×
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

Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Profile tolerance : Offset surface

(OP)
Hi All,
Have one question regarding profile of a surface tolerance. The tolerance zone is formed by sweeping a spherical ball of size equal to tolerance value over the toleranced surface to have the upper limit and lower limit surfaces.

1. Can’t we simply offset the toleranced surfaces to get the tolerance zone.
2. Want to know the exact idea of using spherical ball concept to define the tolerance zone. (Is there any manufacturing considerations)?

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

1. How you "simply" offset the surface?
2. It's mathematical concept, not manufacturing. The ball is imaginary.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

The concept of profile tolerance zone formed by sweeping a spherical ball of size equal to tolerance value over the toleranced surface is ISO specific. In ASME both profile tolerance zone boundaries are offset in a direction normal to true profile of a feature.

The difference becomes visible when you consider a geometry like the one shown in fig. 8-12 in Y14.5-2009. If this figure was according to ISO, the all-around tolerance zone in the area of all corners would be rounded and not sharp.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

As I understand it that is the difference you get when you have sharp corners or a radius or another feature come to that smaller than the offset.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Really.
The figure from ISO 1101 does not show shape of the profile tolerance zone. It just shows which portions of the contour the all-around specification applies to.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Quote (ajak1)

As I understand it that is the difference you get when you have sharp corners or a radius or another feature come to that smaller than the offset.

Yes, ASME and ISO approach will yeld different results in that case. Looks like the ISO does better job at "offsetting" the surface.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH,

Pmarc is right, ISO 1101 specifies the swept-sphere method. The diagram you posted appears to be incorrect, because the corners are not rounded. Is it from a textbook?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Evan,

Would you please show me where in ISO 1101 or ISO 1660 “swept-sphere” tolerance zone actually goes around the sharp corner?

Yes, the tolerance zone of a profile tolerance is defined by tangential envelopes on circles (profile tolerance of a line) or on spheres (profile tolerance of a surface) whose diameters are equal to the tolerance value and centered on the nominal form.

No, the form of the envelope of the circles or spheres (tolerance zone) between the specified points is not standardized.

So, I would greatly appreciate reference to any reliable source showing how said envelope behaves when going around the corner.

My source : http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/publication_item...

The author: Dr. Henrik S. Nielsen, Chair of ISO technical committee ISO/TC 213

As ISO 1660 is currently being reviewed by the committee, it’s hard to tell what the future will bring. smile

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

The main problem with sharp corners controlled by swept-sphere-based profile tolerance is the inconsequence in shapes of inner and outer boundary of the tolerance zone in the corner area. If we take the picture attached by SeasonLee, we will easily notice that the tolerance zone boundary that lies inside the material of the part has both corners sharp, while the boundary that lies outside of the material has both corners round. In my opinion this is logical consequence of swept-sphere tolerance zone approach - the inner boundary must be sharp and the outer boundary must be round.

Now, in ASME we will not have profile tolerance zone outer boundary round in the corner area (unless such a requirement is specifically stated on the drawing). And this is the difference between ISO and ASME I was talking about.

At the end of the day, I am afraid we will not get consensus, until some new/revised ISO standard(s) clearly show(s) how to deal with sharp corners controlled by profile tolerance.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

I agree, ISO should provide more clarification.

But I really see no difference between ISO and ASME approach. ASME definition can be interpreted to produce round corners as well .ASME just arbitrarily decided to extend surfaces until they intersect. ISO could do the same.

This is why I am really curious where Season's picture comes from.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Thank you Season,

According to ASME Y14.5.1M “A profile tolerance zone is an area or a volume generated by offsetting each point on the nominal surface in a direction normal to the nominal surface at that point”.
No mathematical definition is given to what is happening around sharp corners, or how to extend offset surface outside of its boundaries.
Even if we imagine that the sharp edge has some qualities of a surface, and we still able to draw normals to it in different directions, we end up with something like enclosed picture.
This is what I mean by saying that default ASME definition results in rounded corners as well.
On the good side ASME arbitrarily decided that offset surfaces have to be extended until they intersect each other.
On the bad side there is no definition on how to extend them. It looks easy with straight lines, but could be difficult with curves of higher order.
This is why I think both ASME and ISO “have some splaining to do”

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH,

I agree that the current standards (ASME Y14.5, ASME Y14.5.1, ISO 1101) all have gaps in the definitions.

ASME in particular, states that the offset boundaries need to be extended but doesn't say how to extend them. We can make reasonable assumptions on extrapolation for flat surfaces and simple arcs, but extrapolation surfaces with non-constant curvature is a guessing game.

The ISO 1101 swept-sphere definition has its drawbacks as well, but I thought that at least the meaning was clear. You're saying that we don't know what the tolerance zone boundaries would look like in the vicinity of a sharp corner? I'm not sure I see the uncertainty.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH,

I don't have the ISO 1101 standard in front of me, so I'm not sure how it defines "all around".

The figure you posted looks like it is from a textbook, not one of the ISO standards. Is that correct? The way that the tolerance zone boundaries are depicted in the figure does not agree with the idea of sweeping a sphere along the true profile.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

There is still something I do not understand about your interpretation of ASME interpretation of what is happening in the vicinity of sharp corners, CH.

On one hand you say that:

Quote (CH)

This is what I mean by saying that default ASME definition results in rounded corners as well.

On the other hand:

Quote (CH)

On the good side ASME arbitrarily decided that offset surfaces have to be extended until they intersect each other.

How is it possible? What am I missing here? Why don't I see rounded profile tolerance zones in figs. 8-8 or 8-12 in Y14.5-2009 (for example), if this is default interpretation?

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

I too am confused; as CH states Y14.5.1M states in section 6.5(a) "Definition. A profile tolerance zone is an area (profile of a line) or a volume (profile of a surface) generated by offsetting each point on the nominal surface in a direction normal to the nominal surface at that point." Since a sharp corner has no one "normal" it seems to follow that a radius would be swept about that corner.
The example illustrations don't show that interpretation, leading to this confusion.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Pmarc,
I am trying to point out the fact, that if you go by ASME mathematical definition ALONE you will have round corners, hence illustration to my post from 30 Oct 13 6:51.
Then I notice, that ASME made arbitrary decision that offset surfaces have to be extended ‘til they intersect, BUT did not provide mathematical definition, HOW EXACTLY they have to be extended.
That makes it open to interpretation, or, in other words, AMBIGUOUS.
This is what I meant saying that BOTH ISO and ASME are not clear in their definitions.
Axym,
I’ve already answered your question in my post from 29 Oct 13 13:16. It’s from the book by Dr. Nielsen who happens to be Chair of ISO technical committee ISO/TC 213.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH,
I took a look to Y14.5.1. Of course it is true that it says that:
"A profile tolerance zone is an area or a volume generated by offsetting each point on the nominal surface in a direction normal to the nominal surface at that point".
But to be honest, after reading this statement, I do not really see a problem with identification of a direction of the offset at the sharp corner.

If 2 profiled surfaces are nominally flat, like shown on your picture:
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=f...
the sharp corner point, which is common for both surfaces, is offset in two directions:
1. Direction normal to the true profile of the horizontal surface.
2. Direction normal to the true profile of the vertical surface.
This is my understanding of the quote.

The math standard is silent on what the shape of remaining area of profile tolerance zone is, but this is where the Y14.5 standard comes into play with some figures showing that offset surfaces have to be extended until they intersect, and that they form sharp, not rounded, tolerance zone. Granted, this is Y14.5's arbitrary decision, but I think it is much better than nothing offered by Y14.5.1.

Having said that, on the attached picture I still do not see a justification for presence of two radial lines emanating from the corner.

Of course I am also interested to hear why you think that ISO definition of "all-around" leads to ambiguity (maybe a reason to start another thread?)

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

If this drawing is governed by Y14.5 - no, I could not.
If the drawing was governed by ISO, then I would say the tolerance zone would be rounded at the tip.

But that does not mean your interpretation shown in the previous sketch is right. It just means that ASME definition has certain shortcomings - like some other definitions throughout the standard.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

So, do you agree that ASME definition of all-around profile fails without proper mathematical backing?

Does it make it open to interpretation?

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

I admit that ASME definition of all-around profile is not mathematically backed up for each and every case.

However, I also claim that the interpretation presented in your previous sketch is not in accordance with Y14.5 and Y14.5.1. One does not really have to go deep into details of the math standard to find out that the tolerance zone in your graphic can't be rounded - figs. 8-8 and 8-12 show that without any ambiguity.

And finally, if, despite of all of that, you still claim that your interpretation of shape of profile tolerance zone is correct (based on your understanding of the quote from Y14.5.1, and somehow ignoring what Y14.5 shows), read the last sentence of paragraph 1.2 in Y14.5-2009: "In the event of a conflict between the text of this Standard and the references cited herein, the text of this Standard shall take precedence".

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

OK, I repeat one more time, the picture shown in 30 Oct 13 6:51 based on 14.5.1 definition alone, without taking 14.5 into consideration.
The picture shows normals drawn to edge. If it’s difficult to visualize, imagine (by extension of principle) that sharp edge is actually re-e-e-e-e-e-eally small radius.
If you insist that 14.5 supersedes 14.5.1 you must come up with interpretation that will allow you to extend the tolerance zone on my picture from 31 Oct 13 10:01 based on figs. 8-8 and 8-12.
But enough of that.
Pmarc, axym, season,
24 hours ago I politely asked to produce reference to any reliable source showing how ISO all-around tolerance zone behaves when going around the sharp corner.
The only response I got so far was “you are wrong”.
I suggest we stop this discussion where it is.
Instead we could try and discuss to finer detail, as pmarc suggested, ISO definition of all-around.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to present my case ‘til at least late afternoon.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH,

Sorry to repeat the same question - I overlooked your initial response about the textbook. If my response came across as "you are wrong", then I apologize - I am just reluctant to take any GD&T textbook as a "reliable source". This is from experience with textbooks written by various members of the Y14.5 subcommittee, that have content that does not completely agree with the content of the Y14.5 standard. I suspect that similar differences might exist on the ISO side, so I wanted to see how the ISO standards define ALL AROUND. I still have not looked this up.

I agree with you that the Y14.5.1M-1994 definition is lacking, and we cannot determine the corner geometry based on this definition alone. It does not even mention the preservation of sharp corners, that Y14.5 mentions. So I suppose that the rounded corner interpretation does not conflict with the Y14.5.1M-1994 definition, but it would conflict with the Y14.5 definition. The definitions in Y14.5 and Y14.5.1 both have gaps and need improvement. So yes, I would agree that the ASME definitions for all-around profile fail for certain types of geometry, because we don't know exactly what happens at the corners.

Your picture from 31 Oct 13 10:01 is quite compelling. This geometry completely defeats the ASME Y14.5 definition - I can't see how to extend those boundaries in a meaningful way. As the angle between the two surfaces at the tip approaches zero, the extension of the "outside corner" of the tolerance zone approaches infinity. I agree with pmarc that the zone would be rounded at the tip, if the ISO definition was used. This part seems straightforward to me, based on the idea of the sphere that is swept along the true profile.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Thank you Evan,
It’s even funnier if angle does not approach zero (see picture)
This is why I suggested to stop arguing about shortcomings of 14.5 and check our (mis)understandings of deeper underlying concepts like what is happening to “all-around” in ASME and ISO worlds.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

In my reply from 29 Oct 13 13:48 I said:
"At the end of the day, I am afraid we will not get consensus, until some new/revised ISO standard(s) clearly show(s) how to deal with sharp corners controlled by profile tolerance."

I said it, because as far as I am aware there is no official ISO document specifically addressing this issue. At the same time I think that swept-sphere approach must result in a rounded corner of one of profile tolerance zone boundaries. As Evan said, this seems quite straightforward.

As for the figure 7-3 from Mr. Nielsen handbook, I have a feeling (but this is just a feeling based on the title of the figure), that its intention was not to show in details how the profile tolerance zones look like in vicinity of the corners. It was rather to show that profiles with and without CZ modifier have different meanings according to ISO GPS philosophy.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

I agree with your doubts about fig 7-3, BUT…
So far it’s the only picture that actually shows what’s happening when several separate zones become one “common zone” and it’s coming from the closest possible source to ISO committee.
So I keep asking if someone can produce reference from… anything reliable. Draft of the new standard. Textbook written by committee member. Anything.
Until then I believe, we still have reasonable doubt.

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

CH - Your "Now what" figures made me laugh out loud... Good discussion, and very good points. It would be very nice to have one very good standard (set of standards) in the World. Instead we have two separate sets that both need some work. I still like ASME standards much better than ISO, but I would prefer CZ over CF and I think we need a sphere swept profile tolerance zone too. ISO should be restructured with fewer standards, their size tolerances need a default perfect form boundary, they should adopt ASME's feature axis and center plane definitions, and they don't need Concentricity, in my opinion.

Best Regards,
Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com

RE: Profile tolerance : Offset surface

Our discussion in this thread "made me" ask Mr. H.S. Nielsen, Chair of ISO/TC 213, for clarification about this entire topic. We had an e-mail discussion, and this is how I would summarize it:

Say we have a simple square defined with height/width basic dimensions and a profile tolerance without datum feature references...

If profile tolerance is applied between points A & B (where A and B are corners #1 and for example #4 of the square), according to Mr. Nielsen profile tolerance zone will be rounded at corners #2 and #3. This is because the "between" profile specification, as defined in clauses 10.1.1 and 10.1.4 of ISO 1101:2012, makes 3 sides of the square - between A & B - single contiguous feature. The tolerance zone ball is swept along that contiguous feature just like it would be swept if the contour between points A & B was a single line, arc or spline.

If, however, the profile tolerance was applied all around the contour, he admitted that the specification could be read two ways:
1. That profile tolerance frame applies all around, but each of the sides of the square are still independent features, or in other words, there is no orientational and locational relationship between them. (This is in line with upper-right picture of figure 7-3 from his book - profile is applied all around the contour, but each tolerance zone is independent of the others). So if they are independent, there is no issue with the corners, because each independent tolerance zone contains no corners.
2. Similar to the "between A & B" scenario - the all-around specification makes the entire contour single contiguous feature, and then the tolerance zone will have 4 rounded corners.

And there is one more case - profile tolerance applied all around with additional CZ (common zone) modifier inside tolerance frame. This drawing specification "does not create one feature, instead you lock the tolerance zones for all the toleranced features together in nominal location and orientation. Since all the tolerance zones in principle >>go to infinity<< and the workpiece have to fulfill all the tolerances, the practical result is that you get sharp corners, as I also illustrate in my book".

I will refrain from any comments about this at the moment (especially about the part regarding profile tolerance without CZ applied all-around). I just want to give brief and impartial description of what he told me.

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