×
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

Grouping "Separate Requirements"

Grouping "Separate Requirements"

Grouping "Separate Requirements"

(OP)

I have relatively complicated mechanical envelope drawing that has a few connectors. After applying all the GD&T, there are many call outs to the same DRF. I'm wanting to break out the connector call outs as "SEP REQT". However, I still want every call out on each of the connectors to checked at the same time. The way I understand the standard; each call out with "SEP REQT" attached to it is checked individually.

Is there a clean way to show what FCFs I want grouped together?

~Kevin

RE: Grouping "Separate Requirements"


If your connectors are all the same (“pattern of patterns”), the note “INDVIDUALLY” comes into play (see Y14.5-2009 Fig.7-37)

If connectors are unique, you probably have no other choice but create separate datum framework for every connector and create 2 or more multiple single segment FCFs.

Hard to tell without more detailed description of your design.

RE: Grouping "Separate Requirements"

Kevin

Would mind to post a sketch? this will be easier to understand what you really need.

SeasonLee

RE: Grouping "Separate Requirements"

I had a post awhile back were I was doing something like that for relating bearing bores to their respective shoulders. It was based on a company book I wrote to explain just such issues. The main problem is the clarity of intent. My GD&T instructor once told us: "remember, you still may have to resort to note for special cases".
That is the way I see this stuff. We had always had a practice of showing the bore numbered (for section views) so it seemed logical to make the datum an "-AX-" with a note saying "X to be replaced by the bearing bore number" and of course an "individually" statement. The shoulder tolerance was to "AX" with an "individually" statement.
The standard can't cover everything, which is why I am more in favor than some of "extensions of princple". IMHO, Those of us who have had to use this stuff in the real world, on real world parts, realize these things are really needed.

RE: Grouping "Separate Requirements"

I come across this frequently. I use "GROUP-K", etc. under grouped sub-patterns to link them together. Per the standard, one of the ways to establish a pattern is through a note.

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