×
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

GD&T in the tolerance block

GD&T in the tolerance block

GD&T in the tolerance block

(OP)
The Design Group at my current company is using GD&T in the block tolerance. Not the normal plus minus tolerance but a statement that all dimensions are basic and uses a profile tolerance for all dimension tolerances. I have never seen this in past companies. Is this a generally accepted practice?

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

(OP)
Thanks. Your reference says it should only be applied to surfaces by putting it in the block tolerance it is applying to all dimentions there are no othere tolerances in the block so it applies to everything and therefore is incorrectly applied -- correct?

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Sorry, but I am not able to answer to that question simply because I don't get your point.

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

There should be a "Unless Otherwise Specified" statement before the general surface profile. It would otherwise conflict with a feature of size (FOS) as defined by directly opposed points, and a toleranced size dimension. Everything without a specific / directly applied control falls under the general surface profile. Anything that is not a FOS is a surface.
Perhaps you should post an image of the title block so that we can see exactly what you are dealing with.
It's perfectly legal to use a general surface profile. As for how common it is, it is growing in popularity as it provides a full and complete product definition. As we move toward cad-model based manufacturing and metrology, you will see it even more.

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

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Nothing is wrong with it. Really common approach.
Where is the problem?

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Looks OK to me -- except that you should lose the comma after the 14.5.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

The example might be applicable to the tec ease situation shown above which is relatively simple part but would the datum structure be relevant on complex parts. The primarily datum is usually the mounting face with the secondary usually a hole and the tertiary datum is usually another hole. All dimensions would come from the primary and secondary datum. One usually develops the datum structure from the part function. Would this datum structure be relevant in all surfaces? mmmmm

Of course, if the datum structure is developed from the bottom surface and two sides (not really from the part function) it might be valid.

I remember one company that was forced by the automotive customer to place a default profile of a surface tolerance of 0.5 mm but I also noted the same tolerance in a FCF on one surface. When I asked why they separated one profile of a surface with the same tolerance on the particular surface, I was told that all the other default surfaces were meaningless but this particular surface had importance to the parts "function and relationship" and they wanted the shop floor to be aware of it. This was a high volume die cast shop so they would end up placing ongoing quality control on the one surface that had functional importance.

Just some thoughts from a different perspective.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Lose the comma and the space. Y14.5M-2009 is the proper callout.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Unless they are working to the 1994 standard. (And if 2009, there is no M.)

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com

RE: GD&T in the tolerance block

Yes, using a common Profile tol frame in the title block is growing in popularity. I implemented it in the title block of my last company. I would recommend using the "ALL OVER" modification instead of "applies to all surfaces", since that is clearly defined in ASME Y14.5-2009.

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

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