Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
(OP)
Can someone help with the question in my subject line.
You have a assembly and you have two parts that you want be Parallel to each other how would you call that out using GT&D Parallelism.
Thank you
You have a assembly and you have two parts that you want be Parallel to each other how would you call that out using GT&D Parallelism.
Thank you





RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Or are you saying they need to be installed in such a way that they are parallel?
I'm not sure it necessarily affects how you'd dimension it though.
Without thinking about it too much I'd probably make a functional surface of one of the parts a datum and then add FCF to the functional surface of the other part with the required parallelism called out.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I don’t know what your level of expertise in GD&T is, so I just give a few pointers to begin with:
1. GD&T can be used on assembly drawings; there is nothing wrong with that.
2. GD&T is dealing with features, not parts. Features are material surfaces, something you can touch.
3. GD&T is based on functional requirements, so describe it in such terms as “surface “a” on the part 1 has to be parallel to surface “b” on the part 2. Surface “b” then will become what is known as “datum” and you will specify parallelism of surface “a” with relation to surface “b” to be so-and-so.
If you could describe your problem with finer detail I am sure we could give you more detailed advice as well.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Or maybe the actual mutual orientational relationship between the two components is a result of something that happens "in betweeen" them? In other words, is/are there another part(s) that has/have influence on the aforementioned relationship?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Considering that features need to be inspected to DRF's and that a DRF
consisting of theoretical datums is simulated by using gage equipment to touch actual part features; how can the gage equipment be physically located in the actual assembly?
Wouldn't the features that are chosen for a DRF be based on part functionality and mating interfaces?
Wouldn't those DRF features be inaccessible to gage equipment once the parts are assembled?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
If a dimension cannot be controlled by the assembly process then that dimension does not belong on the assembly drawing.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Maybe not, could be the answer to my questions.
Just presented them for some thought regarding how geometric controls on an assembly drawing
are not readily interpreted according to Y14.5 (IMO).
I would agree with MintJulep that this control does not belong on an "assembly drawing"
Ref: ASME Y14.24M TYPES AND APPLICATIONS OF ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
No where in ASME that I'm aware of does it say, or even imply, that you can't use dimensions including geometric controls on an assy drawing. The important thing is that the tolerance applies at the level specified.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Where does it say it is forbidden to apply tolerances to weldment (number of standard and paragraph please)?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
There is a lot that the standard "doesn't say"; however it is important to consider and apply what it "does state" and to adhere to the principles and fundmental concepts that it does establish. If in fact you want to claim compliance with it.
Y14.5 does not state that features are to be dimensioned with manufacturing requirements. It does state that process and mfg. information can be noted as such.
It does state that part features are to be defined in consideration of functionality and mating interfaces.
You can actually amend it as long as the amendments are explained.
"No where in ASME that I'm aware of does it say, or even imply, that you can't use dimensions including geometric controls on an assy drawing"
Have you actually read ASME Y14.24M ? From your statement, I believe you haven't.
If you don't want to accept the significance, function and purpose of the various engineering drawing types... that's you're call.
done with the P.M.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I said that dimensions that cannot be affected, effected, altered or controlled by the assembly process do not belong on an assembly drawing.
Trivial example:
Flat plate A and flat plate B. Each with parallelism of its two faces controlled by some form of tolerance.
If the "assembly" is put the bottom of B on the top of A and bolt them together then the assembly process cannot control or change the resultant parallelism between the bottom of A and the top of B. You gets what you gets resultant from the actual achieved dimensions of A and B.
On the other hand, if the assembly process is "Put B on top of A and add shims at the corners until the bottom of A and the top of B are parallel within a red gnat's hair" then by all means use GD&T to identify the requirement.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Please, standard number(s) and paragraph(s) to set us straight.
“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Kenat,
As you are in possession of actual Y14.24 book, would you be so kind to confirm or deny that it actually says “More than one drawing type may be combined on a single drawing”?
From my observation assembly drawing sometimes starts its life as a layout, and sometimes envelope dimensions are added to the assembly to avoid creating extra document.
It appears like, for example, layout, assembly and envelope drawings are three types that in many cases can be safely combined in single document for all the means and purposes.
So even if you follow standard “to the letter”, the letters are actually telling you how to cut the corners.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
"The characteristics of more than one drawing type may be combined into a single drawing provided the resulting combination includes the data required by the individual types. Fore example: a modification kit drawing combines a description of the modification and the kit of items needed to accomplish the modification."
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
14.24 doesn't really explicitly say about dimensions for run of the mill assy drawings but does say: "4.1.3 Requirements. An assembly drawing includes as applicable, ... (c) requirements for decorative or protective finishes, processes, settings and adjustments, and other relevant data necessary to complete the item as an assembly...."
So if the parallelism can be achieved by 'processes, settings and adjustments' it seems reasonable to me that you'd directly dimension the required parallelism on the assy drawing.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Frank
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
OP’s clarification post:
“Yes two parts that are finished and then shown assembled in a drawing using Parallelism callout between the parts. “
This response indicates an “assembly” drawing.
Basic assembly drawings are a collection of parts which are designed to assemble and disassemble without destruction to the assembly. Certainly it is common and acceptable to apply “reference dimensions’ to an assembly.
Yes, (my earlier post acknowledged) there are different types of drawings that can be types of assemblies.
(e.g. inseparable assemblies, engineering assemblies, layouts, installation, kit drawings, outline, envelope drawings)
And yes, there are manufacturing, test, process, inspection drawings, of which are not assemblies.
Obviously inseparable assemblies are dimensioned with geometric controls as a common practice.
And why not? All of the features function as a single part and those selected features used to define
datums lie within that component. No problem.
My posed question(s) which no one has attempted to address:
“…how can the gage equipment be physically located in the actual assembly?”
“Wouldn't the features that are chosen for a DRF be based on part functionality and mating interfaces?”
Wouldn't those DRF features be inaccessible to gage equipment once the parts are assembled?”
Other inherent problems with tolerance dimensions on drawings:
-Referencing a feature of size given a material condition which is not dimensioned on that assembly.
-Referencing datums with material conditions that are not dimensioned on that assembly
-Referencing datums on one part that are applied to a totally different part
Lifttrucks
A “kit” is not an assembly drawing. It does have multiple components, often those components do not physically touch each other. Commonly used to specify “options” when ordering product or service parts.
It is a “kit” …. “The characteristics of more than one drawing type ….” Not an assembly.
Since you appear to have Y14.24 available, maybe you would share it’s definition of an “assembly” with the participants of this thread.
Ewh,
‘Please, standard number(s) and paragraph(s) to set us straight”
Oh please!
Be glad to, when you provide the standard number(s) and paragraph(s) to set me straight
verifying that 2+2=4. Or how about tolerances for sheet metal gage thicknesses? The standard, not the Machinery Handbook.
Or, maybe you can supply provide the standard number(s) and paragraph(s) to set me straight
from any of the 3 major aerospace engine manufacturers that states you can. All of which I have done or am doing business with. I can’t seem to find those standards.
CH,
I did a job or two with a government agency. That may be a problem you have that I can empathize with. A DOD rocket propulsion company working on concepts for Boeing and Raytheon actually had the entire engineering staff gather together in the auditorium, for me to address the problems that they were experiencing, partly because of combining engineering drawing types. There were over a 100 engineering folks there. Yes, the government agencies will listen to just about anybody. Go figure.
MintJulep,
I have seen NASA standards before. Where in the excerpt that you pasted, indicate that this Installation drawing applies the principles of ASME Y14.5? Really, NASA is going with “symmetry” on a platform installation? ASME Y14.5 (1994 or 2009) symmetry? Would you please explain that to me?
So,
Not one response to address the simple questions that I asked earlier in the post,
in order to have a little professional discussion.
Apologies all, I like to have a little fun with discussion, however this thread has lost any meaningful outcome. As we went thru the thread, my posts tried to distinguish between “run of the mill” assemblies as Kenat calls them, however apparently specific words aren’t working here. My bad.
Believe what you want to; do what you want to; hope it works out for you.
Good enough for me….
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I have an assembly that I have to check for geometrical tolerance.
What type of drawing according to ASME Y14.24 should I use to document geometrical requirement?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
My posed question(s) which no one has attempted to address:
That depends on the assembly and the gage equipment that is required. While it is possible to imagine cases where gaging would be difficult or impossible it is also possible to imagine cases where it is quite easy.
It is not necessary that features that require a functional relationship must be mating features.
Not necessarily.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
"Dumbutz"?
That's all you have?
Is that German?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Referencing a feature of size given a material condition which is not dimensioned on that assembly.
Referencing datums with material conditions that are not dimensioned on that assembly
Ever heard about reference dimensions?
Referencing datums on one part that are applied to a totally different part
What’s wrong with that? I want to position my hand WRT my foot.
Yes, the government agencies will listen to just about anybody. Go figure.
They are required by law to go with the lowest bidder
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Really, "required by law"?
Only a naive person would believe that.
Two years ago I was in D.C. for business.
Its not the "law". Its who you know and are connected to
when it comes to many things; especially awarding government contracts.
From my experience, the government pays very well.
After all, its your money.
Naw, in decades of experience I never heard of that term?
Enlighten me.
BTW,
Didn't state "reference dimension".
That is way different than a geometric control callout on an assembly
drawing, which is "referencing" a datum and or feature of size tolerance that exists
on a completely different drawing.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I was actually talking about reference dimensions rather than “referenced”.
If you look at, say, installation drawings, ALL dimensions on them are “reference”, because the mounting holes were machined long before, per separate drawings.
Nevertheless, Y14.24 suggests using both dimensional and geometrical tolerances on installations.
That creates precedent (since you spend lot of time in court, I figure you’d like the word) – GD&T applied to reference dimensions.
PS
I have no problems to emphasize with. Doing fine in private sector thank you very much.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
You requested that I share the definition of assembly from ASME Y14.24. Here is the definition from Mandatory Appendix I - Definition of Terms:
-----------------
assembly: a number of parts or subassemblies or any combination thereof joined together to perform a specific function, and subject to disassembly without degradation of any of the parts. (Examples: power shovel-front, fan assembly, audio-frequency amplifier.)
-----------------
As far as combination of drawing types, my company uses many subassemblies that included slotted brackets. The drawings include dimensions so the assembler can pre-locate the brackets. Once the subassembly is placed on the assembly, the slots allow for fine-tuning. So this is technically a combination of an assembly and installation drawing. This practice is in accordance with Y14.24.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Frank
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
It’s interesting that most are focused on drawing types and what the Y14.5 standard “doesn’t say”.
However that focus does not address application and /or interpretation of geometric controls
shown on an assembly drawing and how to apply the Y14.5 fundamentals to features within an assembly which reside on different parts of that assembly.
Okay, you place geometric controls on an assembly drawing as described by OP.
Explain the details of that parallelism control to the metrology department and to me to please,
as to the criteria for accepting or rejecting assemblies that conform to ASME Y14.5m 1994.
Lift truck
Thank you for posting that definition. It reinforces my previous posted definition.
What you describe that your company uses to” instruct the assembler” is technically a process drawing.
fsincox
You are comparing a catalog sketch / cartoon / envelope / etc. to an assembly?
“A ball bearing is really an assembly…” That would be an inseparable assembly. You don’t distinguish the difference?
The ball, retainer, shield, race, cap, etc. will all have detail drawings to dimensionally define them.
An assembly consisting of drawing views for part relationship and part list information etc. will also exist internally to the bearing manufacturer.
How does your catalog reference relate to an engineering document?
CH,
Sure? I can’t empathize with the problem that your post emphasizes… maybe spelling?
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
As classy as obnoxious (did I spell it right?) font.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Frank
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I am answering your original question. I see no problems with tolerance and GD&T on assembly drawings, as long as there is some way the assembler can achieve it.
If plate A is bolted to plate B, the parallelism will be controlled by the two fabricated parts. There is nothing the assembler can do. At best, the GD&T is for reference, only.
If the connection is adjustable or slotted or whatever, you must provide dimensions and tolerances to the assembler. Hopefully, they will follow your drawings and understand the GD&T. All the standard rules about process and inspection on fabricated parts, apply to your assembly.
--
JHG
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Sidebar for CH,
I did answer your question the previous post, IMO.
You and others appear not to distinguish between the various drawing types.
Posts continue to ref installations, inseparable assemblies, process drawings, catalog cartoons etc.
From my point of view, since GDT is a language, and the thread participants do not or will not
consider the differences and distinctions of specific terms and definitions... as I wrote
earlier, “…there cannot be any meaningful outcome.” IMO
If there is no difference between assembly; inseparable assembly; installation; process drawing (giving the
"assembler" instructions), then datum, datum feature, datum simulator are all the same because all use
the word "datum".
drawOh just posted and doesn’t see a problem with dimensions on an "assembly" drawing.
Well then the concept of simulating a datum thru the use of gage equipment is out the door.
If the mating production part surfaces which all have been produced at varying tolerances,
and varying form; and those surfaces are used to establish datums... IMO you might as
well just forget about primary Y14.5 concepts. IMO
BTW
Even though I disagree with those that are fine with applying geometric controls to an assembly,
I did not say it couldnt be done, rather that amendments of clarification should be written. IMO
At this point, I could care less if you want to try and apply Y14.5 to your grandma's underwear.
Make up some stinky rationalization... it's your world...
Obnoxious
You actually make me smile. Seriously, you call it obnoxious?
Well was there any insinuation regarding "the lowest bidder"?
I have seen you put barbs in your comments.
"Ever heard about reference dimensions?" your comment CH.
That can be considered "obnoxious".
Are you telling me with the handle "CheckerHater" you aren't obnoxious at times?
You are quite right, I certainly can be obnoxious.
If you're going to dish it out, then prepare for some to come your way.
I do not know you, to banter with you.
I will chill on the obnoxious from my end.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
I think somebody up above noted that ASME Y14.5 does not mention anything about types of drawings. I agree with this.
You are absolutely right that GD&T controls are futile if there is no way to contact the datums. This is true for assembly drawings, fabrications, service manuals, and any other document you might apply this stuff to.
I routinely design fixtures in which a part is clamped down on top of springs by screws or nuts. The assembler must position the part correctly. My drawing has a note indicating that the dimension units (usually) are in millimeters. A second note states that dimensions and tolerances are as per ASME Y14.5M-1994. Typically, I apply a dimension with tolerances to the appropriate assembly view, e.g. 10±0.5.
In ASME Y14.5, plus/minus dimensions are just as valid as feature control frames. The features are accessible to be measured with their digital calipers. I do not think our assemblers understand GD&T, so I am reluctant to use it. I often leave a note on the drawing stating that a 1:1 print is a valid assembly fixture, and I apply a dimension reference that can be checked with a ruler to verify the plot accuracy.
Any reference dimensions on such assembly drawings I mark with brackets, as per the standard.
I also routinely do not indicate anything about the dimensioning and tolerancing standard on my assembly drawings. In this case, any dimensions I apply to the drawings are for reference only. The assembler has no control over them. I have never done it, but I see no reason why I should not apply a feature control frame to show a profile, parallelism or some other tolerance that results from the sufficiently accurate fabricated parts. This could be useful design information. Often, I apply notes to assembly drawings to show ANSI fits such as RC5 or LC5. These things often are useful information, and they function as design notes that explain the tolerances on the fabrication drawings.
--
JHG
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
drawoh
Thank for your post and clarification.
It appears that we are in agreement for the most part.
My view is that the Y14.5 standard is mainly meant to be applied to detail drawings.
Other posts have stated, that Y14.5 does not state Y14.5 cannot be applied to assembly drawings. (Inseparable assemblies are a type of detail drawing)
I find and have experienced problems with geometric controls shown on basic assembly drawings.
The problems come from interpretation of those controls on basic assembly drawings, in lieu of Y14.5 concepts. IMO
Y14.24 defines types of engineering drawings. Often assembly drawings require other useful types of information
as you point out. Y14.5m geometric controls applied to assemblies, without clarification in respect to Y14.5
basic concepts (e.g. simulating a datum) can and does cause unnecessary confusion. IMO
Thanks again for taking your time to post.
RE: Parallelism used in an assembly between two parts
Are we talking about inappropriate use of the standard, or we talking about bad drafting?
--
JHG