Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
(OP)
For a composite profile callout, we know the small tolerance always on the lower segment for the reason of refinement, is this rule also apply to multiple single segment profile callout and multiple geometric control? Please ref to the attached for details.
Thanks
Season
Thanks
Season





RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
If you need examples from Y14.5-2009, take a look at fig. 8-23.
Change profile tolerance to something less than 0.5 in fig. 8-24, and you will get another example.
So to conclude, I would say that in your attachment both options in 2 and both options in 3 are acceptable.
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
In fig. 8-24 2009 standard, the position control is a refinement of the profile control, is this the reason why the position callout on the lower segment ? Can we place the position callout on top of the profile callout ?
Season
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
How the position is a refinement of the profile?
"In fig. 8-24 2009 standard, the position control is a refinement of the profile control, is this the reason why the position callout on the lower segment" ?
Profile will not control ONLY the size and form ? And position will not control ONLY location?
And if we would like to refine the location then a composite position is needed? PLTZF 0.5(M) to a, B and C, FRTZF: 0.3(M) (or something lower than 0.5) to A (or A, B and or C for example)
"Can we place the position callout on top of the profile callout " I would vote for yes.
see below: isn't it what you are asking for? If not.....sorry.... again my shameless disclaimer (I am learning)
http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=284
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=154
http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=153
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
Season
RE: Small tolerance always on the lower segment?
Both are correct and have exactly the same meaning. The order is not important. Both frames do not even have to "touch" each other, because they are two different call-outs. However, perpendicularity has to be a refinement of the position call-out.
That being said, I am questioning why the perpendicularity call-out doesn't have MMC modifier? Technically and "grammatically", it doesn't have to have the MMC modifier. Functionally, I am wondering what kind of application is this feature for? Do you have a good reason?