Paralell vs Profile....
Paralell vs Profile....
(OP)
I have a flat part with 3 raised surfaces on one side that are shown coplanar. The customer wants those three surfaces to be parallel to datum A, an opposite surface, within 0.3mm. While waiting for an answer, everything about the design looks like something sits on the 3 pads....
What I want to do on my drawing is use a profile callout with a 3 surfaces note but my team is rejecting that in favor of parallel because its easier to inspect and not a callout of the customer. My question is if I was to place a 3 surfaces note attached to the FCF of a parallel callout would that mean the 3 surfaces are parallel to A collectively?
What I want to do on my drawing is use a profile callout with a 3 surfaces note but my team is rejecting that in favor of parallel because its easier to inspect and not a callout of the customer. My question is if I was to place a 3 surfaces note attached to the FCF of a parallel callout would that mean the 3 surfaces are parallel to A collectively?
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2





RE: Paralell vs Profile....
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
Is there a toleranced dimension between “opposite surface” and 3 raised surfaces?
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
Where does it say, that customer wants to control locational relationship with parallelism?
Will profile without basic dimension control location?
Aren't we making up way to many things?
Questions, questions...
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
Will profile without basic dimension control location? It will not control location of surfaces relative to datum(s), but it will control locational relationship between the surfaces without focusing on their location relative to the datum(s).
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
"COMMON ZONE" or "CONTIUOUS FEATURE" under the parallel callout these are standard terminologies that will most likely be understood to convey your intended message.
Frank
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
If customer insists on parallelism rock solid, Continuous Feature will require to treat features geometrically as one AKA collectively (Para. 2.7.5).
Combined with that Tangent will require to pick highest points of all 3.
Not as much fun as profile, but may do the job.
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
That's how I can relate to CH's name :)
Frank
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
this sounds like the solution if they wont allow me to use a profile callout. It sounds like the same intent as if I used "2 SURFACES" except I've never had to address this with a parallel spec and thought it only allowed used with Datum or Profile multiple surfaces.
agree. I have a hard time explaining how profile would be easier to inspect in some cases (especially vs. position) so I always get my drawings marked up to replace profile callouts in those situations. I see customer drawing errors all the time but the problem is most of my team doesnt want to "change" a callout even if it defines the design intent accurately. (I design part drawings for welded assemblies the customer designs, I only get the final assembly drawing to work with) The argument is that I am adding callouts the customer did not want or require.......
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
(see current threads)
Frank
RE: Paralell vs Profile....
LOL Frank most days are fine but some days my drawings are so micromanaged I wonder why they require drafters initials on the drawings at all. There is something about questioning a callout that makes people feel their GDT knowledge is being undermined and then their attitude flairs up. To me it’s not about being right it’s about finding the right answer.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2