×
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 of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
Hi all,

I never saw this before but it got me thinking... is it legal to use a Profile of a Line (All Around) with Position (Boundary)?

Please see the attached file.

Thanks,
Tarator.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

ASME Y14.5-2009 Para. 7.2 starts with the phrase “Position is the location of one or more features of size relative to one another or to one or more datums.”

I would stop right there because your feature doesn’t look like feature of size to me.

Nevertheless, I would like to see other opinions.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

My guess would be it is a legitimate extension of the profile-boundary concept.
Frank

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Sure -- see Fig. 8-24 of the Y14.5 standard (and paragraph 8.8). It's almost the same as yours, although using profile of a line would change the depth aspect of its interpretation.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

According to Para. 8.8 the entire feature surface should lie within a boundary.

How do you guys visualize the boundary of TAPERED feature?

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

I am not sure if there is much difference in a single line, single value profile of a line callout to a complete datum framework with all dimensions stated basic and a profile if a surface callout to the same number and datum framework? J-P or pmarc?
Frank

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Sorry,
"profile OF a surface", not "if".
Frank

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

CH -- I have reservations about that too. While it's OK to use profile of a line so that variations depth-wise are allowed, that takes away from the idea of a constant boundary that position is trying to establish. I wanted to bring Fig. 8-24 into the discussion, but I await other comments about whether it's totally kosher to use this on a tapered feature.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

JP, this is what bothering me. "Boundary" in connection with Position usually refers to virtual condition which requires size of some sort. The feature on OP's picture won't qualify even as irregular FOS.

And second question: why? This looks exactly like the situation when Profile of a surface should be used to control position. And it would be perfectly legal. I am really lost trying to imagine benefits of NOT using it.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
The internal feature I tried to sketch doesn't have a constant draft angle. And the mating part that goes through is extruded (with zero draft angle). The function of the opening is clearance only.

I thought, if this is legal, it would be easier to call it out on the drawing, gives better consistent gap (nominal gap) around the mating part, etc.

My concern was profile of a line is a 2D control, where position is a 3D control. However, logically, the curve edge is an irregular feature of size, and position should be able to control the location. Maybe I'm wrong, it's not legal to use them together.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

By definition, irregular feature of size is something that can be controlled by an envelope.
If you showed that envelope (like inscribed circle) on your drawing and applied position to it, that would be extension of principles I could live with. Then you would control the outline using profile separately.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

As stated, can't use position. Not allowed for oddball shapes like this.

Use 2x profile tolerances. The first, profile to A, controls the shape but not the position or orientation. The second, profile to A-B-C, controls the position and orientation. this way you can control the shape to a tight tolerance but allow it to float over a larger region.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

A tapered internal feature is a 3D feature, so profile of a surface will be more reasonable to control the orientation, how do you think?

BTW, the all around leader line need to touch the profile FCF I/O position FCF.

Season

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
CheckerHater,

The envelope you mention.. would it be the same outline shape extruded all the way down?

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Hi All,

I don't think that this "combined controls" applications works with Line Profile.

I'm okay with the Position tolerance itself. Applying Position at MMC to an irregular enclosed feature is fine, even if it's tapered - this is a standard application of Boundary Position.

The way I understand it, the Line Profile tolerance would control individual cross-sectional slices of the feature. The slices are parallel to Datum A. The problem is that this doesn't fully control the feature's size and form - it's like a deck of cards. So there is no definite size-and-form "MMC" boundary for the Position boundary to be defined from.

If Surface Profile was specified instead of Line Profile, then the application would work.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
Axym,

There is only one slice (because of the tapered geometry!! And the position only controls that slice.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Tarator,

If the intent is that there is only one slice, I'm not sure that the drawing conveys that. By default, geometric characteristics apply to the entire surface of the feature. This includes Line Profile.

You might consider an additional annotation, showing a limited depth that the tolerances apply to (probably in a side view).

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
Line Profile is applied to 2D line elements not surfaces (and it depends on the view angle)... if the internal feature in my sketch had 0 draft angle all around, then the Line Profile would apply to each section/slice element.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Tarator,

I maintain that Line Profile is applied to surfaces. The surface is sliced into 2D line elements, that each have a tolerance zone.

I agree that the view angle comes into play. The slices (and thus the 2D line elements) are perpendicular to the view direction.

Can you point me to something in the standard that mentions the influence of the draft angle? I haven't heard of anything that states that the tolerance applies to only one element for a surface with draft, and to multiple elements for surfaces with no draft.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

Evan
You are absolutely right, profile of a line will not create a MMC position boundary.

Season

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

(OP)
OK, let's focus on the original question... is it legal or not legal?

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

You mentioned "My concern was profile of a line is a 2D control, where position is a 3D control. However, logically, the curve edge is an irregular feature of size, and position should be able to control the location"

If you are attempting to control only the sharp edge then add a note that states the controls apply only to the edge. Otherwise it will appear to apply to the full depth of the feature, in which case it does not completely control the clearance surface, for reasons already mentioned.

You might also use a conventional profile tolerance and boundary position tolerance combination with a note that it only applies to some small amount of depth, which is true because no edge is infinitely sharp.

Presumably a more complete drawing would have shown the control you have in mind for the remainder of the clearance surface, to avoid that as a red herring.

RE: Profile of a Line and Position (Boundary) Together Legal?

For what is worth, here are my loose thoughts on some aspects of this discussion. This probably won't bring anything new, but hopefully will strengthen some opinions:

1. I agree with Evan that position tolerance can be used in case of tapered features, even when the feature is non-uniformly tapered. Such feature, if fully defined for its size and form (through profile of surface tolerance), falls under definition 1.3.32(b) - irregular feature of size type B - where the shape of the envelope contained within this feature is simply "other than a sphere, cylinder, or pair of parallel planes". I am not saying this is the best approach to tolerance such features, I am just trying to say that this technique is valid and mathematically interpretable.

2. Assuming that only the profile of a line / position combination is applied to this fancy-shaped hole, this is not legal callout. Profile of a line itself is not capable of controlling size and form of the feature depth-wise. Thus, even without going into details on whether it applies to specific single slice or to multiple slices of the feature independently, this combined callout violates one of the fundamental rules of dimensioning and tolerancing as defined in para. 1.4(b) - not every characteristic of the feature is fully defined. The deck of cards example is absolutely spot-on.

3. Like it was said, by default profile of a line callout applies to the entire depth of the feature, unless otherwise specified. Therefore, if the intent is to apply the profile of a line requirement just to a single slice or to restricted depth of the feature, it must be clearly stated on the drawing. And by analogy the same applies to the position callout. But even if it is done, the rest of the feature must be somehow controlled in order to avoid incomplete definition of feature's geometry.

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