×
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

refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
Hello,
See the link to the sketch

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45474807/New%2...

The intent is to locate the start of the angle with a position tolerance.
The the tolerance of the angle can be greater, but its important that the angles perpendicularity is refined to datum B.
My question is if the perp refinement is better done by changing the position frame to a composite frame. Maybe both ways work. Maybe not. What do you think?

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Measure angle directly from [A].
Specify Angularity wrt [A|B].
Drop Perpendicularity.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
Sorry, Please expand on line#2 (wrt)

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

With Regard To, or Relation(ship) if you please

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
So what does that mean?
Are you saying to turn the position frame into a composite frame?

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Just a single frame [ANG|DIA.024|A|B]
[ANG|DIA.024|A|C] may work as well.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
That does not make sense to me.
The tolerance of .024 would then be the same for the angle as well as for its perpendicular relationship to datum b.
I need perpendicularity refined tighter than the position or the angle.
What am I missing here.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

I am not sure I understand what "position of the angle" or "perpendicularity of the angle" means.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Or "start of the angle" for that matter.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
The position of the angle is defined by its start point in the top view.
What I want to refine is the perpendicularity of the cylinder to datum B.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Then apply your perpendicularity to the cylinder.
I would suggest applying angularity to the cylinder as well, but its value has to be smaller than positional tolerance, because orientation may only refine position. Your .014 position tolerance is already holding your cylinder tighter than .024 angularity tolerance.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
Please look at the print and try to see what Im after.
That start point of the cylinder has to be at a certain position. (.014)
But the angle of the cylinder does not need to be held tight. Only to +/- 1 deg.
And the orientation, whether it be perp to -B-, or parallel to -C- (but in this case B matters), has to be around .0015.
These are all vaiid design constraints. What would those constraints look like on a print?

Anyone else out there want to chime in on This??

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

The through hole Ø.813 is a single feature (of size) only, so you cannot use composite position control to refine the perpendicularity since composite position control is typically applied to a pattern FOS, a composite position control is never used on a single FOS.

The angle of the hole can be controlled by the position FCF, so I will delete the angularity and perpendicularity callout, and the perpendicularity refinement can be done by multiple geometric controls as shown on the attached.

Season

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

“Position” you apply on your print has nothing to do with the point.
It applies to the entire cylinder. In fact, GD&T is not very fond about positioning imaginary objects such as points. GD&T may control point, axis, or plane derived from physical feature, but it is always about physical features first.
If you find me annoying, I will be glad to leave you alone for a while. Let’s wait for someone else to chime in.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

CH
You are right, absolutely agree what you said.

SeasonLee

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Some aspects of design constraints are not clear to me:

1. Perpendicularity of hole's axis to B? How is it even possible? From what I see the only orientational relationship to B that could be applied is Angularity. Am I missing something?

2. What does it exactly mean to you: "the angle of the cylinder does not need to be held tight. Only to +/- 1 deg. And the orientation, whether it be perp to -B-, or parallel to -C-(but in this case B matters), has to be around .0015." In other words, which directions do these values exactly apply to? Could you clarify?

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Quote (pmarc)

Perpendicularity of hole's axis to B? How is it even possible? From what I see the only orientational relationship to B that could be applied is Angularity. Am I missing something?
Pmarc,
There is cylindrical perpendicularity and planar perpendicularity.
The axis of the cylinder is laying between two parallel planes 0.0016 apart from each other and perpendicular to [B]

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
The last post described the perpendicularity that the customer wants.
The cutomer, however, wants that cylinder to start at a certain point. Obviously that point can be determined by a cmm off a physical feature. But its still a point, and the customer wants it controlled to position tolerance of .014.
He also stated that the angle can vary +/- 1.
Hey, I understand the customer. Makes sense to me. I'm just trying to communicate those constraints on a print.
I appreciate all the help. I'm learniong much, thats what this is all about.

Seems the only thing left that I need to understand is how to control the start point of the cylinder (and yes, that point exists because my inspector can tell mne where it is) and yet allow the angle more tolerance than its start position.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

ronj100,
So where does the .0015 come from? Was this value somehow calculated basing on +/-1 deg requirement or is it an additional demand?

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
Sketch in CH last post describes that.
You can hold that cylinder to .0015 in that plane, still have +/- 1 in the other plane (or axis) and still have a controlled start point.
The start point of the cylinder could almost be looked at like a rotational point or pivot point. the cylinder can rotate +/- 1 deg in one axis but only a small amount (.0015) in the other. However, that pivot point has to be controlled also by a position of .014.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Ronj100,
Like I already said, GD&T doesn’t like positioning holes much, BUT you can control position of two ends of your hole SEPARATELY. This way the “beginning” of your hole will be held to tighter tolerance, and the “end” to the wider one.
If you are in a possession of standard book(s), it’s shown at Fig. 7-27 in ASME Y14.5-2009. (Not sure about other editions)

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

The positional control should be applied similarly to what is shown in fig. 7-27 of Y14.5-2009 standard. Then you have to add perpendicularity requirement .0015 to A|B, but this requirement must be shown in a cross-section that is perpendicular to the one you have right now.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Oh, I see I was late.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Great minds think alike smile

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

(OP)
No, I only have my ASME 1994 and all my books from Lowell Foster when I took his course over 20 years ago. Been out of the business for many years and just got back into it. I have some really crappy customer prints that I have to work with and I am only slightly better myself at trying to fix them for mfg production. But allot of this is coming back to me as I read my books and this post. So I really appreciate the help.
At least I know a bit more than my customer. Attached is thier print and they make parts for airliners. Go figure.

A snap shot of that 7-27 would be appreciated. Still, I’m guessing that these restraints should have been possible under the old spec.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45474807/New%2...

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

Fig. 5-40 in Y14.5M-1994.

RE: refine orientation of an angle with an orientation call out or composite the location?

I have always felt this kind of thing shows our manufacturing oriented bias, that we have not achieved tolerance descriptions based on a purely functional requirement. I do read this as the ultimate direction of the standard, in its intent.
Chances are if it has to be positioned to a reference framework installation it has to be oriented to that same installation and not a completely new and different framework.
Frank

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