×
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

Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

(OP)

When positioning features on a round part, like a flat disk, should one of the features be made a tertiary datum C to clock the location of the rest of the features?

Do not all features orient to the X and Y plane that establish the datum axis, eliminating the need for a tertiary datum to “clock” other features with?

Reference drawing attached.

lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

I raally do not understand why, since the simultaneous requirement should cover it. That is one of the many irrational-illogical things you learn here, the simutaneous requirement covers you, but it seems, most do not trust it. Just like the envelope principle, it is ignored in practice though it is clear ASME law.
It is certainly not "wrong" to add a clocking feature.

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

On big complicated part with several features it may be easy to overlook which pieces exactly fall under sim reqt.
Also, there is slightly different view on it between ASME and ISO.
So, if you are in ASME world, technically, yes, you can do without clocking datum. But adding one to be safe and better understood, is not entirely wrong.

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Can someone explain "simultaneous requirement" to me, and how it alleviates the need for a clocking datum?

We use a tertiary/clocking datum (we're still under 1994), and feel that it is necessary, to the point of many times adding construction holes just for that purpose. However, if there is a way to get out of using it, I'm eager to hear about it.

Thanks

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

I just want consistant application of the rules or why bother to make those rules! I do not really like that engineering has one understanding , but, the shop has another. Use of a clocking datum to the uninformed helps only perpetuates the misunderstanding, IMHO.
To be clear, I am not a fan of simultaeneous or envelope.
Frank

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

How about another buzzword, “functional requirement”?
When you make one feature a datum and control another feature wrt the first, you somehow imply that functionally first feature is more important than the second one.
Why not use it where it makes sense?
Typical sim req example shows shaft with two keyways – fine with me.
But if one of them is really somehow “primary” to the other, why not use a datum?

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

CH,
I am all for functional requirements. I am not sure you can easily say which has a precedence with two keys or two round dowel pins.
Frank

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Keep in mind that "simultaneous requirements" and "one of features as clocking datum feature" result in different geometric requirements. The latter tightens mutual relationship between considered features in comparison to what SIM REQT requires.

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

pmarc,
Good point to make, we should not leave the impression they are completely equivalent! If a datum feature of size or pattern of features of size is referenced MMB, I thought that the datum virtual condition rule (rule #5) makes it the same, though, true or not?
Frank

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Not sure what you mean Frank. Rule #5? What the heck is this? smile

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

pmarc,
Sorry, we are still at 1982, I believe it is the same statement as section 2.11 in 1994. I am not sure in 2009.

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Frank,
I do not think that MMB concept changes anything. There will still be a difference between "simultaneous requirements" and "one of features as clocking datum feature".

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

(OP)
The reason is because I am being asked to put the datum C on the drawing for QC inspection. It’s as if they can’t determine the location of the features otherwise? What I would like to do is not include datum C at all for simplicity.

It sounds like the correct answer is it could go both ways…?

lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

RE: Clocking cylindrical parts with datum feature

Yes. Your drawing shows one way to do it. If you reference both features to datums A and B. That would do it too via the simultaneous requirements rule. As mentioned by others here, they do not say the same thing but the outcome could be identical anyway.

John Acosta, GDTP S-0731
Engineering Technician
Inventor 2013
Mastercam X6
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

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