×
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

Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

(OP)
This may be a stupid question, but I will try:
Let's say a part similar to the one shown in fig. 4-26 of Y14.5-2009 has to be inspected and there is a physical datum feature A & B simulator available in order to define proper DRF and to mount the part on it during a check of positional callout on two M20 threaded holes. There is only one part manufactured and will be no more. Imagine also the datum feature simulator is perfect, so there is no chance that bad part will fit on it and that good part will be somehow rejected.

Knowing all of that, how should inspector proceed if it occurred that as-produced part did not fit to the simulator, or in other words if the secondary datum feature pattern of 4 holes did not meet positional requirement wrt primary datum A? Should the inspection process be stopped immediately and the part sent to re-work (if possible)?

Any suggestions, thoughts to share?

PS.: This has nothing to do with the threads about extention of principles and IT# in ISO FCF's. At least at the moment I see nothing common smile

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

If the part did not meet the positonal tolerance to become datum B, then one does not have a datum B and other features that reference datum B should not be checked. The part would be rejected.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

I agree with Dave. Since we are assuming a perfect simulator and the part does not fit on it, then the simulator is doing its job.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Perhaps ... perhaps not. How do you rework? Randomly enlarge the holes until it fits the fixture? Ideally, you would use the two M20 features to establish where the four Datum-B holes should be, mark the locations and then rework. If the value of the part is minor, don't know if this makes sense. if the part is expensive (think a titanium workpiece), then it's worth the effort.
BTW, this kind of thing used to happen a lot at the engine factory for one of the Big-3. At one point, something like 6 out of 10 machined castings didn't pass inspection, and were scrapped. An observant quality/inspection person noted that everything seemed shifted/rotated wrt the datums (i.e. an issue with setup error using the cast datum features). He proposed a method of adjusting machined datum features in a rework, but was rejected by the OEM. He went on to privately develop the software to determine the compensation and licenses it to various suppliers now, including the OEM he used to work for.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

I agreee that the part would be rejected, or reworked. Keep in mind that pmarc said that only one part is to be made, so reworking it shouldn't be a huge deal.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

(OP)
Guys,
Thanks for replies. There is no doubt that the part should be rejected, however I am thinking of something else:

Think of following scenario.
1. Assume that re-work is possible, but the less optimization loops the better (due to cost, timing, etc.)
2. Only one of 4 holes within datum feature pattern B is out of positional tolerance, but that is enough to be unable to mount the part on the simulator.
3. Imagine that there is much more features than just two threaded holes controlled by positional callouts to |A|B(M)| and some of them look pretty fine, some not - I mean, if the component could be mounted on the simulator, part of the features would meet their positional tolerances without any problem.

But how can an inspector verify which features are OK and which are not and require re-work together with the fourth hole of datum feature pattern, if he is not able to mount the part on simulator? Should the re-work be done on the fourth hole first and in the second loop (after loosing time and money) on the other features falling outside their tolerances?

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

This is where your MRB process comes in, if you have one where you work. In my opinion, if the simulator is what determines whether or not the part passes, then the inspector really has no way of determining what is actually out of tolerance and the part should be sent to MRB. It would be up to them to disposition the part from there.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

How do you rework? In short – paper gage.

Inspector takes longer, more complicated, labor-intensive way of checking part with general purpose tools like granite table and height gage. The found hole positions are placed on the diagram. After he is done, he will know which hole is off and how much.

Checkers…
smile

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

(OP)
Okay, so I will rephrase the question to something more general:
Should the features positinally related to DRF |A|B(M)| be inspected at all, if the datum feature B is out of its geometrical tolerance wrt A? Regardless of inspection method. Regardless if the part could be re-worked or had to be manufactured from the very beginning.

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

I am not quite sure where are you leaning here.
There are politics. Your boss may override your decision and render your pain and suffering irrelevant.
As a perfect inspector in a perfect world you should turn part back to machine shop as soon as part didn’t fit into the fixture. Let the shop decide what went wrong and if they can fix it for less than making new part from scratch.
If you are looking from purely theoretical point of view, trying to reverse your framework, turn features into datums and datums into features and then hope design intent will be preserved; I personally wouldn’t go there. Too complicated, too dangerous and may take more time than making new part from scratch anyway.
So I really see no benefits to continue checking the part with important datums missing.

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

pmarc,

No, they should not be inspected since there is nothing to inspect to. You DRF doesn't exist because the secondary datum feature is out of spec.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

(OP)
And this is the kind of statement I was waiting for. Thanks.

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Again, depends on the value of the part.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Powerhound is correct in my opinion. If the positional requirement that creates datum B is not in specification, you do not have datum B and features relating to datum B should not be confirmed. I don't know how "it depends on the value of the part"?

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

pmarc,

Are you really asking a general question on whether or not a geometric characteristic can be evaluated (for conformance and actual value) if one of the datum features is nonconforming?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

Dave,
If the value of the part is high enough, then you can sort of backwards-process to get datum-features that work (i.e. rework them). It's maybe a complicated undertaking but it may be more cost-effective than starting from scratch. Reject parts were typically scrapped in my background by company policy, and we ate a lot of costs for that reason. If we could have salvaged a $20k plate by reworking datum features to accommodate the rest of the features, we could have saved a lot of money. It is a process that is done more frequently than one might expect.

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

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

(OP)
Yes, Evan. This is my question.

RE: Secondary datum feature does not meet a geometrical requirement wrt primary datum

All aspects of the considered feature may not be verifiable without the datum reference, but some can be.

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