×
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

FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

(OP)

Hello,

       I got a drw for the composite tolerance call out that shows no datum on the bottom call out, is this correct?
Or we suppossed to have datum A at least shown.
Also, why is it that the composite shows to different calls for the positional tolerance said for example .36 mm on top and .25 mm
at the bottom.

Thanks.

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Valek, maybe I'm misunderstanding the second part of your question.  Are you familiar with what composite is trying to achieve?  Essentially the top tol applies to locating the 'pattern' while the lower tol applies to the features in the pattern to each other.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

(OP)

I'm sorry Kenat, somehow familiar but not good enough I guess.
So there is no datums at all on the bottom one or is implied.

Thanks
  

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Really, the only time datums would be omitted from the bottom part is if the holes are in line with each other (coaxial).

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

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Valek,
It is legal not to have datum features referenced in the lower segment of a composite feature control frame. This controls the location between the features in the pattern, just not orientation to any datum features (since there are not any called out). Figure 5-51 on page 147 of the 1994 standard provides a good illustration and example of this.

Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Like JP said, the only examples of this in the 94 standard are with coaxial holes. It doesn't make sense to do it on a flat drilled hole pattern without at least one datum reference.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X5
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

I've always wondered that myself, Powerhound.  The standard seems to imply that coaxial holes is the only time datum refs can be omitted from the lower portion.  But I would say that it's OK even on a flat plate, if you don't care what angle the pattern of holes is drilled at.  As Drstole said, the holes can still be located to each other properly.

Is this one of those times when the standard gives basic principles, but we are free to extend the concepts to other areas? Or should we stick to the script and say it's only for coaxial holes?

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

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Just for the information - Alex Krulikowski in his "Advance Concepts of GD&T" uses the example with pattern of 4 holes in a flat plate to explain what happens when there is no datum in a bottom segment of composite positional FCF.

My opinion is that from purely theoretical point of view both applications are acceptable (even if the pattern example is not shown in the standard).

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

The way I visualize it is that if there is no datum reference in the FRTZ for a flat drilled hole pattern, then the axes of the holes would have to be parallel to one another within the confines of the tolerance value of the FRTZ with no respect to the datum to which the holes are shown perpendicular, other than what is specified in the PLTZ. While it is okay to NOT want to restrict the holes to the perpendicular datum, I can't think of a single case where this would be more beneficial than not. I think this would be a case where someone could make a part that is compliant to the drawing but not to the function.

On coaxial holes I can absolutely see how this would work just fine.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X5
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

It is good to see that the door did not get closed on non-coaxial feature related tolerance control frameworks... I wanted to disagree but don't have enough time to defend it.

Paul

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

This is somewhat a question of extended principles.  Here is an animation that I created for training purposes to explain composite and multiple single-segment position controls.  

http://profileservices.ca/files/tidbits/tidbits_missc.html and click on "Composite Position".  

Be patient as there is a 4-level single-segment fcf near the end which shows a final refinement with no datum reference, and what it means.  To clarify someone's point above, there is an orientation control associated with the refined tolerance zone, as limited by the first level of the FCF.  There is not, however, any refinement of the orientation in the second level of the FCF.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

(OP)

Good Composite Position presentation.
Thank you.

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

I am with pmarc, I am glad we don't arbitrarily close doors just because WE haven't thought of a reason yet.  Or, it is not shown in "the book" yet. You all know how I feel about that logic.

I am thinking about a series of very long bores in engine block fixtures that are for say a rack and pinion system, entering from relatively small faces, no bigger than the actuator flange itself. The bores need to follow each other as a pattern tighter than to an outside surface. We generally used a "knocker" on the driving actuator in these systems so misalignment from the actuator mounting face was allowable. All the other intermediate bores come in from faces that are irrelevant except the system output bore (they would not even need to be coming in from the outside surfaces if there was a way to get the bore in without coming in from the outside, say like a stereolithography.
Frank

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

In my consulting, I've had to extend principles a number of times.  The authors accept that they can't include every specific situation in the standard, and aim instead to cover the concepts.  Considering that technology and therefore design requirements change constantly, that's a good thing.  When I was being trained, first principles were emphasized over specific applications.  When I got to the advanced applications, I was glad for it; a surprising number of real-world applications are atypical.   

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

Personally, I don't see the point of specifying a composite FCF when the lower tier has no datum feature references.  The special rule that datum features in the lower tier control orientation only would not be relevant, and two single-segment FCF's would suffice.

The only other distinction between composite FCF's and multiple single-segment FCF's is that the rule of simultaneous requirements is waived for the lower tier of the composite FCF.  Which raises an interesting question - does the rule of simultaneous requirements apply to single-segment FCF's with no datum feature references?

What do you guys think?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: FRTZF / PLTZF Composite Positional Tolerance.

In a hydraulic control body there are typically many independent coaxial bore patterns that mate with their respective "spool valves."

Before the 94 standard redefined the composite FCF giving its lower tier 6 DOF control of the pattern among the defined pattern features and only Rotational DOF "as limited" by the specified datum features and expanded the definition of the "simultaneous requirement" principle, we (Ford Motor Company) used either a lower tier composite FCF or an additional tolerance refined single segment with no datum features to control the coaxiality of each of the "spool valve bore patterns." There was an upper tier composite or upper segment that controlled  the bore's position in the cast labyrinth for logic control but its tolerance was slightly relaxed compared to lower tier/segment that controlled the spool  land diameters  fit with the labyrinths land diameters.

The 94 standard changed all that and we were forced to use newly defined composite FCF to prevent the numerous individual bore lower segments from being considered "one composite pattern" since they all had the same datum features specified in the same order "none/null."

The upper tier/segments all had the same datum features as well, which controlled the bores in the structure, but that simultaneous requirement was already constrained by the datum structure specified by design...  no problem! Other problems arose when single segment FCFs that had unconstrained translational or rotational by design were now linked as a simultaneous requirement... those had to be changed.

I understand that the simultaneous requirements rule was expanded address the rocking primary controversy but it did not have to blanket unconstrained Degrees-Of-Freedom. I also understand that it links datum feature mobility among identically referenced features or feature patterns but it still does not have to constrain all 6 Degrees-Of-Freedom among controls that are afforded translational or rotational liberty by design.

This makes me wonder if customized datum reference frames from the 2009 standard are immune to the blanket "one pattern" rule when their translational or rotational  freedoms have been identically defined...  I don't have time to look right now.
Paul
 

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