×
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

pattren of holes - datum

pattren of holes - datum

pattren of holes - datum

(OP)
From my previous post on runout I got this doubt.

Is it mandatory to use M modifier if I want to use a pattern of holes as Datum?
If I use M modifier then I can use a fixed gauge and the axis of the pattern can be considered as datum.


Is it possible to have a pattern of holes as datum at RFS condition, If possible how to simulate the datum in this case?  Here also the datum will be the axis of the hole-pattern only, not the axis of individual holes.

Can anyone help me to understand this?
 

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Per 2009 edition of Y14.5 it is no longer mandatory to use pattern of holes at MMB when one wants to use it as a datum feature. It can be assigned at RMB basis too (see 4.12.4 in Y14.5-2009).

Like I said in the thread about runout, gage pins used to simulate the datum axis at RMB would have to expand simultaneously from MMB towards LMB till they get maximum possible contact with corresponding holes. They are of course located at true position as defined by basic dimensions.

If the pattern contains 10 holes and all of them are assinged as datum features then theoretically you have to use 10 expanding gage pins to simulate the datum - at least this is how I understand 4.12.4.  

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I've already suggested that in your previous post.

Look on Fig. 4.35 in ASME Y14.5 2009.

They show pins, but similar set-up could be created with custom chuck jaws for holes.

All of your holes will be one datum feature, and because chuck is adjustable, it will grab them at RFS.

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I don't have a 94 standard with me today, but I don't recall it being required to have the MMC modifier on datum reference taken from a pattern of holes.  It certainly is the most practical way to do things, but was there a paragraph that spelled it out as mandatory?

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I do not believe there is a statement saying that a pattern of holes must be specified at MMC when used as a datum feature. Paragraph 4.5.7 (of the 94 standard) indicates to me that it can be at RFS. An example would be a 2 hole press fit dowel pin pattern that has mounting holes and other features tied back to it.

Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level

RE: pattren of holes - datum

J-P, I thought you just clarified this issue with Jim in the thread about runout.

Jim clearly mentioned that "The certification exam treats this particular item as a "must" (i.e. features must be at MMC for the simulator)."  Did I misunderstand something?   

RE: pattren of holes - datum

The new standard certainly gives expanded treatment to RMB and LMB, but I'm pretty sure that the ASME standard has never required that a pattern which is designated as a datum must be referenced at MMC/MMB.

Not sure what Jim was getting at in reference to the certification exam.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

When using a pattern of holes as datum features, they must be referenced at MMC in feature control frames that reference them. Please see paragraph 4.5.8 (not 4.5.7) at page 68 of 1994 standard.

SeasonLee

RE: pattren of holes - datum

4.5.8 states "such as a pattern of holes at MMC" rather than MUST but it does make sense. One could certainly simulate the MMB around true position of a pattern of holes but in RMB?? I just don't know how we could simulate that situation.  

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Right -- paragraph 4.5.8 uses the MMC idea as an example, with the phrase "such as..."   but that's not the same as making it mandatory.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

4.5.8 doesn't directly require MMC, however there are no examples of RFS, and any certification exam questions regarding datums based on patterns of features deal with it as a requirement.  Again, the wording is the issue.  "Voluntary Standards" can't use "shall", "must", and other such definitive statments unfortunately.  If they had wanted RFS and MMC to both be considered, they would not have indicated "MMC" in the "such as" statement, and they would have illustrated more than the one concept.  The guys I've talked with who helped write the standards (and the certification exam questions) didn't envision the RFS usage, possibly because of the hard gauging bias of old.  Someone recognized this shortcoming and proposed the change in the '09 edition.  Perhaps it's insider knowledge, but that's how it is.

PMarc illustrates the right simulation technique for physical elements.  If a planar primary datum is specified before the datum based on pattern of features, a vision system could probably establish the virtual simulator, as could a CMM.   

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Interesting tidbit about the certification test, Jim, but frankly that stinks.  How can they write test questions, collect over 300 bucks a head, and then ding people all because they didn't "envision" that type of usage?

Sorry, but they gotta write test questions on what the standard says, not on what they meant to say!  And the '94 standard says that multiple FOS may be used as a group to establish a datum -- and then they slip in a parenthetical clause saying "such as..."    That's a flimsy case on which to suddenly say MMC is required.

I know you're just the messenger, so my apologies.  But if that was really their thinking, then I wonder how many other certification questions are based on what they "envisioned"?

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Well, J-P, it's hard to come up with questions, or solutions, for something that you haven't envisioned yet, isn't it?  Have you never had a consulting situation where you had to extend and develop a unique application of GD&T controls?  Why didn't you envision it before hand and include it in your training materials so that it was obvious to your clients?

As for the insider-info thought, it's something that a number of us have raised at the Y14.5 meetings, and pushed to have the background/thoughts somehow documented within or external to the standard.  Some successes, some disappointments.

They are working on the next certification exams (for '09) now.  I know the people writing the questions. They are well experienced in GD&T and every question is highly vetted.  Of course, something will be missed in retrospect.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Of course I have had situations where I had to extend principles to guide a client's design.  But if the test writers are making absolute statements in the questioning, then I would think it matches an absolute statement in Y14.5.

I guess we'd have to see the question itself.   I know they don't do T/F questions, but suppose they wrote something like:   A pattern of FOS which is used as a single datum reference must be referenced at MMC  (T or F?).

If they are going to mark an answer of False as incorrect, don't you think they'd at least look at the paragraph the question comes from and see the disconnect?  That's all I meant.

I don't doubt the skills of the folks writing the test, and I guess I should give them a pat on the back for such work.  As we've established in several threads lately, no standard is perfect, and that includes certification tests!

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I don't like the way they wrote a number of the questions.  People that don't learn how to read the questions before writing the exam must have a helluva time figuring some of them out.   

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

It's also in Tec-Ease's training materials that it's a requirement.  Considering the sources (Krulikowski, Day, Bakos) have been part of the Y14.5 committee for a long time, it is a good reflection of the intent.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I apologize for using 4.5.7 that was an error. I agree 4.5.8 indicates that MMC is recommended, I won't argue whether or not it is intended to mean must be or can be.
However, as an extended principle using a two-hole pattern as the secondary datum feature referenced at MMC there is quite a bit of functional and practical usage. I think an example of two press fit dowel pin holes being used as a secondary datum feature is a good example. This establishes two planes perpendicular to the primary datum feature.
If more than three features were used as the secondary datum feature, I can understand this creating issues, but two are fine.
There are several examples for using patterns of holes as a secondary datum feature RFS, in their various text, see links and attachments. In my opinion the end result is to correctly define the product requirement, sometimes we have to extend principles in the standard that were not spelled out explicitly.

The first example in the attachment is referenced at MMC, but the text indicates that RFS is a viable option.

You have to read the text, because there is an erroneous picture (by intent) to supplement the other illustration.
http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=187

About ½ way down the page for this.
http://www.geotolmeadows.com/newsletters/1999/february99.htm
 

Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I agree that 4.5.8 only describes the MMC reference but doesn't forbid RFS or LMC.

Further, the configuration described in 4.5.7.2 and shown in Fig. 4-21 opens the door to the RFS reference.  This is an example of multiple features of size, referenced RFS, used to establish a datum.  The two cylindrical features shown in the figure are of unequal size, but if they were equal then this would be functionally identical to a pattern referenced RFS.  So I would say that the committee's case that RFS wasn't envisioned, and that datum feature pattern must be referenced at MMC, is difficult to defend.

This is not to say that referencing a datum feature pattern at RFS is problem-free.  Even in the two-feature example in Fig. 4-21, the meaning is not completely clear.  4.5.7.2 states that "the datum axis is simulated by simultaneously contacting the high points of both surfaces with two coaxial cylinders", and the figure describes the "smallest pair of coaxial circumscribed cylinders".  But depending on the initial conditions (i.e. starting sizes) of the coaxial cylinders, it is possible to circumscribe the surfaces in different ways and arrive at different datum axes.  So the smallest pair is not uniquely defined.

The description was improved in Y14.5-2009, but the exact behavior of the simulators for patterns referenced at RFS (RMB in 2009) remains a can of worms to this day.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Drstrole,
Not sure where you read in the Tec-Ease tip that RFS was viable.  Quite the contrary, it recommends not doing it.

I suppose that RFS could be doable for two coaxial features, but what beyond two features?  What of non-coaxial holes?  That's where the issue comes in.  Personally, I'm glad that they improved this a bit in '09 as it's a reality that many of us work with on a design basis.  It is (imho) a shortcoming of the ASME standard that the analytics for setup are not better; I believe Evan and associates are working on that to some degree in Y14.5.1, and hopefully some improvement will happen in the fixturing arena as well.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Jim,
I went back an reread the tip and looked at the illustration. I appologize it does recommend not to do that, it eludes that it could be done, but then shows an example using one hole as secondary and then another as teriary datum features. I appologize for the misrepresentation from my posting.

Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Basically it repeats / paraphrases what's in the standard, and strongly guides the reader not to use RFS because it's not supported (as of that release).

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

By the way, imho there is a mistake in the middle picture of Tec-Ease example. There should not be '3X' preceding dia. 6 for size of upper hole of the pattern.

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Pmarc,
the 3X ties the three holes together as a pattern, thus the position control relates the 3 features to each other as well.  Which way is used depends on the desired functionality.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

Jim,
Not sure if we are talking about the same figure. I am thinking about the one in which the bottom left hole has perpendicularity callout to A and is assigned as datum feature B, while the bottom right one with position callout to A and B is assigned as datum feature C.

I do not think 3 holes in this figure can be considered as a pattern since geometrical tolerances applied to each of the hole is different, so simultaneous requirement does not apply. In fact one may read this in a way that all 3 holes are controlled by the positional tolerance referencing A, B and C which would lead to self-referencing datums situation.

I agree that last scheme (at the very end of the tip) is defining pattern of holes, but not the middle one.  

RE: pattren of holes - datum

I think there is a problem with the drawing, but not necessarily what you see.  In this particular case, the easiest fix is to remove the "3X", then all's good.  However, consider this alternative;  The sizes are removed from the datum-B and datum-C features and left on the third hole callout (with the 3X callout).
In this way, the 3X establishes a pattern and the positional tolerance relates all three features to each other as well as to the datum reference frame.  Arguably, the relationship of the two datum features is already established to higher precedent datums.  As this is only 3 holes, it's not really useful to have the same tolerance value.  Picture if the quantity had been 8X instead; then the inter-feature relationship is necessary/of value.

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

RE: pattren of holes - datum

pmarc is correct.  The 3X should be removed from the middle drawing on the Tip.  Cut and paste will get me every time.
  
This has been a great thread.  Until the 2009 Standard there was no support for a pattern of features RFS/RMB.  As Evan said, referencing a datum feature on an RMB basis is a "can of worms".  If your simulators are expanding to fill the holes in a pattern, once one simulator fills one hole do the other simulators stop expanding and set up a candidate datum set situation or do the other simulators continue expanding until the part is fully constrained?  I believe in applying extensions of principle provided the building blocks of the principle are well defined.  If you extend a principle into uncharted territory, yoyo (you're on your own).

I will remove the 3X from the middle drawing.  As Daddy said: "If you never do anything--you never do anything wrong."

RE: pattren of holes - datum

J-P, thanks, for standing up.

So some of you have not heard of books and tests being wrong before?

drstrole, thank you,
(2) Press fit dowel pins was the example I encountered way back when,  I heard you. IMHO, If it functions RFB it is RFB whether some book knows it or not.
 
So, why do you suppose they changed the standard, then?  My experiance is that change is generally resisted unless, and sometimes even when, it is just plain wrong.
Frank
 

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