CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
(OP)
Hope you can help me with this very simple question I think.
I have a cylinder which OD.= 7.998+/- 0.001, if I want to stablish a total runout of .002", will this mean that the cylinder OD could be 8.001" if we take into account that the part was produced at 7.999" + .002" (runout)?
Thank you.
JJAV
I have a cylinder which OD.= 7.998+/- 0.001, if I want to stablish a total runout of .002", will this mean that the cylinder OD could be 8.001" if we take into account that the part was produced at 7.999" + .002" (runout)?
Thank you.
JJAV





RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
I missed the forum discussion but couldn't help to ask you guys on one of design practice in my company.
Currently when we are calculating radial clearance between a rotating shaft and its housing, we are adding the run out by half to the shaft size to ensure when housing bore is made with enough radial clearance to the shaft.
hence, max shaft sizes (radial) is calculated as follow (shaft OD : 10 +/- 0.5)/2 +(run out : 0.1)/2 = 5.25 + 0.05 = 5.30 mm. (radial)
So... is the calculation is off as you guys mention - runout did not control sizes?
Thanks,
James. Kim
Power Transmission Engineer
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
What you are calculating is not a “size” but rather what is called “tolerance stack-up” – combined effect of size variation and runout.
Naturally, without some sort of a sketch we cannot say if you are doing it right.
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
Stack calculation : Minimum radial clearance between rotating shaft (Path A) and static housing (Path B)
Path A
Shaft Nominal diameter : 10 +/- 0.5 mm
Shaft Run out : 0.05 mm
Radial max path A stack : (10.5/2)+(0.05/2)=5.50 mm.
Path B
Housing Bore Nominal diameter : 12 +/- 0.5 mm
Radial min path B stack :(12.5/2)=6.25 mm
Min radial clearance between path B and path A : 1.25mm
My next question is should the run out calculated divided by two or just remain as whole in the stack calculation?
Thanks,
James Kim
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
Stack calculation : Minimum radial clearance between rotating shaft (Path A) and static housing (Path B)
Path A
Shaft Nominal diameter : 10 +/- 0.5 mm
Shaft Run out : 0.10 mm
Radial max path A stack : (10.5/2)+(0.10/2)=5.30 mm.
Path B
Housing Bore Nominal diameter : 12 +/- 0.5 mm
Radial min path B stack :(12.5/2)=6.25 mm
Min radial clearance between path B and path A : 0.95mm
My next question is should the run out calculated divided by two or just remain as whole in the stack calculation?
Thanks,
James Kim
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
I think I know what you are trying to say, but let me ask the question:
When you say “shaft has runout of 0.10 mm” is it runout of what in relation to what?
Also, what is relationship between the “housing bore” and the rest of the housing – is there any tolerance involved?
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
1. Your calculation is incorrect. If you search for min clearance, the bore diameter should 11.5 not 12.5. This would result in 0.45 min clearance. However...
2. The clearance is probably even smaller, because your stack-up does not take any locational relationship between shaft and bore. A relationship between axis of the bore and axis of the shaft must exist and must be taken into account in the stack-up. This is what probably CH is asking for.
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
The way I understood the question, we are dealing with assembly tolerance stack-up, BUT we ignore most of the assembly, or consider it made to theoretically exact dimensions.
Also, given that runout is compound control, the shaft could be perfectly round and coaxial, but have conicity of 0.10.
So I assume shaft being perfect size and shape and the entire amount of runout contribute to positional error A.K.A. eccentricity.
I even made a picture of said assembly, and if the picture is correct, then yes, in RADIAL calculation you should add ½ of MMC diameter to ½ of runout value.
And yes, pmarc, bore should be at MMC as well
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
That’s why I also called them “theoretically exact” A.C.A. “BASIC”.
So, both shape and size are perfect.
There nothing wrong per se about simplifying your model, especially when you make calculations “for yourself”, on the back of the old envelope; but if you ask total strangers for advise, you better provide more detailed information, agreed?
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
RE: CIRCULAR / TOTAL RUNOUT EFFECT ON DIAMETER-SIZE
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com