×
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

Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

(OP)
Dear All!,

As we are making GI Sheet metal and Busbars Drawings for Electro Mechanical Products, Please let me know which is the best method to call the dimensions,1.) Ordintate Dimensions(Pick two faces and give X and Y dimensions) 2. EDGE to Hole and then Hole to Hole, Tolerance used in parts are ISO2768-M.

Thanks in advance

Best Regards
Asit Rathod

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

The best way to position the holes is to use BASIC dimensions either ordinate or hole-to-hole and apply feature control frames.

Leave ISO 2768 for non-locating dimensions.

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

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

RathodAsit,

Both of your proposed methods are approved by the standards. Which of them will be clearest to the end users of your drawings?

--
JHG

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

What is most preferable is parts that work. Whichever method yields functional parts for lowest cost would be my preference.

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

We use Ordinate dimensioninig.Manufacturing is automated by feeding IGES file generated by a custom program from flat pattern.

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

(OP)
Dear All!

Thanks for the sharing the knowledge.

CH, our LOCAL MFGs are not able to understand feature control Frames,

Drawoh,Randomdrafter & TICK, current situations we give ordinate dimensions and give flat pattern to the LOCAL MFGs so they can get RAW Size from the flat pattern.

KENAT, We already give Tolernace in Dim of the hole.(e.g. M5 screw we give 6.0 mm hole)

Regards
Asit

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

RathodAsit, the size of the hole should be based in part on the tolerances from the hole location dimensions. Depending on if you dimension from hole to hole or from hole to edge/ordinate the tolerances accumulation will vary - and hence the clearance hole size may change.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

(OP)
KENAT, I believe you means to say tolerance stack up needs to calculate for all the holes in parts, depending up on that hole sizes will vary.

Do you have any standards to be followed? or what best practise you are following.

Thanks in advance.

Regards
Asit

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Asit,how does part manufactured? In our case flat sheet is cut first [Nest method used to cut different size parts together] and then all holes/slots machined..later it will be formed to specific angles.The tolerance is fixed for this holes/slots.

Only threads/chamfers will be done after forming.We will not include these dimensions in flat pattern drawing.

If we need tighter tolerances those holes are done after forming.

There are various checks run on the flat pattern view to see all holes are as per standard/any break in profile etc....

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

(OP)
randomdrafter,
Yes same our mfg did it for Sheet metal parts, first nesting (Diff sizes, set in raw material sheet), and then punching and then cutting at last bending, and then Assembly HW fitting like rivets, Pop nuts

Regards
Asit

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Sure that's the typical process and trying to allow for that work flow should keep cost down etc. but...

Engineering drawing typically documents the finished item without specifying process unless process directly impacts end functionality. So dimension scheme & tolerancing needs to capture function first.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

KENAT, Dimensioning scheme is as per standard any way. Only when there is tighter tolerance required we can change the scheme and go with GD&T.


Atleast in some area of sheet metal work hammer will take care any variation at end ;)

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Quote:
" Only when there is tighter tolerance required we can change the scheme and go with GD&T"

This is the real world perception! (or at least some of the manufacturing companies act according to the quote above)

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

KENAT , its not as simple as I wrote. We make 100,000 sheet metal parts [various sizes/shapes] per year for our products in-house. Majority of the parts are Class C parts [doesn't affect overall function of product much]. We use customized programs to generate parts, very little inspection needed for most of these parts anyway. We follow all the functional requirements by providing sufficient clearance holes/slots etc. so no question of fitment issues in assembly.

So whenever some critical requirements arises instead of our regular process [Ordinate dimensioning with default tolerances], we change to +/- tolerance or FCF wherever required. in some cases we even do machining in assembly. As far as I know there is very few issues arised over the years.

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

There's always competing and conflicting influence on part dimensions. The makers want things easy to make. The inspectors want things easy to inspect. Some people just want that *one*special*dimension* that tells them what they want to know without doing any math (which they haven't done since high school).

The part still needs to function. Nothing is more important.

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

The old myth...GD&T is only for tight tolerances. I guess it will never go away.

John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Looks like i used wrong words. We use tighter tolerance when function requires,remaining time we just go with default tolerances.So far things working fine.

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

Yes. Things always work fine...until they don't. Just go the the thread titled "Datum" for a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

John Acosta, GDTP Senior Level
Manufacturing Engineering Tech
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

^ That type of issues are always considered and there are strict quality process. i am talking about simple parts which are used repeatedly for many years. Any new design will be taken care with all due diligence.



RE: Which is most prefereble Dimensions method?

"Only when there is tighter tolerance required we can change the scheme and go with GD&T."

As a practical manner, it's only when tolerances are nearly the same as acceptable variation that FCFs are valuable. When the variation is a small portion of the available tolerance there's little value in making the effort to precisely describe the factors governing inspection.

One might suggest that it's always the case that a precise description is required, even when the tolerances are large, but if an organization has control of the production process and the design won't be floated to outside organizations, then there's no reason to not take advantage of the existing controls. For example, in four-color printing the tolerances involved put most metal work to shame, but the equipment and the setup is understood and your newspaper, magazine, or t-shirt come out OK.

OTOH, if production capability is on the edge of design requirements (either direct limits or 3 or 6 sigma boundary) then the increased precision of the description can help separate out the usable parts from those not usable.

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