Profile related to DRF
Profile related to DRF
(OP)
Hey guys,
Another question:
Do you see anything wrong or questionable about the attached drawing? Assume all the dimensions are there, it's just teh profile related to the DRF that I'm asking about.
Thanks,
Another question:
Do you see anything wrong or questionable about the attached drawing? Assume all the dimensions are there, it's just teh profile related to the DRF that I'm asking about.
Thanks,
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II





RE: Profile related to DRF
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com
RE: Profile related to DRF
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
Agree.
For purists datum target can be used for C as it only does the clocking.
This way it will be clear that C does not apply to the entire surface.
RE: Profile related to DRF
It is good that you do not feel comfortable with this callout. If you have access to "Advanced Concepts of GD&T" by Alex Krulikowski, look to chapter 22 and to what he calls "Profile datum rule". The conclusion is that such approach results in ambiguous specification which can be differently interpreted by different drawing users. Let me know if you need a screenshot from the book.
RE: Profile related to DRF
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=0...
RE: Profile related to DRF
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com
RE: Profile related to DRF
Thanks also to all who responded.
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
Also, as I mentioned, single point contact (datum target) could be enough, thus we will not have “surface referencing surface”.
Altogether, it can be fixtured, it can be measured, and it’s not ambiguous. I agree it’s “exotic”, but if function of the part requires it to be done this and only this way, it’s do-able.
RE: Profile related to DRF
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
RE: Profile related to DRF
RE: Profile related to DRF
I don't agree that the callout is ambiguous, but I do agree that it is likely to be interpreted differently by different users. So I agree with the results of Alex's Profile Datum Rule, that the self-referencing specifications are confusing and should be avoided. But I would say that the meaning of the tolerance zone is clear, if one follows the rules of how datums are established and how Profile tolerance zones are constructed around them. It's just that the meaning doesn't correspond to function.
I agree with pmarc that we need to confirm whether the C feature actually clocks the part - in other words, does contact on the C feature constrain the last rotational degree of freedom? If it does not, and C was chosen as a datum feature arbitrarily, then the reference to C should be removed from the Profile FCF. If the C feature does actually clock the part, then it needs to have its own Profile tolerance that references A and B.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca
RE: Profile related to DRF
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
How can a callout having two or more different interpretations, depending on who looks at it, be unambiguous? (Of course assuming that the readers are equally well educated in GD&T).
Powerhound,
I somehow felt that your sketch was showing a simplified situtation. But even for more complex geometry, you do not have to use simultaneous requirements approach. You can still keep datum feature C as it is. If we assume for a moment that there is another hole which has to be located relative to hole B and clocked to the bottom surface, all you have to do is to get rid of C reference from profile all around callout (according to "Profile datum rule") and apply positional tolerance to the second hole wrt to |A|B|C|. In such case C reference will be absolutely legal, clear and will not violate any rule. Moreover, if Y14.5-2009 was in charge, even (M) or (L) modifier could be put right after C datum reference, depending on the functional requirement.
RE: Profile related to DRF
Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
RE: Profile related to DRF
RE: Profile related to DRF
The thinking was that the true datum is of course a perfect plane, and the actual surface could still be checked to that perfect plane. I suppose along that edge it becomes similar to flatness.
I really like how Evan stated it: "The meaning of the tolerance zone is clear, if one follows the rules of how datums are established and how Profile tolerance zones are constructed around them."
But let me know if anyone finds that other thread that I am thinking of.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com
RE: Profile related to DRF
Yes, we have, and I too was also under the same impression, I guess things around here are like the wind, always changing. The committee should clarify this, in my opinion, particularly as they have now added the all over option and discuss the option of using general profile tolerances. My suspicion would have to be that possibly they don't all yet agree themselves.
Frank
RE: Profile related to DRF
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=260450
SeasonLee
RE: Profile related to DRF
Yes, J-P, we've discussed this a few times, and, if done properly, I don't have a problem with it when it's appropriate. It's the old cart before the horse thing. (!) You Simulate your datums. (2) You probe off those simulator surfaces to verify features on the actual part.
No ambiguity, and no problem with the original drawing. Asking these questions is reasonable, and what this forum is for. I am surprised, however, that A.K.'s reference material is automatically accepted without question here. I have found other things in his materials that, when asked about, turned out to be opinions rather than standard-based. Some is based on practices with his prior employer. This is not unusual, as many subject-matter-experts ingrain their histories and biases into their material (I ...wait for it... am biased towards profile controls...shocker, right?!), so it's not a negative against A.K., just a reminder that all materials should be challenged in due course. When people put opinions into reference materials, they should post it as such, or as "rules of thumb". By calling it a "Profile Datum Rule", it implies that it is from the standard (Y14.5) ... but it is not, it is merely his preference.
The most common question that I get about perceived self-referencing datums is "how do you check the datum feature surface if it is engaged with a datum simulator?". When it is appropriate and necessary to use such datums, the datum feature simulators must be able to disengage from the datum features without changing the setup; this may involve auxilliary clamps, surrogate datum features, etc., and therefore generally more expensive fixturing.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc. www.tec-ease.com