×
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

Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)



Does anyone know of supporting documentation in: ASME Y14.5 or other professional training material for the orientation of this type tolerance zone other than "parallel to line element direction" in the view of the FCF as defined in ASME Y14.5 ?

Referencing a previous thread where the answer to a question was largely due to a claim that straightness control regarding a planar line element tolerance zone did not need to be oriented parallel to the line its FCF was pointing to.

Forum Thread 391408
In worst case, the flatness is...


I do not find any supporting documentation for the claim of "non" parallel tolerance zone orientation in the ASME Y14.5 standard , other professional training course material, or searches on the subject matter.

The ASME and other documentation does support that those tolerance zones do need to be oriented parallel to the considered line element "direction" relative to the view of the FCF.

REF: ASME

5.4.1.4 Straightness of Line Elements. Figure 5-6
illustrates the use of straightness tolerance on a flat surface.
Straightness may be applied to control line elements
in a single direction on a flat surface; it may also be applied
in two directions as shown. Where function requires
the line elements to be related to a datum feature(s), profile
of a line should be specified related to datums. See
Fig. 8-27.



RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

From:

ASME Y14.5M-1994 Para. 6.4.1.1: “A straightness tolerance is applied in the view where the elements to be controlled are represented by a straight line”

ASME Y14.5.1M-1994 Para. 6.4.1.: “A straightness tolerance is applied in the view where the elements to be controlled are represented by a straight line”

ASME Y14.5-2009 Para. 5.4.1: “A straightness tolerance is applied in the view where the elements to be controlled are represented by a straight line”

I am not aware of any other interpretation.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

dtmbiz,

Here is how I understand it. There are several steps involved - dividing the feature into planar cross sections, constraining these cross sections to the as-produced part, and optimizing each tolerance zone to its as-produced line element.

The first step is defining cutting planes that the tolerance zones exist in. The graphical indication (view direction) defines the orientation of these cutting planes relative to the rest of the theoretically exact part (model). The cutting planes are perpendicular to the view direction - the view is supposed to show a "side view" of the line element. Fig. 5-6 in Y14.5-2009 shows a part with two Straightness tolerances, in different directions. We know that the left-hand FCF chops the feature "cross-wise" into shorter line elements and the right-hand FCF chops it "lengthwise" into longer line elements.

The second step is applying this set of cutting planes to the actual as-produced part. This is where the ambiguity comes in. If the as-produced part has squareness error between the surfaces, we don't have a unique orientation for the cutting planes. In other words, we can't uniquely define the "cross-wise" direction. This is roughly similar to slicing up a loaf of bread that is parallelogram-shaped - do you make the slices parallel to the ends, or perpendicular to the sides?

The third step is optimizing the tolerance zones to their line elements. This is where the "non-parallelism" comes in. Once the cutting planes and tolerance zones have been defined, then the degrees of freedom can be applied. Straightness is a form tolerance and does not control orientation or location, so the tolerance zones are free to rotate and translate within their respective cutting plane. This makes each tolerance zone control only the straightness (form) of its line element, and not the relationship to other line elements, and makes it distinct from Flatness.

So the statement that a Straightness tolerance zone "does not need to be oriented parallel to the line its FCF was pointing to" is sort of true, but perhaps awkwardly worded. The zones are initially defined as being parallel to the line that the FCF is pointing to, but then do not have to remain parallel to it.

The fact that these subtle details are not clear is really not surprising at all. These things are very difficult to communicate clearly in words, as my long-winded explanation above demonstrates. Figure 5-6 in Y14.5-2009 is in desperate need of a "means this" figure.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Quote (axym)

If the as-produced part has squareness error between the surfaces, we don't have a unique orientation for the cutting planes

Do you truly believe it will make any practical difference?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)

Axym

Quote (Here is how I understand it....)


This the point I am getting to.
There is no specific mention in ASME Y14.5
This becomes a individuals interpretation.

CH
Absolutely a difference.
If the line element tolerance zones are interpreted to be parallel to the
line the FCF points to in a specific view, then in the thread mentioned, the
answer is no longer the size limits with 2 straightness controls.

This upload is from NCSU Engineering (Sht 1 of 2)

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

There cannot be any specific mention.

Straightness is a FORM control, it cannot have a datum, it cannot be parallel to anything.

We are talking about orientation of section plane, that produces the line to be checked for straightness.

Axym is arguing that small variation in orientation of said surface will signifantly affect the result.

I disagree.

There is no disagreement that straightness tolerance zone is free to float following the surface variations.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Hi All,

This is excellent discussion. We're all kind of disagreeing, but we might all be correct ;^). I suspect that each of us is using the terms "orientation" and "parallel" in a slightly (or significantly) different way, to describe what we can see in our minds. The words are getting in the way, and we need pictures. Very detailed pictures. Lots of cliches apply here "a picture is worth a thousand words", "the devil is in the details", etc.

Don't worry, we will get to the bottom of this. But I have a couple of other things to take care of first, before I can devote more time to this. Possibly later this morning.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)


I agree with...

Quote (Axym is arguing that small variation in orientation of said surface will signifantly affect the result)


I probably disagree with...

Quote (There is no disagreement that straightness tolerance zone is free to float following the surface variations.)


Maybe you mean yourself and Axym... I disagree that the "surface" can float more than the largest tolerance zone of 2 straightness controls to the same surface. The controls must be applied simutaneously. The two straightness controls create "infinite" line element 2D tolerance zones that virtually create a 3D tolerance zone which the surface must line.

From what I read, Axym is coming from a point how he see's to measure straightness.

I would like to discuss "straightness" on the "intent" of the control.

I can think of no reason I would want to put 2 straightness controls in two different views to the same surface with expected results of a "warped" surface.

Again... what is the basis according to ASME Y14.5 for your interpretation that straightness of planar line element tolerance zones can be non-parallel relative to the orientation of the line that the FCF points to?

I cant alter my intrepretation of "parallel orientation", until someone guides me to the place that specifically states this.

In the absence of this specificity, I am basing the "intent" interpretation on basic English, engineering drawing interpretation and common sense.

Here is Webster's interpretation of straight:
Full Definition of STRAIGHT

a: free from curves, bends, angles, or irregularities <straight timber>


I do intend to place a straightness control on a planar surface to control some degree ; warp, curve, bends, angles etc. on that surface, beyond the size limit; not allow it to be "warped".






RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)

BTW, Axym.... I personally value your attitude "to get to the bottom of it", and I share it.

CH
I cant speak for you, however this thread my get to the point of highlighting why you have stated
that you dont see ASME as the language you would like to have. (my paraphrasing)

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

dtmbiz - what you are suggesting is that there is an implied parallelism to some other portion of a part. While this seems obvious on an item like a domino or brick, this won't apply to parts of noticeable complexity.

It isn't possible to have terminology or description as to what isn't applicable as there are an infinite number of those conditions. However, what is allowed is specified - all the form tolerances share this characteristic - they have no relation to any other feature of a part.

So far I've seen no parts where controlling straightness in orthogonal directions on a surface has any value, but a warped surface is an acceptable outcome if that is all that is applied.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

This has always sort of bothered me. And I agree with Evan on all counts. CH, we say that form tolerance has no datum (which is true) but as soon as we chop the form tolerance into "each element" then we are automatically imposing some sort of reference plane (read: datum) for what direction these elements are to follow.
And it's not enough to say that it's merely in the direction of the viewing plane, because -- as Evan mentioned -- in the real world the various faces of a part might be out of orientation from each other themselves.

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

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

For what it's worth, I am with Evan on all counts too.

I just hope ASME will finally introduce a concept similar to ISO's Intersection Plane, as defined in ISO 1101:2012. This should solve the problem of inherent ambiguity when it comes to defining "a unique orientation for the cutting planes" (Evan) on a real part in case of straightness and profile of a line controls applied to a line element of a surface.


dtmbiz,

Quote (dtmbiz)

Again... what is the basis according to ASME Y14.5 for your interpretation that straightness of planar line element tolerance zones can be non-parallel relative to the orientation of the line that the FCF points to?

Take a look at fig. 5-7 in Y14.5-2009. It is not about straightness tolerance, but flatness, however the logic is the same. Notice how the flatness tolerance zone looks like in the "Means this" part of the figure. It is not parallel relative to the orientation of the line the flatness FCF points to. This is absolutely correct, because flatness (and straightness) tolerance zone does not have to be parallel to anything.

Besides, even in the link to Al Neumann's materials you posted in one of your previous entries it is said that: "If the location or orientation of these tolerance zones is important, consider the use of profile of a line with datums". I think you will agree that this statement (which is by the way only a slight modification of the last sentence from para. 5.4.1.4 of Y14.5-2009 and para. 6.4.1.1.5 of Y14.5M-1994) clearly implies that for datumless straightness tolerance the tolerance zone is not located and/or oriented to anything.

By the way, perhaps you could provide an answer to SeasonLee's question in the thread "In worst case, the flatness is..."? Looks like the part in question has been taken directly from Neumann's book.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

I have question to all experts on this thread:

Can we specify straightness on part like this?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

@dtmbiz:

I took closer look at NCSU Engineering reference and I found it WRONG. For some reason they mixed pieces of straightness and flatness definitions together. I included reference to ASME Y14.5.1M to show the REAL definition.

About using Webster as reference for GD&T: Webster defines "parallel" as "everywhere equally distant" and gives example as "concentric spheres are parallel". Would you apply parallelism to concentric spheres just because Webster says so?

And finally, what is it with "...you have stated that you don't see ASME as the language you would like to have"? I only stated that proper language hasn't been created yet. Right now both ISO and ASME are more concerned about self-preservation, than serving the industry. Results are speaking for themselves.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Hi All,

I've created an extended "means this" for Fig. 5-6 of Y14.5-2009, for the 0.05 Straightness tolerance. The following sequence shows the basic part, cutting planes oriented per the drawing view, basic line elements, and tolerance zones. Hopefully there isn't any ambiguity or disagreement so far, as we're still looking at perfect geometry and haven't gotten to the fun part yet.




Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Hi All,

Now for the fun part - trying to apply this to imperfect as-produced part geometry. This is where the ambiguity comes in. I dreamed up an as-produced part with a wavy/twisted/tilted considered surface, and sides that are not square to each other. This will hopefully smoke all of the hornets out.

We section the considered surface into actual line elements, using the same cutting planes that the tolerance zones were defined in. Then we bring the tolerance zones back in, and each one gets individually fitted to its respective line element. Each zone must stay within its cutting plane (and thus stay parallel to the other zones in one sense), but can freely rotate and translate within the cutting plane (and thus not stay parallel to the other zones in another sense).







Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)

Thank you all for your responses,

As I read Axym's original response a few times, it is my understanding that you are basing the interpretation on how the control is actually measured? That's how I take it.
I actually do agree also EXCEPT for:

Quote (The zones are initially defined as being parallel to the line that the FCF is pointing to, but then do not have to remain parallel to it.)


It reads to me that Axym is addressing the problems of measurement. It also reads to me that NCSU is using a "mating surface" to measure the straightness result.

Axym appears to have put substantial effort into showing graphically the non-parallel tolerance zones. Obviously well done. It also demonstrates why the produced surface surely does not result in the intent of straightness. I do not see a loaf of bread as straight. It certainly doesnt fit the English definition of straight. (Relative to geometry)

It is clear to me that ASME needs clarification because....

Are we not to apply GDT controls based on intent of function & assembly interface?

Not receiving any new information to refute the OP question regarding "required parallelism of tolerance zones" from ASME Y14.5 actually answers the question.

To date, there is no basis for strictly interpreting the "intent for straightness" for planar line element tolerance zones orientation, other than the ASME y14.5 statements for FCF’s being placed in the view where elements are controlled by a representative straight line & a single direction (2 directions if 2 views are used)

An important tool for my interpretation in addition to those I have listed originally should obviously be mathematical definitions. What is a direction? Does it say "multi directions" as non-parallel tolerance zones show?

This is why I base my interpretation for” intent of straightness” tolerance zones as parallel to the line (which defines the “direction” / vector) vs. how straightness may be measured. I probably would concede that a real part deviates from perfect and the tolerance zones arent't parallel to the perfect line, however they need to be oriented parallel to each other. Not varing "directions".
(Not just the cutting planes to each other as it reads to me Axym is eluding to: ..."in a sense"...)?

Description of a line
A line is a set of points extending in both directions containing the shortest path between any two points on it.

A Vector is something that has two and only two defining characteristics.
• Magnitude: the meaning of magnitude is 'size' or 'quantity'
• Direction: the meaning of direction is quite self-explanatory. It simply means that the vector is directed from one place to another.

From NCSU engineering posting: (I read this as supporting the interpretation that line element tolerance zones are oriented parallel to the line indicated to provide intended direction.)

Conformance:
A surface line element conforms to the straightness tolerance….
….A surface conforms to the straightness tolerance t0 if it conforms simultaneously for all tolerance surface line elements corresponding t some actual mating surface....


RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

What if there is no "line indicated to provide intended direction"?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)



Quote (What if there is no "line indicated to provide intended direction"?)


If you are referring to the cylinder that was posted, I would create a section view
to show the line. Two sections at 90deg if 2 straight controls were needed.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

dtmbiz,

How does a section of a drawing view create an orientation for the measurement of straightness on the wedged cylinder?

OTOH, how would the part be appropriately oriented without a feature that controls rotation about the cylinder axis?

Sometimes there are too few degrees of freedom controlled to make a meaningful interpretation. Unfortunately for straightness, unless there is an obvious axis of symmetry that entirely fixes the orientation of the zone, there doesn't seem to be a firm control.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

To CH's question on the circular part: Yes, you can specify straightness in that way for that part. The part is not oriented by any "front," "back," or "side" face -- the only thing that can possible orient the part is the angled top surface. So we rotate the part until we get that top surface to appear as level as possible (not level in the left/right sense, of course, but in the front/back direction that you peer into. This is trying to eliminate parallax or whatever you want to call it.)
Then we slice up the elements and check each for straightness.

But that's very different than the examples we've been discussing, because yours has no other faces which could possibly be used to orient the part. So I don't see how your example would answer the prevailing question about Fig. 5-6 in the standard, which has multiple surfaces competing for the part's orientation.

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

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Not sure why the NCSU explanation uses cross product for flatness. Seems like an evaluation that would use the dot product.

From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DotProduct.html "The dot product therefore has the geometric interpretation as the length of the projection of X onto the unit vector Y^^ when the two vectors are placed so that their tails coincide."

IOW, the method should subtract some base vector from all the point vectors and then find out how much from what is left over that is aligned with a unit vector normal to the tolerance zone; that amount should be less than or equal to 1/2 the distance between the limits.

Cross product is (often) for finding torque and for determining the orientation of the mutual normal, neither of which seems to match straightness verification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product

Not sure how cross product would fit in.

The straightness diagram is also vague - so many individual dots identified as vectors, like vector A. I'm sure it all makes sense to someone, but it doesn't match vector diagrams I've seen before as explanations.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

The diagrams with sections suffers from the same problem, an assumption as to the orientation of the cylinder, and is no different from orthographic projection.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)


3DDave,

What you see as “suffering”, I see as engineering drawing interpretation.

There are significant differences between the outer orthogonal view(s) and the section view,
even though in this case they look the same.

One section is a cutting plane thru the high point of the angled surface.
The high point is an actual vertex at the end of a “straight line segment”. The staight line indicates “direction” regarding the straightness control. The other section by interpretation is at 90 degrees to the 1st section. Again; "direction" for the straightness control.

If the control were pointing to the curve in the orthogonal view then the direction could possibly be unclear as that object line represents the curved arc shown in that view.

This was the intent of the section to satisfy an earlier post. I believed to be relative to “direction”.

The "high point" is irrelevant regarding the straightness control.

The drawing is incomplete and other delineation and annotation could be added to clarify concerns.

Measuring the part is different animal.

All,

I have never claimed to support the use of a straightness control on a planar surface. Not an advocate.

This for me has been about an interpretation of a straightness control, particularly regarding the tolerance zone orientation. The standard is weak on definition and needs clarification. However what is currently defined and/or implied is what there is to work with.

Why interesting to me? Because it impacts the answer to a question in a previous post. The “max flatness” question fits into the trivia category for me and is not of any practical use.

Thank you for your comments relating to the OP question.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

In 5.4.1.4 a refinement is provided for in the last sentence.
Where function requires the line elements to be related to a datum feature(s), profile of a line should be specified related to datums.

In Fig. 5-6, multiple options for setting up the part for inspection exist. As long as the part can be shown to conform in any one particular set up, it should be "case closed."

The complaint should be that the ambiguity of the callout requires the time consumption of multiple set-ups and checks to determine if there is one (or more) setup(s) that conform(s).

Arguably, the cylindrical examples allow for determining a direction based on the intersection of the two planes as one potential setup of the part for inspection.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

dtmbiz,

Thank you for the comments on my figures. It's interesting how you saw them as being based on how the part would be measured - that wasn't quite my intent.

I think that the figures (especially the final one) show the result of applying the straightness tolerance to actual part geometry, but are not specific to a particular inspection method. This result could be accomplished using a number of different inspection techniques - open setup with dial indicator and surface plate, CMM, straightedge, or physical sectioning. Whatever technique is used must maintain the required constraints and degrees of freedom between the line elements (established using parallel cross sections) and the tolerance zones (also established using parallel cross sections but free to rotate and translate). For example, the non-parallel-ness of the tolerance zones allows the inspector to level the part individually for each indicator sweep if the open setup method is used.

Your interpretation that the zones must be parallel to the perfect line element, and therefore parallel to each other, is not one that I have heard before. I re-read your original post, and the text of section 5.4.1.4, and I believe that I now understand the basis of your interpretation. You are taking the phrase "to control line elements in a single direction" to mean that the tolerance zones must all be oriented in a common direction, and therefore the zones must be parallel to each other? Do I have this correct?

Here are more figures to illustrate the comparison. One interpretation is on the left, with zones that are individually fitted to each line element with no constraints (other than staying in the cutting plane). The other interpretation is on the right, with zones that are individually fitted but with the constraint that the zones remain parallel to each other. So the overall twist of the surface would not affect the straightness with one interpretation, but affects it with the other. Does this capture the issue?




Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

(OP)
Axym

Quote (You are taking the phrase "to control line elements in a single direction" to mean that the tolerance zones must all be oriented in a common direction, and therefore the zones must be parallel to each other? Do I have this correct?)

Yes


Quote (Does this capture the issue?)

Not quite

I have been ultimately and maybe not so clearly getting back to the "max flatness" question.
To effect the flatness with straightness would require 2 straightness callouts and they would need to be oriented parallel to the defined "direction". The line that the FCF points to would be the definer.

I agree with your models as shown with 1 straightness control, and that straightness can float within the
size limits whether the tolerance zones are parallel or not.

Now what do the tolerance zones look like if there is another straightness contol at 90 degrees?
This is where the parallelism comes in.
If they are not required to be parallel then straightness still has no effect on flatness.
If they are parallel oriented zones, then the tolerances zones you have shown will need to come within the crossing tolerance zones; which I contend will effect flatness beyond the limits of size.

BTW
Mark Foster of AGI commented to me that his understanding of the tolerance zone orientation is "view dependent".
That raises questions too ("view dependent")
I did not have time to emphasis the "direction" word in ASME and its impact in that discussion.
He basically called the ASME definition "weak". (posted above)
He also eluded to ISO and it's GPS mechanism to define the way the tolerance zones are oriented without a datum.
I dont have ISO. I deal with ASME.

Thank you for your efforts and time to discuss this and especially to consider where I am coming from !
Whether you agree with someone or not, IMO it is commendable to try to see "why" the person may have a different interpretation based on the same information.
Appreciated !!!





RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

dtmbiz,

It sounds like we're on the same page (or at least on one of the same pages). We still don't agree on whether the straightness zones need to be parallel to each other or not, but I think we agree on the consequences of either case.

If the zones are required to be parallel to each other, and there are two straightness controls, then I think I agree that this combination would limit the maximum flatness error. But I'm not sure what the maximum limit would be - I'm not sure that it would be a straightforward combination of the two straightness values. I would also say that this combination would not require one set of zones to fall within the crossing set - it would just mean that the surface needs to conform to both sets of zones. This is a subtle distinction though.

Personally, I don't place much value in the "maximum possible flatness arror from other controls" discussions. If the designer needs the flatness to be controlled, they should be able to specify a flatness control and not rely on indirect controls. But Y14.5 makes us care about things like that, by disallowing geometric tolerances that are not a refinement of other tolerances that would limit the same characteristic.

The tolerance zone orientation, in terms of being view dependent, is a separate issue. I wish that Y14.5 would explain this better. The thing that is view dependent is the orientation of the cutting planes, and this is what Mark is referring to with the "weak" definition. It's weak because we can't establish the "view dependent" direction for the cutting planes uniquely on a real part. I tried aligning the cutting planes three different ways - perpendicular to the left-hand face of the part, parallel to the front face, and best-fitted to the considered surface. Here is what the results look like:



The measured value of straightness, which would be the width of the largest of the fitted zones, is different for each case. This is because the faces of the part are not square to each other, and the "lay" of the surface is not square to the faces. Because the current definition does not specify how the view direction is established on the as-produced part, any of these three possible cutting plane orientations is allowed (as well as many others). As Mark mentioned, the ISO GPS standards have additional symbology to align the cutting planes to specific features on the part. Before you say it, CH, in most applications there would not be an appreciable difference but in certain applications there might).

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Evan, for what my 2 cents are worth, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone could see the straightness tolerance zones as NOT being parallel to each other! Taking that approach really throws a wrench into the standard's already-weak presentation of the topic.

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

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Quote (Axym)

Before you say it, CH

Am I allowed to say something else then?

I think we all agree that to be completely sure, we have to take infinite number of measurements. Which we never do.

We arbitrarily pick number of section planes and their location. If I take part in your example and draw my planes right between yours the difference in measurement may be at least same order of magnitude as from angular variation.

But nobody has problem with that.

Also, part has to be optimized - adjusted to reduce the effect of surface being inclined. In fact, part has to be optimized for every measurement independently. The method is not perfect, merely our "best effort"

No problem as well.

But may I suggest we arbitrarily optimize the direction of our cutting planes as well?

Fol example, the surface in question has marks from planing. Will it make sense to take measurement along the marks or across them? (I think that's the only good reason to specify straightness in two perpendicular directions anyway - to control the shaping marks smile).

So let's be consistent - either we are allowed to make reasonable "optimizations" or not.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

John-Paul,

I'm assuming that you mean parallel to each other in the sense that the cutting planes are parallel to each other. Not in the sense that dtmbiz is contending. But I'm not sure ;^).

This is why the words fail us - the zones can be parallel to each other in one sense, and not parallel to each other in the other sense.

In my post from 17:08 Sep 23, there are two figures. The left-hand figure has three green zones and one red zone, and the zones are parallel to each other in one sense and not the other. The right-hand figure has four red zones that are parallel to each other in both senses. Which figure do you think is correct?

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

Evan,
Yeah, maybe I wasn't following the wording too closely, but here's what I meant: The planes that we slice up to check the straightnesses must all be parallel to one another. The zones within each slice can rock/rotate all they want, as long as they stay within those cutting planes.
So of the two pictures you posted at 17:08, I think I'm agreeing with the first one (with the green zones).
My beef remains this: to what surface on the part should those cutting planes be oriented? I wasn't following the other comments in this thread much because this simple ambiguity is enough for me to blow off the entire idea of straightness applied to a flat surface.

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

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

CH,

I think I agree with all of that.

We are allowed optimize the direction of the cutting planes. There are no datum feature references for straightness tolerances, so we can pick any direction we want for the cutting plane orientation. The "view direction" indicates a direction for the planes to be normal to, but there is nothing specific to establish this on a real part. So I agree that the cutting plane orientation can be optimized - this is what I tried to do in the third example in my post from earlier today. The cutting planes are parallel to the marks from planing, as you say. This gives the best (lowest) measured value for straightness.

After a cutting plane orientation has been chosen, I also agree that the part can be optimized for each line element measurement independently (this is where dtmbiz and I disagree).

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

The orthographic projection also shows a high point and a low point. The section makes no difference. You could have created a true view of the elliptical top surface and, in one view, drawn the direction lines for the straightness tolerance.

In an actual part there could be multiple points of identical height and they may not be diametrically opposite any of the lowest points; the section fails to clarify the correct orientation to be chosen to measure those characteristics.

RE: Straightness: parallel planar line element tolerance zone orientation

John-Paul,

That's what I thought you meant. Your description of the zones agrees with my understanding.

Your remaining beef relates to the other issue that CH just mentioned, of how to orient the cutting planes to the part. I believe we're all in agreement that there is no unique way to establish the "view direction" on a real part, giving us the ambiguity. In other words, the degrees of freedom between the part and the cutting planes are not constrained. Where there is no constraint, we are allowed to optimize.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

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