Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Position interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.
AMLbody

AMLbody

Automotive
Aug 16, 2012
5
Hi everyone, I am new to the forum. I have a question about interpreting positional location. We are using ASME Y14.5 as standard. I have skecthed the query on the attached powerpoint and would welcome your comment. I know which I believe to be correct.

Thanks in advance

Richard
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Thanks pmarc, that's great. Thanks for your help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just wait for at least one more opinion as a double check.
From the discussion we have in the other thread on parallelism per unit, I feel there is someone who may disagree with me on this one :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, I agree with you that Interpretation 1 is correct, but a colleague believes Interpretation 2 is correct. What I want is for the axis of the hole to be "correct" regardless of the surface form.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The axis of the hole has nothing to do with the top and bottom surfaces and their profile error. The axis has to be within cylindrical positional tolerance zone that is located and oriented relative to referenced datums.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

AMLbody,

If your colleague wants the tolerance zone to be spherical, it has to be specified in FCF as spherical diameter (see for example ASME Y14.5-2009 Fig. 7-35). Although I don’t think it will help in this particular case.

But I see bigger problem here. From the drawing you provided, I cannot see that the hole is round.
If the hole is square, cylindrical tolerance zone will not apply either.

Here, pmarc. Is this what you were waiting for?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, I did not expect such answer, simply because I somehow assumed that the hole we are talking about is round (especially that OP used term "axis of the hole").
I would also be careful even to mention a possibility of applying spherical tolerance zone here without cautioning that this not only won't be helpful, but also will be flawed callout for cylindrical hole.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Although I did not state that the hole is round, it is.

I do not want to specify a spherical tolerance but wanted clarification of the intent of the standard.

Picking up on your comment CheckerHater, if the hole were square and I want a cylindrical tolerance zone would this call out be correct?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMLbody said:
if the hole were square and I want a cylindrical tolerance zone would this call out be correct?
Click to expand...

I’d say it wouldn’t (I already did once).
Spherical tolerance zone better to be reserved for spherical features, that’s for sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

edw.jack23
  • Question
General Profile Tolerance Interpretation
Replies
15
Views
4K
3DDave
3DDave
supergee
  • Question
Is there a preferred true position standard?
Replies
7
Views
252
supergee
supergee
D
  • Locked
  • Question
Interpretation of General Profile Tolerance Note
Replies
15
Views
6K
Burunduk
Burunduk
G
  • Question
Composite Position Equivalent in ISO or BS 1
Replies
5
Views
3K
pmarc
pmarc
H
  • Question
Composite Position with separate requirement for pairs of features
Replies
19
Views
5K
3DDave
3DDave

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom