×
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

Ordinate Dimensioning

Ordinate Dimensioning

Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
Guys,

    I have what I think is a simple question but Google couldn't even answer it...

   If one is using ordinate dimensioning and you have multiple surfaces that are co-planer and represent the "0", how do you show that on the drawing.

   Perhaps more info is needed... I know if I wanted both of them to be datums I could control the surfaces through a profile and put "2 surfaces" down.  What happens if I only wanted one to be the datum?  Either way you have to dimension both surfaces, no?

   I attached a simple picture which I don't think is correct with respect to how the co planer surfaces are dimensioned.

Thanks,
Pete

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

Something happened to your picture. smile
Just in case: Even if you have one surface and you want only part of it to be used as a datum, you can identify that part with chain line and basic dimension, so it is perfectly clear what is datum and what isn't.
I will be waiting for picture though.

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

Either option can be done, you will just need to make it clear which you intend to be the case. Targeting could be done, if a simpler method is not clear enough. For the "0" line if you extend it accross to both surfaces it is implied "inline". We still have the option of notes like 2X, (2) SURFACES and if applicable "CONTINUOUS FEATURE", "COMMON ZONE" or a COPLANARITY will also do it.
Frank

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

The ASME Y14.5 standard shows a few examples of options:
Y14.5M-1994, pg 172-173, FIG. 6-20 & 6-21.

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

I had a feeling that you were trying to stay away from the GD&T solutions. Extending the line across or noting "2X" works for me, the zeros in different places, not so much, and no indication at all, I don't like either. The issue of tolerances will have to be dealt with whether you like it or not, though.
Frank
 

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
fsincox,  I agree.. Wasn't trying to ignore those but that is "well" defined in the Y14.5 on how to achieve it.  What I can't find is how to dimension it.  I'm trying to find a document that shows you how to dimension it properly.  I agree with either 2x or the dashed line, but what is really correct?  Even if you use the Fig 4-23 (Y14.5 -2009) you still have to dimension both surfaces, no?

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

You may want to take a look at Fig.8-15 (Y14.5-2009)
Zero basic dimension is implied if your coplanar features are controlled using FCF.

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

OK, I was just making the point that you will have to deal with the tolerance question sooner or later, so why not build it in and take avantage of it.
The "inline" is the dimension.
Frank

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
Yep, seen that figure before, but it doesn't show any dimensions at all.  So it looks like section 1.4k describes what i'm talking about:

(k) A zero basic dimension applies where axes, center
planes, or surfaces are shown coincident on a drawing,
and geometric tolerances establish the relationship
among the features. See para. 2.1.1.4.

2.1.1.4 Implied 90° or 0° Basic Angle. Where center
lines and surfaces are depicted on 2D orthographic engineering
drawings intersecting at right angles or parallel
to each other and basic dimensions or geometric tolerances
have been specified, implied 90° or 0° basic angles
are understood to apply. The tolerance on the feature
associated with these implied 90° or 0° basic angles is
provided by feature control frames that govern the
location, orientation, profile, or runout of features. See
paras. 1.4(j) and (k).

   If I'm reading that correctly then would you agree my dim. scheme below is valid?

 

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
fsincox,

    you were right, at the time I didn't think that by showing the relationship through tolerancing I am able to use implied 0°.  I saw it as two different issues.

    What if I only wanted one of those surfaces to be the datum, what would my picture look like then?

Thanks,
Pete

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

I still think you could have shown "inline" but someone will eventually want to know: "how close".
Probably a target area would be best (a chain line) on the one you want or separate leaders as shown in the standard, I referenced before, again, someone will want to know how close the other surface has to be.
Frank
 

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

"and geomentric tolerances establish the relationship between features".
Frank

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

PRuggiero,

   An option I use a lot is to apply a separate datum to each of the two faces.  

   In your diagram, let's assume that ordinate zero is your primary datum.  My FCFs look like...

   |pos|Ø0.2|A-B|C|D|

   This shows explicitly that both your end surfaces are primary datums.

               JHG

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

drawoh,
Very true, I was the one doing the short cutting here.
Frank

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
drawoh, yep i've done it that way too.  If you only have the one "0" dimension you would still need some GD&T relationship between A and B for the implied 0° basic dimension to apply.

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
fcsuper,

    Don't think "continuous feature" applies because that surface isn't a feature of size.

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

The ASME really screwed that up; "COMMON ZONE" should have just been accepted by them in the interest of commonality. Apparently, there is an example in 2009 that shows it used on a non-continuous surface like you have, so at best, they are inconsistent in their own logic.
Frank

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

CF can be applied to planar surfaces...  The wording of Y14.5-2009 3.3.23 and also figure 7-45 provide sufficient (though not as good as it should be) justification.  With CF defining the the coplanar surfaces as one feature, flatness would impose one tolerance zone upon them, so it would control their form and coplanarity.  A bit more intuitive control compared to profile may be the advantage of this approach...

If you prefer to wait for the next version of Y14.5 for what I hope will be more clear and explicit justification for applying CF to planar surfaces then profile will still do the job, of course.

Clearly identifying both surfaces as a datum feature or features is important, as others have pointed out.

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

(OP)
ah, it does look to be that way... Definitely could use some clarification like you guys say.  

Do you think "continuous feature" is common enough that you won't scare away people quoting for machine shops...  Being able to accomplish something in multiple ways one has to wonder which is the best (gets the point across, costs the less, etc).

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

My experience, well established machine shops know GD&T better than engineers.

The test to see if a shop knows GD&T is to always do competitive quoting.  If a shop comes in high, ask why.  If they say "GD&T", tell them good bye (and not just because of the high quote). :)

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: Ordinate Dimensioning

If you only wanted one of the coplanar surfaces to be your primary datum, then I would label the surfaces "A", "B", "C" etc. in the plan view and the datum callout frame would specify "Surface A", "Surface B" or whichever feature you desire to be the primary datum.

If you need all four colpanar surfaces to be the primary datum, then a "4 PLCS." or "4X" "note should work fine.

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