Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
(OP)
Question about Coaxial Datum’s and their Features:
What controls the relationship between the two separated cylindrical features that establish the coaxial datum axis? Would the coaxial datum be defined as the simulated axis of the two features regardless of position, if say the two datum features were positioned as far apart as possible within tolerance?
Bonus: can this also apply to a datum center plane established between two separate features? Say using position instead of runout…
reference example attached.
What controls the relationship between the two separated cylindrical features that establish the coaxial datum axis? Would the coaxial datum be defined as the simulated axis of the two features regardless of position, if say the two datum features were positioned as far apart as possible within tolerance?
Bonus: can this also apply to a datum center plane established between two separate features? Say using position instead of runout…
reference example attached.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2





RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
Either position or runnout of the datums to the common axis is acceptable practice, I would say prefered, if it mirrors a functional requirement. Position or runout of one to another is possible and just a 2x position to no datum is another option.
Frank
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
What do you mean it’s not supported by ASME? Clarify please.
Koda, yes, you can create datum plane using 2 separate features.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
It is not supported because they say all features should be defined.
Frank
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
Frank and Kenat are right - there is no relationship between the two cylinders defined on your print.
The relationship can be defined by at least half a dozen of methods, depending on what is really required. See the following link as a reference (Subject: Total Runout Question):
http://www.geotolmeadows.com/newsletters/2012/nov2...
A method not mentioned there has been already mentioned by Frank - "2x position to no datum" as shown in fig. 4-24 of Y14.5-2009.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
All, good to know I was correct in identifying undefined features.
Sometimes I beat myself up trying to define features that are commonly relied on by the processing method as “good enough” because some of my drawings have been rejected on this basis, and I struggle putting my initials out there on an incomplete drawing. I’m not perfect, and make mistakes but when I learn something I’m moving forward. Its hard when sometimes I’m rejected because an end user might not understand it or they don’t want to add inspection cost to the part….
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
I think the question is addressed to Frank, however other votes are also really welcomed, as usual.
Frank agreed that there is no geometrical relationship between datum features marked as A and B on Koda's print. Now, if we go back to the 100+ thread where we debated about backdoor ability of parallism tolerance to control location of a feature with relation to other features just because the feature had been assigned as a datum feature (http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=315082), don't you think that following this logic we should say that THERE IS mutual relationship between the cylinders on Koda's drawing? The cylinders are assigned as datum features, so per what some guys claimed in the thread in the link implied basic 0 linear dimension that exists between datum feature simulators A and B defines the relationship.
Any comments?
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
2. Basic dimensions cannot exist without FCF.
3. In absence of FCF basic zero dimension between [A] and [B] is as good as non-existent.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
This was the conclusion that came out of the other thread -- if a feature is controlled by parallelism tolerance (or any other orientation tolerance) to A, AND the very same feature has been assigned as datum feature B, there is a locational dependency between A and B because paragraph 4.5.2 of Y14.5-2009 says that datum feature simulators shall have basic location to other datum feature simulators for all the datum references in a feature control frame, unless a translation modifier or movable datum target symbol is specified.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
I was simply trying to make the point that basic dimension is meaningless unless relationship that requires basic dimension is specified. Specify position B wrt A and tell me there is no basic dimension between them
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
I can't wait to see what others will say about it.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
A crude assumption about your drawing would be that your datum features are round, but not cylindrical. If this were my design, the cylindrical datums each would be short, and undercut. In this state, your two features would define a centre axis.
If this is close to the proportions of a real design, you could use datum targets to define where on the cylindrical features you would pick up the diameters.
--
JHG
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
Are you alluding to my keyway "orientation for location" type of thing? :)
Frank
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
I am not going to give up quickly on this.
RE: Coaxial Datum features and their relationship...
Thanks, From my observations, I suspect the reason you find it specifically stated in the newer standards (1994 and on) is most likely because it was not clear in 1982 version (the version we STILL are at) and the committee got in a big argument about it at some time in between. :)
Frank