×
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

Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

(OP)
I have a customer-generated drawing in which the product has a datum that is really key to the functionality of the product, so virtually every other dimension comes off of this datum. The datum is formed by 4 different surfaces that are located of 3 different sides of the part, but are obviously interrupted. We have some parts that are failing to fit up with the mating part. The problem is that, of the 4 datum surfaces, there are 2 small ones that are not planar with the other 2 surfaces. There is no profile callout for these datum surfaces. Is there some sort of implicit profile tolerance? Would a profile tolerance be the long-term solution to control this unacceptable condition?

Richard McInteer
www.class-vi-o-rings.com

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Normally for that kind of applications, when multiple interrupted nominally coplanar surfaces are used as datum features to derive a single datum, profile of surface tolerance is the only choice for controlling the actual amount of error in their coplanarity. If there is no such on the print, nothing limits the error, so a part can end up as yours and there is no chance to force any correction on a manufacturer .

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Yes, use a profile control to establish coplanarity, or if using '09 standard, a Continuous Feature modifier.

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Jim,
I am just wondering... If you use Continuous Feature modifier instead of profile of surface, how much coplanarity error will be available?
In my opinion the notification <CF> itself is not enough, there still has to be a tolerance controlling the coplanarity.

Side question: assuming <CF> was used, like shown in fig. 7-45, could flatness control be used instead of profile of surface since 2 surfaces would be treated as a single datum feature?

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Based on the 2009 standard 2.7.5, CF is used to identify a group of two or more features of size where there is a requirement that they be treated geometrically as a single FOS. For the OP case, a coplanar surfaces is not a FOS, a profile control is a better way to control the coplanarity. See Figs. 2-8 through 2-10. and Figs. 8-14 through 8-16.

SeasonLee

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

SeasonLee,
We had a debate on CF applied to non-FOS some time ago. Look also at fig. 7-45.

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Right -- the issue is that CF on a feature of size is fine because Rule #1 comes along for the ride, thus controlling the alignment. But to apply CF on a surface doesn't have any Rule #1, so pmarc is pointing out that there is still no quantitative control on the potential offset.

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

The OP states that the 4 datum features are on 3 different sides of the part. I'm imagining a cube with datum features on 3 sides of it forming a single datum. How can this be a datum at all without the use of datum targets? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2013
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

PH, I found the write-up confusing as well, but went with the flow.
Pmarc, flatness on the <CF> would control the coplanar features as Profile would have.

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

I guess the OP stated that the surfaces were "interrupted," and that two of them were not "coplanar," so we should just assume it's something that has four legs or pads.
Also -- the flatness tolerance with the <CF> would take care of the coplanarity. Would that be an extension of principles? :)

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

J-P, extension of principles? It's considered a single surface, so flatness overall would be appropriate. An "Extension"; didn't think of it that way, more as a reversion to baseline controls.

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Jim ... I was merely taking a jab at the other thread where extension of principles reared its head :)

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

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Assuming to US stds I'd play safe and go with the profile.

Powerhound, I think you're misunderstanding. Simplistically I was imagining maybe a flat, square surface with a 'cross' shape relieved in the middles leaving the 4 corners to create the effective surface.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Coplanar Datum Not Quite Coplanar

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. It was the whole "three different sides" statement that got me all cankajawed. If I hadn't ever seen something nearly as crazy as that, I may have just fallen in line from the start.

Powerhound, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2013
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