Doubt in deriving datum
Doubt in deriving datum
(OP)
Hi PFA.
Is it a right approach to derive DATUM C from TWO HOLES (2X) ?
Regards
Vimal.
Is it a right approach to derive DATUM C from TWO HOLES (2X) ?
Regards
Vimal.
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
|
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
1) primary "planar datum A" is from three points.
2) Secondary planar datum is from axis.
3*) Tertiary planar datum (Datum C) from three axis. (Datum B and other 2X dia .XXX).
Is it possible to derive a plane from three axis practically as mentoned in 3*) ?.
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
In this method the part is checked against ideal surfaces representing A, B, and the two holes C. These surfaces will take into account the variation allowed. I cannot be more precise as there is no tolerance or geometric characteristic associated with B and no tolerance associated with C.
One means of creating these surfaces for checking the part is to create a fixture with a flat surface to mate with A, a pin with the same size as the virtual size of B and a pin of virtual size for each hole in C. It will also have pins that match the four holes, also of virtual size.
The first part check is to make certain that none of the holes is larger or smaller than allowed, then placing the part on the fixture will allow the pins at B and C to limit the part shift and orientation relative to the A plane. If the part can be shifted to allow the four other holes to also fit over the pins the part is good.
It isn't required to determine the locations of the axes of any of the holes to use such an inspection fixture.
You can work through the math required to simulate the same thing mathematically, where the axes are allowed to shift by the amount the datum features exceed their virtual sizes, but it is complicated as there are an infinite number of solutions that might allow the part to meet the requirements and is even more complicated it the datum features are not perfectly shaped. I think the minimum representation is an X and Y offset and a Theta offset, so that's three equations for 7 holes, or 21 inequalities ( 0 < calculated value < tolerance limit) involving trigonometric operators, so not linear equations.
The only time the axis method is of greater value is if the virtual size of a feature is zero or negative; for example, a hole that is .250 in diameter with a positional tolerance equal to or larger than .250. While it is possible to create a fixture with moving parts to simulate this, using mathematics to validate the part is a useful option.
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
Are the datum feature simulators for “C” diamond shape or regular pins (cylinders)?
Or you might say, the OP datum structure might need translation modifier (per Y14.5-2009)on datum feature C and THEN the regular cylindrical pins for C can be used. What are your thoughts?
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
He is the one you should be thankful to.
RE: Doubt in deriving datum
Dave's explanation is quite complete and correct. I can't really add anything.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca