×
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

Spherical Tolerance Zone

Spherical Tolerance Zone

Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)

I recently run into question that I thought could be interesting for the rest of this forum: what spherical tolerance zone is good for?

ASME Y14.5-2009 Fig. 7-35 shows obvious application for locating spherical feature of size.

Now, if I want to locate point in space, there is nothing wrong about that point being contained within spherical tolerance zone.
One possible use is shown on the enclosed picture; all opinions are welcome.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

Is point a feature of size so that Position can be used?

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
It’s extension of principle.
If we can locate to zero tolerance, why not use zero size?
Also, what if point is “derived” from something that has size?
Actually this is the whole point of my post: collect different opinions on how far can we extend our principles.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

Assuming the point is derived from something that has size (like a spherical feature), I do not see anything on your print that would fall under "extension of principles" approach. Everything seems to be in line with the standard. Unless I am missing something?

As for applying this concept to a physical single point = a feature without size, I could possibly buy it for Position at RFS, but for sure not in case of Position at MMC or LMC.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
Unfortunately the approach varies both in time and space.

Say, in 1994 flatness at MMC was a big no-no. In 2009 flatness that is derived from feature of size may be specified at RFS, MMC, and LMC.
And of course in ASME angle is not a size, but in ISO it is a size and cone is “feature of size” as well.

So we are in the grey area, not universally understood and not universally accepted all the time and in all the places.
That brings another question: should we “extend our principles” to close the gap?

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

You will not provoke me again, CH. smile

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
I just want to be convinced. wink

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

If your own words in the thread about runout application for partial surfaces do not convince you, I am pretty sure nothing will.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

Keep this in mind about extending principles... some things can't be extended due to a logical impossibility (such as talking about MMC on something that has no size, as pmarc mentioned -- i.e., a point). But in the case of flatness at MMC, in the 1994 system you may have been able to argue that it was logically possible, if you attempted to apply the flatness to a feature of size.
Unfortunately, at the time the standard told us to use straightness for form control on any feature of size -- even a planar block, which really didn't make sense since the concept of straightness is one-dimensional. But that was the rule at the time.
CheckerHater, you really like to keep us on our toes, huh?

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

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
No, it’s just this thread:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=328006

Really wild interpretation of simple position made me think that we are far away from understanding each other, and everybody extending principles their own way is not an answer.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

ISO allows position on points, In the older revisions, I know that.
Frank

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

I am with Ken, I have spherical applications I use all of the time.
Frank

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

pmarc,
I do not see a point as a feature of size. :)

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

I do not see it too, but if the position is applied at RFS basis the size would not really matter. Don't you think?
Agree, per Y14.5 position shall be applied to features of size only, however I do not see a "logical impossibility" against applying it to a point (at RFS of course).

PS.: Nice to see you back.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

Welcome back, Frank! I recall you had a thread (or contributed to one) several months ago that discussed a spherical tolerance zone for a point hovering above a plane. That was all about using a spherhical diameter symbol if the control was only constrained in one direction. Ring any bells?

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

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

Frank,
The newest edition of ISO 1101:2012 as well as the older one (issued in 2004) show an example entitled: "Position tolerance of a point", however the point is derived from typical spherical feature of size. It is not a physical portion of the part. Does this mean that position applied to a physical point is illegal? I am not able to tell.

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

CH,

I generally don't have a problem with extension of principles.

The thing that I always watch out for is whether or not everything is clearly defined on a real part. In your cone example, the tolerance zone appears to be reasonably well defined. It's a spherical zone at a certain distance from Datum A and centered on Datum B. Datum feature B is a bit non-standard - presumably you would want a cylindrical simulator for B even though the feature itself is conical.

I would have more concerns about the definition of the toleranced point itself, however. The standard does not address how to establish the apex of an as-produced conical feature. On a real part with form error, there are many ways one could use to find an apex and they would all potentially give different results. What did you envision for the method of establishing the apex point?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
If we can “derive” virtual center of a sphere, we should be able to “derive” virtual sharp of a cone, shouldn’t we?

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

CH,

Yes, we should be able to derive the virtual sharp of a cone. We just need to explicitly specify the method used for the derivation. For a sphere, the maximum inscribed/circumscribed inverse sphere works well but for a cone there is no obvious equivalent. The main question relates to the included angle of the inverse feature - is this angle held constant, or is some sort of fitting algorithm used? In your drawing, the diameter of the cone is dimensioned with a plus/minus tolerance and there is no basic angle.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

I support Evan on this one. I have no problem with the concept of tolerancing a point, but the simulation (AME) is a challenge. Is the AME the cone, or the point? Picture a cone whose apex is for some reason truncated slightly, but still forms a "point"; is that non-apex the point in question, or is it the apex of the conical taper? That, to me, would have to be defined on the drawing.

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

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

(OP)
So, in order for “extension of principle” to work we have to accompany our tolerancing scheme with some sort of a note.
Something like “DERIVED VIRTUAL SHARP”?

RE: Spherical Tolerance Zone

CH, at the moment there's nothing that I know of that defines a "point", so something has to explain it.

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

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