×
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

Doubt on Datum Callout

Doubt on Datum Callout

Doubt on Datum Callout

(OP)
Hi all,

Recently i got a doubt on datum callout in a TOP GD&T frame. PFA.

Hope to hear back.
Vimal

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

Vimal,
Yes, it may be reasonable to have reference to datum D in positional feature control frame for pattern of 4 dia. .266 holes.

Without it the pattern would be allowed to freely rotate around datum axis B (and that may be OK in certain applications). With D referenced the pattern must stay oriented to datum plane D. Or in other words an imaginary horizontal line connecting for example true centers of two upper holes of the pattern must be parallel to D.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

(OP)

Hi Pmarc,

Rotation of the dia.266 holes are arrested by 3.500 boundary circle, 45deg and EQ. SPACING.

As well If the hole location is by DATUM D, there should be basic dimension from DATUM D to dia.266 in this figure. it is not shown.Adding up of those dimension result dimension redundancy.

Based on top level assembly functionality, the rotation of the holes dia.266 with "hole B" doesn't effect the assembly function (rotation is OK in this application).

Hope to hear back,
Vimal

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

Let’s clear something up, Vimal.
You say “the rotation of the holes dia.266 with "hole B" doesn't effect affect the assembly function”, and then “Rotation of the dia.266 holes are arrested by 3.500 boundary circle, 45deg and EQ. SPACING.”
So, either it’s relevant, or it’s not, and you choose to constrain the holes. Also, EQ SPACED is no longer supported per 1994 and latest standard. So, the hole has to be constrained by different means.
Next, you say “As well If the hole location is by DATUM D, there should be basic dimension from DATUM D to dia.266 in this figure.”
I am afraid you don’t quite understand how it works, because YOU DO HAVE BASIC DIMENSION FROM DATUM D TO DIA .266.
Your .266 holes are dimensioned by chain of BASIC dimensions 2.779 from datum D, hole circle diameter 3.500, and 45 deg. angle. Like I said, EQ. SP doesn’t cut it anymore. You have to specify 4X 90 deg, or rely on implied basic 90 deg, but you’ll have to draw radial centerlines first.
So, at least one of your .266 holes has basic dimensions tieing it up to datum D.
If you are still not convinced, just ask yourself a question: 45 deg. to what?
You cannot measure angle from round hole. You have to use some reference to establish your imaginary horizontal line and that reference is called a DATUM.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

(OP)
Hi CH,

Primarily, i am agreeing with you, i have to dimension with quantifier instead of "EQ. SP" and radial center lines.

Secondarily, by considering my function the free rotation of dia.266 hole pattern(with tapped holes)is acceptable. i am marking to remove D datum, add dimension with quantifier, remove 45deg and some other modifications.

thank you for the help, glasses
Vimal

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

CH,
Sorry for being off topic, but it is the second time in recent posts that you are saying something similar to:

Quote:

Also, EQ SPACED is no longer supported per 1994 and latest standard.
Well, it is not true. At least Y14.5 does not clearly prohibit use of EQ SPACED or similar note, abbrevation. Just see fig. 4-38 of Y14.-2009 - EQLSP is there.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

pmarc,
It is definitely off-topic, but 4-38 is missing circular pattern and diameter as well, so it is highly questionable if EQSP would ever make it into complete drawing.
Also, Appendix A10.6 states that “X symbol has replaced the note designation”, so by the rules of English grammar “note designation” is the thing of the past.
And since when "does not clearly prohibit" means "supports"?
If the book says "shall", "should", or at least "may" it supports. If it doesn't say anything, it doesn't support.
By your logic the standard book should prohibit infinite number of things, which is impossible logically and physically.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

CH,
And again we have the same kind of discussion.
Before refering to A.10.6 I would strongly recommend reading it carefully. It really has nothing to do with English grammar. It is just a matter of reading with understanding. In this particular case we are talking about pattern of features of size, you are refering to a place in the standard talking about SURFACES. And please do not even try to convince me that a hole (or pattern of holes) shall be considered as a cylindrical surface (or group of surfaces) in this case. I won't buy it.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

Are you serious?
If you read A.10.6 carefully, you'd notice that it says "for example, surface".
Are you implying that, according to Y14.5, X, when used as a multiplyer, only applies to surfaces?

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

I am saying the X replaced text note. It could have been 2 SURFACES as well as 3 SURFACES, 10 SURFACES, 100 SURFACES. That is why the standard used "for example". Just compare fig. 8-14 ('09) with 6-20 ('94). That is all what A.10.6 is about.

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

No more questions

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

Quote:

No more questions
Could you be more specific? Did this convince you or on the contrary - do you keep claiming that EQLSP "is no longer supported per 1994 and latest standard" and has been replaced by X?

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

I would agree that A.10.6 is referring specifically to surfaces, but it is also only listing the changes between the 2009 and 1994 standards. Using #X to designate the number of holes was already in use in the 1994 standard. (Also, why shouldn't a hole be considered a surface?)

That said, the standards (both 1994 and 2009) use 'may' not 'shall' in paragraph 1.9.5, which suggests other ways can be used. But no alternative is given, and the examples consistently use #X, so this is certainly the preferred way.

The number one goal of drawings is to communicate information with maximum clarity while using the most concise 'language' possible. In my opinion, using #X (together with an angle) is both more clear AND more concise than the old '# HOLES EQL SP' notation. But everyone has their own opinion. ;)

RE: Doubt on Datum Callout

Gilmiril,
I think everyone here, including me, will agree that #X and basic angle "is both more clear and precise" than the EQLSP. There are however cases, and in my opinion fig. 4-38 in Y14.5-2009 is one of such, that EQLSP (or similar note) is sufficient and does not introduce any ambiguity.

(By the way, with EQLSP notation one still needs #X).

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