×
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

Positional tolerance: bi-direction

Positional tolerance: bi-direction

Positional tolerance: bi-direction

(OP)
The question I have is regarding the datum setup and the interpretation of tolerance zones established by them for bi-directional position tolerance frame setup. Attached is the illustrations from ISO 1101:2004 version of standards. ASME seems to have the same interpretation in regards to bi-directional position tolerances.

Typically at my company we use positional tolerance in it's full capacity with a diametrical symbol for a cylindrical tolerance zone when applicable for a cylindrical feature of size but it's eating me up not being able to fully grasp what seems to be a simple answer that I'm missing for this scenario.

Most of the examples I see have 3 datums setup for bi-directional. I understand the tolerance frame setup for cylindrical tolerance zones and 3 datums in both bi-direction..but it seems that using only 2 datums for one of the directions is interpreted the same according to the tolerance zone definition so I'm a bit confused. Is 3 datums necessary when 2 theoretically seem that they would do where one controls the orientation and the other the location with respect to the referenced datum? Or like some orientation tolerances, is the first 2 for establishing the tolerance zone and its orientation with respect to the 2nd datum and the 3rd locates it?

Been thinking on this subject far longer than I should be...


RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

Think of your datum reference frame as order of fixturing: lay the part on [C] first, lean against [A] second and against {B} last.

Should you lean against [B] first, your results may be different.
Or, leaning against [A] to take measurement from {A} and then leaning against [B] to take measurement from [B] will bring different result from fixturing against [C|A|B], and THEN taking measurements from [A] and [B]

Confusing?

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

RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

(OP)
No, what you stated makes perfect sense.

I understand the sequence of datums, just had my mind in overdrive and overlooked that very point you made

It's one of those scenarios where your subconscious knows the answer yet can't bring it out.

Thanks for that viewpoint.

RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

(OP)
One more additional question to the top scenario...

A lot other examples I see have datum B to the one control lacking it; how does this change or add anything different that already isn't being controlled with C & A?

I can't see that theoretically serving any purpose as the median line in the direction the dimension is addressing wouldn't gain anything from banking up against a datum B simulator since it isn't controlling location with respect to datum B in that scenario.

RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

On the picture shown on your OP imagine part sliding along [A]. Measurement from [A] will still the same, [B] is not relevant, as we don't measure from [B].

From degrees of freedom point of view, part is not fully constrained, but it still possible to measure.

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

RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

I wish someone would explain that order of the datums more clearly and bring it out of subconscious also here

RE: Positional tolerance: bi-direction

Quote (LCform)

I wish someone would explain that order of the datums more clearly and bring it out of subconscious also here

I already recommended this book so many times on this forum, ISO should pay me commission:

http://www.iso.org/iso/publication_item.html?pid=P...

(And no, I am not working for them)

The book explains fundamentals like datums,degrees of freedom, dependency between size and geometric controls, etc., etc.

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

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