×
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

Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.
2

Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

(OP)
Hi All,

One more basic question. Please see the attached drawing.

Only one face of the block is mates with its counter part (datum feature B). the other side is open and does not mates with any surafces. The hole needs to be located with closer tolerances with respect to datum faeture B, the location of the hole from the other free face which can have a wider tolerance. In such case can we combine the +/- tolerance and basic dimensions to locate the hole.

Is it a legal specification in ASME? I have seen few drawings of this kind.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.


ASME Y14.5-2009 para. 7.2.1.1:

"Dimensions used to locate true position shall be basic and defined in accordance with para.2.1.1.2"

One of the very few places where standard actually sais "shall"

I hope this helped.
 

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

The drawing is legal.  The true position is being held with respect to datums A and B, and those dimensions are basic.  The other dim shouldn't be basic since the GD&T has nothing to do with that east/west location.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Quote:

I have seen few drawings of this kind.

I once saw someone clean a part by boiling it in gasoline on a kitchen stove.  I wouldn't advise anyone else to do it.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.


Belanger,

Per ASME Y14.5-2009 para. 7.2:
"Position is the location of one or more features of size relative to one another or to one or more datums."

The way I see it, if it is not located to the datum (or another feature of size), then it's not a "positon".
Your opinion?
 

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

RIght... if it's not located to a datum (or another feature in a pattern), then it's not a position tolerance.   But it can still have a location tolerance, which need not be the GD&T-specific term of "position,"  but rather a ± tolerance.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

JP,
And the "legal" definition of what it means is given where? How is the hole center to be related to the surface, all points, one point?
Frank

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.


This is actually very interesting.

I am a big fan of mixing GD&T with +/- dimensions myself, but this particular example looks like the worst way of doing it.
The question is "how to measure / gauge it?" Let say dim 50 is taken from "implied" datum. Is implied datum secondary or tertiary? How the resulting tolerance zone looks like?

I am really interested in seeing more opinions on this topic.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Frank, I'm not sure what you mean.   The standard doesn't require a position tolerance to lock a hole in every direction of space.  Maybe rephrase your question?

I should add that the FCF probably shouldn't be pointing to the hole with the leader at an arbitrary angle.  Better to show it with dimension/extension lines, similar to Fig. 7-28 of the standard, which are more clear about the direction of control.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

J-P, there is no support in the Y14.5 standard ('94 or '09) for how to establish the center of the hole for use with a +/- location tolerance.  There may be "common practices" but it's not part of the standard.  I agree with you that the callout is poorly done.  The size callout should be separated.  The "vertical" position control should be attached to a vertical dimension leader (top to bottom of the hole). The "horizontal" position needs to be similarly called out with an FCF and a Datum C referenced (and added to the drawing).


+/- dimensions are point-to-point.  From what point on the left surface do you measure, and how do you establish the center of the hole horizontally?

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Good point, Jim.  I guess I was focusing on the legality of the feature control frame; there is no requirement that a FCF control all directions.  

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

+/- dimension for controlling position is not a best choice - it creates ambiguity, adds no value in comparison to standard positional tolerance and is illegal because Y14.5 clearly says that basic dimensions shall be used to define true position.

Why not to add tertiary datum feature C, then use basic 20 and 50 dimensions and assign bi-directional position callouts with 0.2 value in y direction and 1.0 in x direction? Would it create something confusing? Would it make measurements more difficult?

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I agree with pmarc's suggestion. Possibly the hole is actually the tertiary datum feature and the right and left edge be profiled back A/B/C, with the hole being teriary, if that is how the part works.

Drstrole
GDTP - Senior Level

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Jim,
Thanks, I think you covered the point I was trying to get at.
Frank

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Madhu454,

   Your drawing almost makes sense to me.

   If a feature is controlled by two tolerance, both tolerances must be met.  Your positional tolerance requires your hole to be within 0.1mm of true position.  Anything that meets this, meets to ±0.5mm from the side.

   Your drawing actually would make sense to me if you called up a sloppy positional tolerance, and then called up an accurate ± dimension on the 20mm dimension.

   You can do this directly with GD&T, and leave the ± tolerance out.  How about a composite tolerance frame in which your positional tolerances to datums ABC was Ø1mm, with a second frame from datum AB, calling up 0.2?

               JHG

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

drawoh,
Composite positional tolerance makes no sense unless there are two or more FOS. See 7.5 and 7.5.1 of Y14.5-2009.  

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

pmarc,

   Why not?

   I am not trying to do the same thing as section 7.5.  I am trying to create a rectangular (not square) tolerance zone, as opposed to the normal round zone.  

   I could apply ± tolerances to each coordinate to the hole.  On a simple part, this would work.  On a complex part, with several features controlled by the dimension line, it would be hopeless.

               JHG

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

drawoh,
If you were trying to create rectangular tolerance zone look at fig. 7-28 in Y14.5-2009 or 5-41 in Y14.5M-1994 standard for clear example.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I am trying to put myself in Belanger's shoes.
Let say, operative word is "one or more datums", so as soon as we have just one datum the FCF becomes legit.
Please look at the picture.
In "A" case we only relate to one datum [A]. "Position" in this case will become Perpendicularity. We all agree that +/- tolerances will be ambiguous, but if they are larger than hypothetical "shop accuracy" we will probably get the good part (from hypothetical shop smile)
In "B" case we have some weird desire to control position in 2 directions separately and only use 2 datums for each direction. The picture looks, say, questionable, but not totally illegal.
Any ideas - are those better or worse than layout suggested (or questioned?) by Madhu?
Don't get me wrong - I think we already have a good solution, but trying to explore the possibilities.
 

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I disagree w/ CheckerHater's solution.  Having only two datums does not imply "directionality" to the FCF.  In this case, the second datum only contributes orientation, which is moot, since there is only a singular round hole and not a slot or pattern.

The solution I previously posted is similar to the scheme which was widely accepted by automotive customers.  It was usually applied to slot dimensions which could be allowed more tolerance in the length directin than the width direction.  The key is that applying the FCF to a hole size dimension that has a directional inference.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Tick is right -- both of the proposed pictures are incorrect.  The first one has only one datum, which is perpendicular to the hole.  Therefore, you can't use the position symbol, which is primariliy a location control, and orientation (perpendicularity) comes along for the ride only if the primary purpose of location is met.

The second picture does not automatically imply what is desired. Though most people would know what you're getting at, the standard is clear on how to display position tolerances that are only meant for a specific direction.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

pmarc ... just a quick thing about your first post on this thread:
You stated that plus/minus tolerances for location are "illegal because Y14.5 clearly says that basic dimensions shall be used to define true position."
I don't quite agree with that statement.  Maybe plus/minus is illegal for locating a hole (I might argue that illegal is too strong of a word), but it wouldn't be for that reason.  Yes, basic dimensions define a true position, but the term "true position" goes hand-in-hand with the GD&T position symbol. IOW, that rule doesn't extend to the general desire of locating a hole on a part.
I think we all neeed to be careful of the implications of the two words "position" and "location."
If the standard said that basic dimensions shall be used to define a feature's location, then plus/minus tol on a location would be clearly forbidden.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Guys, allow me to disagree respectfully.

Using Position to single datum to indicate perpendicularity is perfectly fine in composite frames, so everybody knows what it means; see for example Fig. 7-38(c) in Y14.5-2009.

And TheTick, how could possibly second frame contribute "orientation" but not "direction"? Could you have one without another? Almost like "position" and "location". smile
 

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

There was a thread about this a while back, but I'll summarize my statements from there...   Position's main job in life is to control location.  If location is not being controlled, then position is the wrong symbol to use.  It's akin to profile: profile's main job is to control form. If you want it to additionally control orientation, location, etc., that's fine. But you can't have a profile tolerance be separated from its desire to control form.

The lower frame of a composite zone does more than perpendicularity; it controls the hole-to-hole location (even though you don't see any datums explicitly referenced for that).

I agree that most people would get the idea, but rules is rules  :)

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

And don't anybody bring up the tangent plane modifier on profile.  I guess there are exceptions to every rule!

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

CH,
I would propose a revision to your picture the first position callout to ABC with the larger gross location (to "C" so to speak) and a second separate position call out to AB (to "B" so to speak) wirh the tighter number. That I believe is also legal and does what you want.
Frank

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

CH,
I will disagree with the other's and say I do not think what you have shown is a technical violation in any way.
Tick,
While not implying "directionality" the extent of framework control only exists to the extent the stated framework can actually extend control, the effect is the same.  

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

The ASME standard does not allow the position symbol to be used for only perpendicularity because of paragraph 7.2:  A position tolerance defines "a zone within which the center, axis, or center plane is permitted to vary from true position."   And the same paragraph defines position as "the location of one or more features of size relative to one another or to one or more datums.  (My emphasis added in this last quote.)    

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

J-P,
I would certainly agree with you on the issue of not using Position to experess simple Perpendiculariy control. Just by its implication it makes someone expect more or think that they are missing someting that was intended to be implied when they would not be. The result is it tends to adds to confusion and not to clarity, violating the old KISS principle.
Frank

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

J-P,
I am not sure that I understand your remarks regarding one of my posts correctly, but that is the end of a hard week, so please forgive me if my answer makes no sense.

Quote:

pmarc ... just a quick thing about your first post on this thread:
You stated that plus/minus tolerances for location are "illegal because Y14.5 clearly says that basic dimensions shall be used to define true position."
I do not think I ever used term "location" in any of my previous posts in this thread.

Quote:

I think we all neeed to be careful of the implications of the two words "position" and "location."
If the standard said that basic dimensions shall be used to define a feature's location, then plus/minus tol on a location would be clearly forbidden.
For me location is either position, symmetry or concentricity - at least this is how I understand fig. 3-1 in Y14.5-2009. Someone can say that runout and profile are indirect location controls and that is fine for me. But in this particular case - with this particular part geometry - I do not see anything applicable besides position. If you are trying to say that op's print is controlling hole's position in vertical direction and hole's location in horizontal direction, then I am asking what kind of location is he trying to control? Is there any specific standardized name for this geometrical characteristic?
    

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

J-P
Whoops, Sorry, I guess I also agree with your position on the first of CH's examples. I do not agree on the second, particularly now that you are supporting the mixing of +/- and position as in the OP, we do not really know the design intent so can it be done, by the book, I have to say, yes.
Frank

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Sorry for any confusion, pmarc!   I was basing my comments on your statement that "+/- dimension for controlling position is ... illegal because Y14.5 clearly says that basic dimensions shall be used to define true position."

The OP's example never used  ± dimensions in conjunction with a position tolerance, so I had to read into your question a little bit, and apparently went beyond what you really meant.
But I was saying that the rule you give doesn't apply to the OP because his position tolerance was held only to datums A and B, which already do have basic dimensions.  So I presumed your statement was focusing on the location in the east/west direction.  As it is, the OP's example doesn't violate any specific GD&T rule (other than a change needed for where the FCF is placed on the drawing).

Then you ask:
"If you are trying to say that op's print is controlling hole's position in vertical direction and hole's location in horizontal direction, then I am asking what kind of location is he trying to control? Is there any specific standardized name for this geometrical characteristic?"

My reply: Yes, I am saying that the print controls the position in vertical, and location in horizontal. There is no name for the geometric characteristic in the horizontal, simply because it's outside the realm of GD&T.   So we must use the more generic term of location.

That said, I agree with everyone that ± should not be used for location!  It's really for size, chamfer, and radius only.  But we were getting down to what's "legal,"  not what's "wise."

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I said it in other thread about position tolerance in a past - unexpectedly ISO GD&T is a little bit ahead in terms of potential applicability of plus/minus dimensions for position of FOS, because ISO 5458:1998 Annex B clearly says that such practice is no longer recommended due to the fact that the meaning of plus/minus dimensions is not standardized in such applications.   

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.


Is any of you guys getting confused when approaching an airport?

Somehow you reminded me one of my favorite movie quotes:

Eddie: Okay, we gotta pick a road. Arrivals or departures? We're arriving, but then we're departing. Which one, Snake?
Snake: What do you think?

Big Trouble (2002)

Read the standard: Location is the common term for position, coaxiality, concentricity, symmetry.
Then Standard explains that location between FOS, or between FOS and other feature you pick as a datum, is called POSITION, OK?

You cannot have location along the X and position along the Y, like you cannot be arriving and departing at the same time.

Many times I asked myself to keep quiet on Mondays sad

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Why is this so confusing?      Position is always location, but location is not always position.  

So if I choose to use ± to locate a hole (which is fraught with issues, I realize, but we're just dealing with the concept right now), I would discourage you from calling it a position tolerance.  Anyone else agree?

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.


You cannot call it "True Position", but it's still a Position.

Vote?

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

In the standard ('00) "1.3.64 True Position:  true position is the theoretically exact location of a feature of size, as established by basic dimensions." The geometric control is just "position".  

Again, there is nothing in the standard indicating how to find the center of a hole when a +/- location tolerance is used.  Perhaps "illegal" is too strong a word, but "indefensible" surely applies here.  That ISO makes this somewhat clearer (though still not outlawing it) is a step.  In '03, Y14.41 indicated the appropriate uses for +/- tolerances, and location of a FOS was not one of them.  It is unfortunate that the list was not carried forward into Y14.5'09.  One of the issues with a consensus standard is that good and seemingly-obvious items are sometimes diluted or dropped completely to achieve at least temporary closure.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Quote (MechNorth):

true position is the theoretically exact location of a feature of size, as established by basic dimensions

So, no basic dimension, no true position. Did I say differently?

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

CH, still not a position either because there's not a geometric positional tolerance.  It may be a location though.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

So the same hole can have position North-South and location East-West?

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

The hole's location is controlled in all directions.  One direction uses "position," which is one of several GD&T symbol for location.  The other direction uses +/- which is also a location method.
(Jim, I ain't defending the +/- but merely saying that it's there.)

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Don't you guys think we are splitting hair on this?
Shouldn't the conclusion be short: do not use +/- dimensions just for your safety because it is ambiguous and someone can misinterpret it?

Location vs. position discussion is important but not the clue of op question here.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

sounds good to me!

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Exactly what I suggested 4 days and 6 hours ago smile

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

If this discussion was finished 4 days and 6 hours ago I would not earn a star smile  

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I just gave you another one for being cautioussmile

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

OK, if we all agree...let's change the standard!!!

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

Madhu454, according to your hand sketch and description in your original post a rectangular tolerance zone is acceptable, no material modifiers are allowed, and datum shift is not applicable.

Using those as design inputs, you can remove the positional tolerance altogether and locate the hole using toleranced dimensions to both the horizontal and vertical surfaces. Then put a Perpendicular control to Datum A.

It will accomplish the same thing with no ambiguity's.

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

noevil

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I like yours better that CH's option "A," because at least you have two holes, and that makes the position symbol legal to use.  However, there's still the difficulty of which of the two edges to set up on when checking the two  ± dimensions.  If that upper left corner is not exactly 90º, then we don't know which side to stay flush with.

This is why -- despite my seeming to defend ± location in earlier posts -- I always discourage it.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

I take your point.
But when I represent design in drawing I try to proceed from  function. In my sample important only relationship between holes and datum surface.
Dimensions from corner just find location one of them. It is why I mentioned what is a piece.
I have been discourage too sometimes with GD&T standards because some info with samples just pure extract to show possible solutions but do not specified for particular cases.
Anyway I always come back to listen expert and learn lessons :)
 

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

True... function should drive it.  I would then suggest profile around the perimeter, relating back to the two holes (the holes together would be datum B).    That avoids the issue I mentioned, but I do see your main point.

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

RE: Combining +/- tolerance & basic dimension to locate a hole.

DzineXlence ... your way introduces gross ambiguity, rather than eliminating it.  Pls see previous posts and similar threads for explanations.

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

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