×
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

opposing face datum holes

opposing face datum holes

opposing face datum holes

(OP)
I have a part that has opposing holes (nominally co-linear axis). holes are same size, separated by a large void. Pins get pressed into these holes and allow the part to pivot and I am only concerned about a projected tolerance zone. This is very similar to the example 7-44 and 7-45 given in ASME Y14.5-2009.

The shared axis of the holes acts as the primary datum, but I am unsure how to call this out.
Can I use position to do this using no datum structure? Can I only use form (Cylindricity) when establishing primary datum? If so, can I project a cylindricity zone?
Please advise.

RE: opposing face datum holes

First Hole: A
Second hole: B
Position first hole to A-B primary
Position second hole to A-B primary
It is NOT self-referencing.

RE: opposing face datum holes

Though the standard doesn't show it, I would say you can use a single position callout with no datum references to establish their coaxiality. Other things would then be positioned from that datum axis. (Greenimi's suggestion works too, but I'm not so adamant about them "NOT being self-referencing.")
As you say, it's kind of like Fig. 7-45, but without the first two layers of the feature control frame (since you are not attempting to position those holes to anything else).

If they're the same size then you don't even need to use separate datum identifying letters. Just have "2X" in front of everything and a single datum letter can identify the combined axis.

A side note, however -- think about whether the "M" modifier will be used in the positioning of those two holes, and also in the subsequent tolerances that reference this datum. My answer would be fine-tuned if that were known.

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

RE: opposing face datum holes

See fig. 4-24 in Y14.5-2009.

RE: opposing face datum holes

John-Paul,
Re:” but I'm not so adamant about them "NOT being self-referencing”
In my initial statement about A-B compound I based my argument on Fig 4.25/ 2009. Granted, the standard shows total runout, but I don’t see why I cannot apply it to position too (runout will ensure coaxiality, but also will report the form, am I right? )
Therefore, are you suggesting that 4-25 is “kind” of self-referencing?
Just asking. Don’t even think I am arguing with you. I know I am very defensive these days bigsmile

RE: opposing face datum holes

Sure, position can be used in place of runout there. But the idea of using different letters (A and B) is best when the datum features are a different size. If they are the same size then it's preferred to use the same letter, such as the two ends of the part in Fig. 4-24.

But I do agree that your suggestion is not self-referencing, because the datum axis created from the hyphenated letters is not the same as the axis being controlled by position.

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

RE: opposing face datum holes

John-Paul,
Re:"Though the standard doesn't show it, I would say you can use a single position callout with no datum references to establish their coaxiality."

I guess Y14.5-2009, 7.6.2.3 or Fig.7-59 shows this case.

RE: opposing face datum holes

Yes -- I fired off my answer too quickly.
Pmarc also gave an example: Fig. 4-24.

If I recall, the 1994 standard didn't show an example (other than the lower portion of a composite FCF). That's what I was probably thinking of.

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

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