×
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

This question is not at all trivial

This question is not at all trivial

This question is not at all trivial

(OP)
This question is not at all trivial, especially in the international environment. The two standards documents are ANSI Y14.36 and ISO 1302. In Y14.36, specification of a single value is implied as a maximum value. (NOT a target value!). However, in ISO 1302 (& ISO 4287), the simple specification applies the "16% Rule" as a default. Per this standard, if one wants the value to be an absolute maximum specification, then "MAX" must be added to the parameter designation ("Ra Max"). [Thankfully, Rmax is not recognized within ISO, but is within ASME B46.1.] This 16% Rule is a quirky blending of an acceptance criteria within the parameter definition document. There is an opinion that quality acceptance criteria are properly contained within the measurement plan for the part and not on the part drawing - or indirectly through the parameter definition. There is some uncertainty in surface roughness values - but there is uncertainty present in ALL measurement activities. Why single out surface roughness? One of the problems with the 16% Rule is that it would allow 16% of the measured values to be outside of the specified value, but doesn’t specify how far out any single measurement value can be. On some critical surfaces, outlier areas may be functionally inappropriate.

RE: This question is not at all trivial

Well, okay, there is a question buried in there, but perhaps it should be asked of ISO, not us.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: This question is not at all trivial

There is probably no real reason for the difference. I like the ANSI method better because the only deviation from the specified value goes in the direction of a better roughness value. I understand that sometimes you don't want the roughness to be too fine but there's a way of dealing with that too. Per ISO, you can wind up with a worse value than specified and that's something the designer has to take into consideration. I like working with absolutes (ASME/ANSI) rather than averages (ISO).

Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: This question is not at all trivial

Okay, so I read and replied to this thread BEFORE I read the one KENAT posted. Now I see the context and can be a little more specific in my response.

I don't think the use of the symbol should make any difference here. You can state "ALL UNTOLERANCED DIMENSIONS ARE BASIC" on a print and you don't have to use the box around the dimension. The little checkmark means surface roughness so if you actually spell out "SUrface Roughness" I don't think it makes a bit of difference. That being said, I think a stated value, with or without a checkmark thingy, is a maximum value.

Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2010
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

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