×
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

TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

What is it positioned to? That should give you ammo for why it's illegal.

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

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

Even if you were given a 3d model with the ambiguous "CAD MODEL IS BASIC" blanket note, it's not a meaningful callout.

Quote (ASME Y14.5-2009)

1.3.64 True Position
true position: the theoretically exact location of a feature
of size, as established by basic dimensions.

.....

7.2 POSITIONAL TOLERANCING
Position is the location of one or more features of size
relative to one another or to one or more datums. A positional
tolerance defines either of the following:

There is no true position without some manner of relation to another thing. It has to have a defined exact location established by basic dimensions and/or datums.

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

(OP)
I know that's what I said! They are trying to tell me its a tolerance of the location of the bushing center line so in effect the Datum can move within the true position tolerance zone. I've never seen any true position that is not referenced back to a datum. Can anyone send me a link or document to show they are wrong. They are telling me its legal because its a primary datum or Datum A . . cant remember exactly what their logic was. They have this called out the same way on the other end also. help me get this straight whether I am right or wrong . . . Ive attached their second feature frame with no datum reference Ive mentioned.

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

What exactly is it they think the MMC/MMB modifier is... modifying... in your first image, and in the lower frame of your second image?

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

(OP)
I know. There is nothing to reference the MMC to correct? So this is illegal right?

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

(OP)
Ok their definition is this. Checks the straightness of the full bushing ID cylinder position to itself at the math data nominal position.

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

Fig. 7-59 sure does show a similar concept, but since they're trying to control the straightness of an axis...why not use a straightness tolerance? Could the weird MMB actually be a misplaced MMC?

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

DetroitDesigner,
The callouts shown on your first two pictures are illegal per the standard because they both show single feature controlled (no 'nX' prefix in front of the diameter values). Notice that in the Fig. 7-59 there are two features controlled with the datumless position callout.

Additionally, on the second picture, if there is indeed just one feature to control, the composite position callout is not correct choice because composite positional tolerancing can't be applied to a single feature.

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

(OP)
So everyone seems to agree these are illegal call outs as I first thought. They are the customer so I need to tread lightly and present my case in a logical manner and back it up with proof from several books I have including the ASME standard which only shows a no datum reference used in a coaxial condition.

Thanks all!

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

FYI, this does not have to be a coaxial features application (for instance, see link below - Subject: GD&T for Pipes, Hoses or Tubing), but it definitely has to be an application with two or more features controlled with that kind of callout.

http://www.geotolmeadows.com/newsletters/2013/sep2...

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

(OP)
I guess my argument for this can also be why are you making this much more complicated than it needs to be. The two original jpgs I posted are separate views on the same drawing control true position. Why would you complicate it like this?

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

Not illegal, just meaningless. The tolerance applies to the deviation from the true position location of the feature, but there is no location given. While a positional tolerance can have the side effect of controlling straightness, flatness, parallelism, et al, it is in reference to a true position, which requires a datum reference frame and therefore datums. No datums, no tolerance.

Just humor them and say all the parts pass. Eventually someone will either wise up or they will not know the difference. Also add a note to your documents that gives exactly the explanation they gave you and ask they sign it as an proof you know how the inspection should be handled.

Like the old joke - the name is spelled R-x-x-q-y, and pronounced "Smith."

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

DetroitDesigner,

I agree with everything pmarc said.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

One thing that the Y14.5 series does not make clear is that in addition to explicit datums, which are identified with datum symbols and by their names in the feature control frames, there are implicit datums, distinct from the former practice of implied datum interpretation.

For nominally coaxial features the implicit datum is the mutually shared axis. Much like there is a datum plane that is used as a basis to measure flatness that is never explicitly identified, or the cylindrical datum that is implicit in the cylindricity callout. These are mentioned in the mathematical explanation section 14.5.1; I believe the term is 'spine.'

The implicit datums float relative to the part (or vice versa) as required to find an acceptable solution (if possible.)

On a single hole an implicit datum is always able to float to a location such that the related feature has 0.000... location error, so it is a meaningless callout.

One thing that is interesting is that two position callouts with no explicit datum share an identical datum callout, and therefore are subject to simultaneous requirements, though I think the OP example doesn't qualify as presented so far.

RE: TRUE POSITION TOLERANCE ON A DATUM

DetroitDesigner

"Basic" training might help

It appears that you are wasting your time because the problem is that you are working with ASME Y14.5 and they are working with A Y13 1/2.

I have seen this before. Its called "willful ignorance". No known cure short of a lobotomy.

In all sincerity, if the people involved that are trying to rationalize the indefensible and don't want to consider what is actually in the standard; then what is the point?

If you get sound advice and affirmation of your understanding for the sake of sanity then not much more to be gained IMO.

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