×
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

Two datums adequate?

Two datums adequate?

Two datums adequate?

(OP)
Hello,

I know typically we use 3 datums, primary, secondary, and tertiary to restrict freedom of movement of features. However, in this case, I was wondering, since there are no internal features (holes, etc), this would be adequately defined using only two datums? I'm thinking that a 3rd datum wouldn't really do anything here...

RE: Two datums adequate?

What would locate the profile along the extrusion axis, (if you think of that as an extruded angle shape)?

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
Well, this is the crux of my question. If this isn't adequate, I need a suggestion as to what more is needed...

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
I can see how that works, but what if I don't want as close on the thicknesses?

RE: Two datums adequate?

It doesn't apply to the thicknesses, that's not how 'all over' works, I believe. Reference 8-8 in Y14.5-2009.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

RE: Two datums adequate?

If we use "all over" then there's probably no need to reference datums. And it would control thickness.
But to your original question, since there are two profile tolerances that reference the same datums, they are gaged simultaneously. Thus, your original inkling is correct; no other datum is needed. The profile tolerances themselves control the degree of freedom that is not covered by datums A and B.

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

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
Thanks, Belanger. That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure.

RE: Two datums adequate?

Beat me to it, Belanger!
Unfortunately Y14.5-2009 says very little about new “all over” requirement.
The way it’s shown on Fig. 8-8 and explained in Para. 8.3.1.6, Profile All Over is
1. Three-dimensional
2. Requires the entire part to be dimensioned Basic
3. Datumless, because the entire part is referenced to itself
4. If all of the above is true, you’ll have to drop datums, and dimension thickness Basic, so thickness will be controlled indeed.
I have to admit I’ve never seen All Over actually used and even less often seen sufficient explanation of what All Over can and cannot do.
Any committee members here? What were you guys thinking?

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
Well, for whatever reason, we're using 1994 anyway, so the 2009 standard would not apply to us.

RE: Two datums adequate?

For your information, ALL OVER is mentioned in 1994 too, see para. 6.5.2(a), page 167.

But coming back to the original drawing and question, it is true that the tertiary datum reference is not needed here.

Secondly, there are some issues on the drawing:
1. Some of the surfaces (side faces) controlled by profile between C and D are already controlled by profile between A and B.
2. Because horizontal thickness of the part (.250) is not basic, basic dimension .750 shouldn't start at the top face of the part, but rather at the datum feature A (thus the dimension should be basic .500).

RE: Two datums adequate?

Apologies for the confusion on thickness. I did not see some of the detail of the tolerance zone in Fig 8-8 that led to my error.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
I agree with pmarc on item #2. Is #1 truly an issue? If so, how to get around it?

RE: Two datums adequate?

By moving points C and D from the upper corners down to the points where radii R.060 start.

RE: Two datums adequate?

(OP)
OK. I see your point. Didn't think it was an issue since the two profile tolerances don't conflict.

RE: Two datums adequate?

No, it’s not an issue.
You can specify more than one requirement for the same feature.
As long as your part satisfies both, you are OK

RE: Two datums adequate?

Para. 1.4(c): "Each necessary dimension of an end product shall be shown. No more dimensions than those necessary for complete definition shall be given. [...]"

On the OP drawing profile applied between points C and D adds no value to the definition of side faces. It is just a repetition of the requirement defined by profile between A and B, thus there is no reason for it to be there.

RE: Two datums adequate?

pmarc,
How about shifting C & D down to the points of tangency of the two opposing fillets, though?
Frank

RE: Two datums adequate?

Quote (pmarc)

By moving points C and D from the upper corners down to the points where radii R.060 start.
Is this what you mean, Frank?

RE: Two datums adequate?

pmarc,
Right, sorry, I should have slowed down, thank you.
Frank

RE: Two datums adequate?

Any discussion of how it should be tolerance should beg the question "how does it function... what orients and/or locates what... what tolerance liberties and refinements are necessary for ideal function?"

If the flatness and perpendicularity were extracted leaving just the profile all over... max flatness on surface A would increase to .004 and max orientation of surface B to A could exceed .004.
I should have boxed the thicknesses... my mistake.
Paul

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