that location requires distance, and the inference that true position only controls distance.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I give up.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

ewh - positional (not true position) does not only control location but orientation.  

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Awe... where's the fun in that, JP? winky smile
I was just venting about a pet peeve of mine, which is the use of absolutes, or terms in an absolute sense.
I have no argument against your explanation otherwise; it is a good one and I appreciate the knowledge you have shared with us.  Heaven knows I can use all of the help I can get.  I guess I don't need to pick all of those nits I find.pacman

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

I hope I didn't sound like a bad sport   :)

I just can't wrap my head around the belief that the word "position" doesn't have to involve a distance.  If that statement were true, it wouldn't be position, it would be perpendicularity, parallelism, flatness, straightness, angularity, circularity, cylindricity....

It's true that I was making an absolute statement, but it was one not based on my interpretation of Y14.5, but rather on the very meaning of the word "location."
 

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P,

I don't hate to sound like I'm splitting hairs - maybe that's my problem ;^).  I guess I've found that applying Y14.5 GD&T in quality and inspection is all about splitting hairs.

Here's my take on your Parallelism/Flatness example.  I agree with you that specifying Parallelism when only form control is needed is not OK - it would impose an unnecessary orientation control.  But I think a better comparison would be to substitute Surface Profile instead of Parallelism.  Surface Profile is capable of controlling size, form, orientation, and location.  If applied to a single planar surface, with no datum feature references, Surface Profile would control form only.  So would it be legal to do that?  I would say yes, but I would still recommend specifying Flatness.

pmarc,

Whether it violates the rule depends on exactly what a pattern is.  Here's an excerpt from Section 5.1.2 of the Y14.5.1M-1994 mathematical definitions standard:

"For the purposes of this Standard all tolerances of location are considered to apply to patterns of features, where a pattern may consist of only a single feature."

Again, I would say that applying composite Position to a single feature does not add any value and would introduce confusion.  Having said that, composite Position is often applied in other situations where it does not add any value, even in the Y14.5 standard itself.  Take Fig. 5-19 in Y14.5M-1994.  The FRTZF's only reference datum A, which is orthogonal to the considered features and therefore can only control orientation and not location.  So the special rule for composite FRTZF's, in which any datum feature references control orientation only, has no effect.  The composite FCF's are functionally equivalent to multiple single-segment FCF's - so why use composite FCF's?  The only other difference would be the other special rule with composite FRTZF's, that the rule of simultaneous requirements does not apply.  This is not mentioned in the discussion of the figure.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

(Before someone says it:  I know that the form symbols listed in my previous post are not controlled by position.  I was just throwing out random geometric characteristics!)

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Evan, I don't know if your example of profile fits the situation being discussed.  I agree that profile of a surface can be used to control flatness only.  But that's OK because profile tolerances, at their base level, are just form tolerances (that can then elevated to take on variations such as irregular shapes and/or datum references, if desired). But the definition of the word profile doesn't inherently invoke orientation (parallelism), so there's no conflict: leave it stripped to its basest meaning and it is equivalent to flatness.

What I keep trying to say is that position is, at its basest level, a location control, so there is no option of truncating it to do orientation only.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P,

Thanks - now you've got me thinking about the semantics and metaphysics of position and location.  I've got other things to do, like earning a living ;^).

I hesitate to base anything on the words or categories that Y14.5 assigns to things.  I therefore hesitate to judge what Position and Profile inherently invoke, based on the generic meanings of the words "position" and "profile".  I prefer to examine the definitions of the tolerance zones and their behavior, and make judgments from there.  Exactly what ends up being controlled usually depends on the specific configuration of considered features and datum features.

There may still be a way for both of us to be right:

An orientation tolerance zone is oriented to the datum reference frame, but not located to it.  This means that the zone is not allowed to rotate relative to the DRF, but is allowed to translate relative to the DRF.  The zone can therefore translate relative to the considered feature.

A Position tolerance zone is oriented and located to the datum reference frame.  This means that the zone is not allowed to rotate or translate relative to the DRF.  But we can impair its ability to locate the considered feature, by specifying only a single datum feature that is not parallel to the considered feature.  This allows the DRF to translate relative to the part, and thus allows the zone to translate relative to the considered feature.  This achieves the same result as the orientation tolerance in this special case, but the Position tolerance zone is still located to the DRF.

What do you think?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Evan ... I was with you until a couple of sentences into the last paragraph.  Why are we allowed to "impair" the established meaning of a geometric characteristic symbol?     I'm familiar with "upgrading" certain symbols (especially for profile), but it seems to be illogical to downgrade a symbol below its intrinsic definition.

The standard says that the position symbol controls the location of one or more features of size.  So to try to downgrade it by removing the location requirement tells me that it's no longer a position symbol.

An automotive analogy:  You can buy an old chassis from a junkyard and build onto it, eventually making a driveable car.   You can still say that the chassis is there; it's just been embellished.

But to buy a car and strip it down to the chassis only -- throw out the body and the powertrain -- means that you can no longer call it a driveable car.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

One other thought...    The only "impairment" that comes to mind right now is the T modifier, which impairs the surface orientation symbols by removing the form requirement.  But that is an explicit modifier made for such an effect; it doesn't damage the intrinsic meaning of parallelism, etc.

If I tried to create a modifier for orientation that removes the angular control back to a datum, then I would be messing with the intrinsic meaning of orientation, and it would be illogical.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

John-Paul,
What I think would be logical is a position tolerance applied to two or more parallel holes, where each references only a planar datum feature that is intended to be perpendicular to the holes...  These position tolerances that I speak of here would follow looser position tolerances with more constrained datum reference frames.

The position tolerances I'm speaking of that reference only "A" would have their tolerance zones tied together by simultaneous requirements, so the feature-to-feature relationship and the orientation to "A" would be controlled.

If we pare that back to only one feature, then yes, it is more intuitive to use perpendicularity, but not wrong to use position for that control.

If we must always use the control that provides just the control needed, then as Evan pointed out above, there are fairly common cases where composite position must be replaced with single segment feature control frames.

I think we all agree that perpendicularity is more intuitive for the case being discussed, but the "GD&T police" can issue no citation if position is used instead profile smiley.

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P:

You put up a valiant battle and have given you a star for it. The other factor is that I totally agree with you on this thought. I somehow have a difficult time placing a positional tolerance on a feature when, in fact, the only relationship is perpendicularity.
 

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

A textbook (GeoTol Pro - 2009) I have says "...standards recognize that that the axis verses surface interpretation can yield minor but different results. ...if there is a conflict...the surface interpretation should prevail."

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Dean -- you nailed it.  The perpendicular-only datum reference is just fine if we're talking about two or more features.  But with only one hole, then you gotta have a "distance" datum along with a basic dimension (even if the basic dim is implied).

Thanks, Dave.

My persnicketiness on this is not meant to be an "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" type of thing.  I was just driving at what a given word actually means in a dictionary sense.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

(OP)
Hi Jhon-Paul,

I did not get the maning of " The perpendicular-only datum reference is just fine if we're talking about two or more features.  But with only one hole, then you gotta have a "distance" datum along with a basic dimension (even if the basic dim is implied)."

Could you please explain this.. :)

 

Madhusudhan Veerappa
Mechanical Engineer

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

If two holes are controlled by the same feature control frame, and the position symbol is used, then they are automatically being controlled for location to each other (the distance between them), even if no datum reference is given.  It's kind of like each hole becoming a datum for the other.

Dean and I were referring to a similar situation where there is one datum reference (a plane perpendicular to the two holes).  This is OK because the datum gives an orientation aspect to the position symbol, but the intrinsic meaning of position -- location -- is still intact because there is a distance between the two holes that is locked.

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

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

J-P,

Again, I hesitate to base anything on the labels and categories that Y14.5 uses.  Circular Runout is not classified as a tolerance of location - yet it controls location just as much as Concentricity, which is classified as a tolerance of location.  

Y14.5 often gives words new meanings that stray far from their common usage.  If we try to understand terms used in Y14.5 in a dictionary sense, we're finished ;^).  Take "concentricity", "symmetry", "virtual", "resultant", and my all-time favorite "simulate".  The list goes on.

It's interesting that you feel that Position is a location control that must do all it is capable of, but Profile is a form control that can get "upgraded".   To me, both Position and Profile have the power to locate but this power can be made irrelevant by how the control is applied.  

Profile creates a tolerance zone that is completely fixed in its form, size, orientation and location in the datum reference frame.  This gives Profile the power to control the form, size, orientation, and location of the considered feature.  But we can choose to do one or more of the following things:

-we can make Profile's ability to locate the considered feature irrelevant, by applying it to a single considered feature and specifying only a single datum feature that is orthogonal to the considered feature
-we can make Profile's ability to orient the considered feature irrelevant, by applying it to a single considered feature and specifying no datum features at all
-we can make Profile's ability to control the considered feature's size irrelevant by applying it to a single feature that does not have size i.e. a single planar surface

Position also creates a tolerance zone that is completely fixed in its form, size, orientation, and location in the DRF.  This gives Position the power to control the orientation and location of the considered feature.  It is not allowed to control form or size, because Position is only applied to resolved geometry (axes, center planes, center points) that by definition have perfect form and zero size.  In the same way that we can with Profile, we can choose to make Position's ability to locate the considered feature irrelevant by applying it to a single considered feature and specifying only a single datum feature that is orthogonal to the considered feature.

So I would maintain that applying Position instead of Perpendicularity is definitely not recommended, but no more illegal than applying Profile instead of Perpendicularity or Flatness.  For me, the constraints on the tolerance zones speak louder than the names given to them.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

Hi Evan,
There are four essential things that GD&T can control:  size, form, orientation, and location.  Notice that profile is not on that list.

Position is a location control.  So guess what -- by definition, it controls location. This has nothing to do with Y14.5; it's black and white simply because it is called a "location" control.  It had better control location, or it's not being used correctly.  See my chassis example above.

Profile is its own category, but notice that it is not pinned down to size, form, orientation, or location. So this is where we have to look to Y14.5 for how it wishes for profile to be used/interpreted.  We see that profile always controls form.  So that can never be taken away.  But we are allowed to build it up from there.

I see what you are saying about profile, but here's where I disagree:  You wrote,
"In the same way that we can with Profile, we can choose to make Position's ability to locate the considered feature irrelevant by applying it to a single considered feature and specifying only a single datum feature that is orthogonal to the considered feature."   (my emphasis)

That doesn't make sense.  If I claimed that  "we can choose to make profile's ability to control form irrelevant,"  would you see a problem?

Once again, the difference is in:
  • building up a base definition to add extra qualities to it (which you describe well for profile)

  • compared to:
  • stripping down a base definition to remove constituent qualities (which is what position of a single hole is doing, and therefore negates the meaning of position)
  • John-Paul Belanger
    Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
    Geometric Learning Systems

    RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

    It is easy to say "I agree" with out investing all of the time and thought necessary to articulate a response... so said... I agree Evan. Well stated!

    I recall defending the position (refuted albeit) that a position of a pattern does not require a datum feature designation... arguing that the control constrains all six dof among the pattern members simply because it is a pattern...  only to see evidence of its acceptance and application in the latest version of the standard.

    Paul

    RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

    J-P,

    I'm not sure that Position controlling location by definition is as black and white as you describe.  It is definitely something to do with Y14.5, because Y14.5 is where the characteristic was given the name Position and classified as a location control!

    Subdividing geometric controls into size, form, orientation, and location is a useful concept, but it's unfortunately not that simple.  Despite the categories that Y14.5 divides them into, most of the 14 geometric characteristics control more than one of the four things.  Even with form tolerances, which only control one thing, we need to subdivide the idea of form into "local form" of line elements (Straightness and Circularity) and "global form" of the entire feature (Flatness and Cylindricity).

    When patterns or groups of features are toleranced together, we also need to subdivide orientation and location into "relative" (to each other) and "absolute" (to the datum reference frame).  A Position or Profile tolerance with no datum references controls the relative orientation and location of the features but not their absolute orientation and location.  The FRTZF of a composite FCF creates a rigid pattern of tolerance zones that can freely translate relative to the DRF.  This could be described as controlling the relative location of the features and not their absolute location.  

    I don't mind agreeing to disagree on this one.  You're able to hang a lot more on the words and names in Y14.5 than I can, and that's fine.  The words and names have led me on so many conceptual wild goose chases that I can only look to the geometry to make sense of it all.

    Evan Janeshewski

    Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
    www.axymetrix.ca

    RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

    Well, true, we do have to look to Y14.5 to see the name "position" and to see that it is a "location control."  But I was simply appealing to logic to say that if a location control is stripped of location, then it is not a location control, and thus we have a problem of A = B and A ≠ B.     (If I say parallelism no longer controls orientation, I would hope that you call me on it!)

    I have no problem with the "relative" vs. "absolute" designations.  Don't know if that applies here, because for both relative and absolute location, the location is always present in some respect.

    If I may pick at one more concept given in your post from 13:13, I think this is the crux of the matter:

    "Profile creates a tolerance zone that is completely fixed in its form, size, orientation and location in the datum reference frame."

    "Position also creates a tolerance zone that is completely fixed in its form, size, orientation, and location in the DRF."

    These two statements are not both true.  While position's zone is always fixed in form, size, orientation, and location (ignoring bonus tolerance), profile's zone is not.   It is always fixed in form only.   If you'd like to add parameters to make the other 3 qualities part of profile, then you can do so by adding datums, etc.

    That's all I was getting at by my explanation of the "base definition" of something.  The stars seem to be lining up on your side so I'm OK to let it go.  :)

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

    RE: Composite Frame for Single hole

    J-P, a star from me. Not because Evan has two :), but first of all because I totally agree with your standpoint (which doesn't mean I don't understand Evan's arguments).

    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