×
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

Referencing Centerline Datums

Referencing Centerline Datums

Referencing Centerline Datums

(OP)
Guys,

    Ran across a situation that I am unsure of.  Is what I show in the picture legal?  Specifically can I call out datum D (plane representing the centerline of that dimension) and then use that same datum in the control frame for a profile of that same feature?

 I was asked to do something like this and it doesn't seem right I just can't verbalize why I think its illegal.  For one, if a fixture was used to test the part it would be hard to check that profile since the fixture would have a feature that fit into the square hole.

I understand that this part is missing some stuff, I just used it to make an example.

Thanks,
Pete

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

There ain't no picture.

Similarly, there ain't no 'there' there, associated with a theoretical plane.  Since you can't butt a fixture against it, you can't use it as a datum.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

(OP)
My bad

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

What you have in the picture is perfectly fine.  You use A, B, and C to establish a framework for the rectangular cut-out, and then the centerplane of that cut-out becomes datum D.

I think you meant something different than what the picture shows:  You asked if datum D can be referenced in the profile tolerance that points to that rectangular cut-out, right?   Maybe tweak the sketch, because I wonder what happens to A, B, and C if you decide to add D.   But in general, it is illogical to have a datum feature reference itself.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

PRuggiero,
 
Keeping in mind that this is only a rough sketch, I would like to ask for clarity if .11 dimension is basic or directly toleranced and - if the second guess is correct - what are the exact tolerance limits for this dimension. I am asking, because if upper or lower tolerance limit (or both) is outside .105-.115 range, there will be a conflict between dimension tolerance and profile tolerance value.

And regardless of your answer to the question above, I do not see any datum self-referencing on the print. But I am with J-P in saying that such self-referencing is illogical (as well as illegal).

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

(OP)
guys, sorry again I was rushing.  You are correct, the profile tolerance should have been A B D and yes the dimensions are all basic.  So it sounds like this is not a "good" thing to do and perhaps illegal.  Any chance someone has a section in 14.5 that states such a thing?  I will be looking today.

Thanks,
Pete

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Pete, there's nothing wrong with it as long as that's your design intent.  Something that people tend to forget is that the "feature" is controlled wrt the "datum".  In this case, the perimeter of the rectangular cutout is located wrt A/B/D ... datums, not features A/B/D.  Datum D is simulated by whatever means in your inspection setup, then the feature is verified wrt that simulated datum.

J-P, I often use total runout controls on datum features, related back to the datum or a compound datum (multiple datum feature).  As for inspection, it's common to use surrogate datum features once the actual datums have been established; picture using tooling centers as surrogate datum features after chucking down on two coaxial bearing surfaces.  You can then verify the total runout on the bearing surfaces wrt the datum.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Jim, I agree that you can use total runout of a single feature back to a compound datum where that feature is one of the items making up the compound.  But it makes no sense to have total runout back to the datum where that feature itself creates the datum (that one's not just illogical, but illegal).  

The OP's question never ventures into the "multiple datum features" territory, so I still maintain that there isn't any real logic to doing what was proposed there.  I didn't say his suggestion was illegal, but let's just say that referencing D in that case doesn't add any value to the FCF:  Wherever the rectangular cutout is, that's where the true datum plane will be.  Ergo, no value added to the overall profile tolerance.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

(OP)
appreciate all of the responses.  Still curious to whether this is actually illegal per the standard or not.  After thinking about it a little more it seems that the only thing having datum D in there does it muddies up the location part of form, orientation, location that the profile controls.  Like Belanger says, wherever the slot is, so is datum D.  But the slot could be tilted but Datum D will still be orthogonal to the other datums, so it would still control orientation well, right?


thanks again,
pete

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

I don't know of any paragraph of the standard which explicitly prohibits a feature referencing a datum created from itself.    The book says lots of stuff about establishing a tolerance with respect to a "datum reference frame," and that is what Jim was emphasizing.   But as mentioned before, it's like saying "the rectangular slot shall be positioned around a datum created by its own width."  I see no logic in that (particularly with a tertiary datum)  ... because you're always positioned correctly in relation to yourself!

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

It's not illegal, Pete.  For your stated intent of symmetry based on a center location (datum plane), your callout is the correct one.  
J-P, your statements suggest that you are measuring a feature back to itself ... no, you measure a feature (which is imperfect) back to the datum (simulator) which is perfect.  I have used this method a number of times, without issue.  It's easier in a CMM environment, but only marginally more challenging in an open-setup environment as you need to add a surrogate datum simulator.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Jim, I think your first sentence is meant for the other thread about symmetry.

For this thread, of course I realize the difference between a datum, datum feature, datum feature simulator (which is not perfect), etc.  And I know that we measure a feature's actual surface back to a theoretically perfect datum.  But one of us seems to be missing something ...  and I'm not saying it ain't me  :)

But let's consider the graphic given by the OP (with the correction of the tertiary datum reference to be D).   If the rectangular cutout deviates to the left or right, then we should agree that the datum plane, which is derived from the related AME of that width (related to A and B), also deviates left or right.   Nothing has been gained, right?
Or if the cutout's shape is irregular or skewed in orientation, the datum plane will again be derived from the related AME.   The actual surface might wobble in and out of the profile's tolerance zone (making it out of spec), but that is because it fails wrt datum B, not D.  Try a few sketches and I hope you'll agree.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Guys,
I have periodically run into this kind of thing, more than once actually. I would tend to agree that it is not technically illegal.

For example, I worked with an chief inspector who wanted to use the parallelism of the sides of a shaft keyway to control it's location (indirectly) establishing the axis from the shaft dia (primary), aligning by centering on the keyway (itself) and then inspecting the  resulting parallelism of the sides in this state. His argument went something like: that it was more important the key sides are parallel in this condition than that the size is right, since the keys are ground to fit. Basically the bad issue was the tapered sides, when forced into position. Can you guys picture this? I actually saw his point.
Note! I am not a machinist/assemblier and do not play one on TV.
Frank

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Not going too much into details for the moment I would just like to give a link to Tec-Ease tip about datum self-referencing:
http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=191

Look at very first two sentences. Isn't this in opposite to Jim's standpoint?

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

The gist of the Tec-Ease tip is correct, because it is referring to multiple datum features, which is perfectly fine.   But there is an error in the tip... the second sentence:

"Datum features referenced in a feature control frame are establishing a datum reference framework which serves as the origin of measurement."

The second word of that sentence should be stricken, so that it reads,  "Datums referenced in a feature control frame..."

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

J-P, yes, I did cross threads, but looking at it, there's still symmetry being controlled (indirectly, granted) by the profile control wrt A/B/D, at least on the two faces drawn parallel to datum-D.  
Ok, I've taken a long look at this and mostly my thoughts are as per my original trajectory, but another issue has arisen.  There really must be a relationship established between datum D and datum C, otherwise the cutout can be anywhere on the part without restriction; a refinement (actually a second profile control) wrt datums A/B/D would then be more value-added.  Given a relationship established between D and C, if the slot shifts left or right, the simulator is still centered at the basic location (not provided, but required) and may end up contacting only one side of the cutout as a result.  The datum plane thus does not shift right nor left with the feature.  
Sorry if I came across as reminding you about datum vs datum feature vs datum feature simulator; it's just a way of reminding others whom are less fluent in the terminologies and distinctions.  Thoughts, J-P?

Pmarc, the Tec-Ease tip is actually supporting my point.   

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Yes, it makes sense that D needs a relationship to C.  That could be done with profile, as you suggest, or with position.  And if the only datum reference given is C (or A and C, more likely), then the right side wall might be tilted wrt B, and the slot will tilt (rotate) with it.   I follow the logic this far. The next question is about adding a refining profile tolerance that references A-B-D.  We need to home in on whether this reference to D adds any value.  I'm still inclined to say no; I think a sketch will have to be created on this specific point, though.

However, I'm not following this statement: "Given a relationship established between D and C, if the slot shifts left or right, the simulator is still centered at the basic location (not provided, but required) and may end up contacting only one side of the cutout as a result."

That doesn't sound right to me ...  if the datum feature moves to the right, the datum feature simulator will expand upon the high points of that feature at its new location, not the basic distance from C, which is now irrelevant to the callout.   To make C relevant, you'd have to have a FCF that references both datums C and D, and that can't be done.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

The value of controlling the cutout wrt datum D may come in if there is a distinct difference between the value of locating datum feature D wrt to C (position works fine for me too, here) and a refinement wrt to D.  If no significant difference, then I wouldn't see much value either, at least not given what we're provided for intent so far.
For the issue of the datum simulator being centered on and expanding from the basic location of datum D, that's only true if datum D is located (i.e. controlled) wrt datum C.  A similar situation is shown in the first figure of the Tec-Ease tip linked here (http://tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=240).  Extending to a rectangular feature of size means that the simulator would grow from MMB toward LMB, centered on the basic location.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

I see what the tip is saying, but that in no way carries over to our situation here, because our datum feature C is a surface.   It's impossible to reference our C and D in the same FCF, in the manner that the tip shows A and B referenced in the same FCF.  It all has to do with degrees of freedom, etc.
But now I at least get what your thinking was  :)

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

I'd like to add my 2 cents to this:

1st cent - datum self-referencing
I keep thinking why Jim is trying to covince us that OP's sketch (with D instead of C in profile FCF) makes sense and is legal. And I think I am starting to see a logic behind. Jim, please correct me if I am wrong, but is your interpretation following; datum plane D is derived from cutout width which is in fact a two-opposite-planar-faces feature of size. But the profile callout controls each face independently, so in fact it is not that the FOS is being controlled to itself. Is it what you are trying to say, Jim?

2nd cent - relationship between datum features
I absolutely agree that the relationship between D and C should be somehow specified, and I would most probably go with profile for D since position applied to basic .11 does not look good (although we could argue whether it is legal or not).
Plus, I am again with J-P - this time that Tec-Ease tip is not reflecting the situation we have here and that datum plane D will always go together with datum feature D because nothing else contrains the part's movement in vertical direction during setup for profile callout inspection.

P.S.: I wonder when we come to a conclusion that it would be much easier for everybody if datum D was not here at all and only profile callout wrt C|B|A (or composite profile FCF with lower segment tightening relatioship to B or C) was specified.     

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

There should be A|B|C in the last sentence, sorry.
C|B|A was in the other thread about controlling symmetrysmile

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

It still looks disturbing to me.

Too many things are missing from the picture.

For example relationship between datums [C] and [D].

Should it be explicitly specified? Because otherwise General Tolerances (you know, +-5 degrees) will imply; won't that give the feature too much freedom?
 

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Here are some thoughts.

In general, I don't like the idea of FCF's in which the considered feature is referenced as a datum feature (or as part of a multiple datum feature).  I would say that these applications are generally flawed and are seldom, if ever, functional.

Jim, I know of the runout application you referred to - where the datum features are included in the runout tolerance.  There's an example in the standard that shows it - where the datum axis is defined using A-B, and features A and B both have runout tolerances to A-B.  I think I've ranted on this one before.  I understand that there is nothing impossible going on here, that A and B could be checked back to A-B using a CMM or with some awkward chucking technique.  But I don't think that the concept makes sense.  A and B just have to have good runout to some axis - it doesn't have to be axis A-B.  But there's currently no way to say that in Y14.5.

In the OP's example, I would say that the reference to datum feature D doesn't add any value.  Referencing A and B would suffice.  The profile zone can float in the X direction parallel to B, and if we can find some location for it that allows the feature to pass then we're good.  The profile zone doesn't need to be centered on the feature's oriented AME - this is an unnecessary restriction and is very likely not functionally required.

That said, it is sometimes convenient to add extra restrictions like this when using CMM's.  Some software packages do not work well with FCF's that leave degrees of freedom open - they like to have a fully constrained DRF.  So it often makes sense to fill in any open DOF's using the considered feature.  This gives the CMM software the fully constrained DRF that it needs, without introducing artificial constraints to other features.

But these extra restrictions do not belong on the drawing.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Forgive my crude sketch (see attached graphic), but I was trying to noodle Jim's idea from last night about two profiles-- one tying down the location of D back to C, and a refinement to then have the slot refer to D.
I still don't think any value is added by mentioning D (see the lower picture on my sketch), but maybe I'm off on a weird tangent from what you intended, Jim.   Either way, I'm stumped as to why it's ever logical to have a self-reference of any kind.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Pmarc, yes, that's what I'm getting at.
For the need to locate the simulator at its basic location, pls reference datum C in Fig. 4-18 in '09, in particular the last sentence in the note on the top right.  Similar in Fig 4-15, -17.  This contrasts with the situation for a datum translation modifier where the simulator gets to move to make the best fit.
J-P, I was thinking more of a similarity with cast & machined datums; a feature is realted to the cast drf and to the finish-machined drf with a refinement.  
As for whether or not a datum feature can be controlled wrt the datum established by it, please someone explain why not, as opposed to it just not looking or seeming right.  As the most extreme case(?), consider a workpiece with nothing but a general surface profile control (allover).  The datum features are thus controlled by the general control, are tney not?
Good discussion(s), gents.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

I'm with J-P on this one.  The self-reference is not illegal in the standard, but I don't see the usefulness.

I racked my brain and thought up a scenario in which the self-reference would actually make a difference (see attached sketch).  The surface of the cutout is both tilted and asymmetric, but will fit in the profile zone if optimized in the X direction.  If the self-reference is added, the zone must be centered on Datum D (the surface's oriented actual mating envelope).  With this extra constraint added, the feature no longer conforms.  Darn - I just noticed that I drew the simulator lines on the outside of the cutout and they should be on the inside.  But you get the idea - just imagine that it's a boss instead of a cutout ;^).

So the self-reference provides a control that is real and definable, and does make a difference in certain cases.  But I'm having a hard time envisioning a functional situation that would require this.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

(OP)
axym, in your first case where you only call out A and B in the FCF, the cutout isn't being controlled in the "x" direction (relative to C) at all correct?  Meaning the zone could be float from one side of the part to the other.

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

PRuggiero,

That's correct.  In the first case, the cutout isn't being controlled in the X direction at all.  This would make sense if D was intended to define the X location of other features.  For example, feature C might have a profile tolerance to ABD.

I fixed the error in my earlier sketch, and the result changed (see updated sketch).  With Datum D established from the correct side of the surfaces, the diagram no longer shows the effect I was trying to show ;^(.  The cutout still conforms to the profile zone, even with the constraint to Datum D.  I'll have to make a new sketch and cook the surface geometry differently.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Good stuff, Evan.   Jim, based on his example I guess I'm forced to soften my position somewhat.  There are times when a datum derived from a feature might be referenced in a FCF controlling that feature, and indeed have an impact.   The actual usefulness of such is still up for grabs, but I get what the sketch is showing.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Good sketch, Evan.  Tks.  
Tks, J-P.  I don't recall the details of the applications I've used it for; too many clients back to remember all of their applications.  A general surface profile is the easiest example that comes to mind for a practical use.

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

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

I'm not sure I understand the Circularity comment either. The Y14.5 definition of the tolerance zone is relatively straightforward, but evaluating Circularity in a repeatable way on an actual feature can be very difficult. This is especially true if the feature is warped or bent.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Referencing Centerline Datums

Oops, I somehow posted the last comment into the wrong thread.  My fault for trying to do this on a BlackBerry!

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

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