×
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

Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009
3

Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

(OP)
Hey Guys,

I'm still really terrible with GD&T but this is a problem I have run across numerous times.

Is it bad form to dimension to a radius centre point?

The reason I ask is because in a lot of programs you can foreshorten radius dimensions but you can't then foreshorten the linear dimensions to the radius centre point. In my mind, this completely negates the act of foreshortening the radius dimension.

This problem is further compounded with tangent radii. Apparently you can't assume anything under the Y14.5 standard so, if you can't dimension to the centre of the tangent radii, is your only option to dimension to the point where the 2 radii meet? Is this the preferred method for dimensioning features in that scenario?

How about in a scenario where you have 2 lines coming in to meet at funny angles and, where they meet, you have a radius? Can you dimension to the centre point of that radius or should you be dimensioning to the point where those 2 lines meet? I find that dimensioning to the point where the lines meet can look somewhat ambiguous unless you actually place a point on the drawing.

I've been going through the standard and I haven't been able to find anything to address these questions.

Thanks,

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

(OP)
I do have a copy of the book... that's why I said "I've been going through the standard and I haven't been able to find anything to address these questions." The Standard being the ASME Y14.5-2009 standard.

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

Understanding that it isn't supported by the standard, I draw parts assuming implied tangency and haven't had any issue. I suppose I should add a note to my drawing format since it isn't in the standard. It's just as you say; without implied tangency, even not-particularly-complicated geometry is laborious and, IMO, obfuscating to "fully dimension". Short of adding a note to the drawing, you could dimension to radius center points and put explicit "tangent" notes at every point of tangency...

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

(OP)
Thanks for the helpful reply, patdh1028.

Tangency notes aren't a bad idea. The current drawing I'm working on only has 1 point of "assumed" tangency that I could label. I agree with you though, labeling and dimensioning things that should be obvious certainly does clutter up a drawing. I like the idea of "no assumptions" with the Y14.5 standard but tangency is one of those things that should slide. If it weren't tangent, I would dimension the feature.

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

I'll be honest- I had no idea that 'assumed tangency' was unsupported. I can't think of any drawings I've worked with that seemed annotated otherwise. I've always assumed that a radius was tangent to its adjacent faces unless otherwise dimensioned. Never had a problem arise from my (unsupported) assumption either.

At least now I know better and continued practice will be a "known risk" rather than ignorance.

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

On a similar thread of thought, I really dislike the -2009 slot callout suggestion for a "2X R" with no dimension after the "R" (Fig. 1-29, p. 15). That is currently my highest "shops are calling because I missed a dimension" instance; lately I've decided to leave off the 2X R and rely on implied tangency that, as discussed here, doesn't actually exist...

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

I have never had anyone question this "tangency" issue. I tend to disagree with the "unsupported" statement however. Paragraph 1.8.2.1, the last sentence, states that when "other" surfaces control the arc-location, tangency is implied by default (because the location of the arc-center is not dimensioned).

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

wallybanger,

It is not bad form to dimension to a radius center point. However, I would argue that it is rarely a good idea to apply a tolerance to the location of a radius center point.

I agree with mkcski that implied tangency is fully supported by ASME Y14.5-2009. In addition to para. 1.8.2.1 already mentioned, see para. 1.8.6 and Fig 1-32. I don't think the standard shows any examples of dimensioning to points or lines of tangency. I wouldn't necessarily say it's wrong, but it's certainly not the preferred method.

For the case of two lines meeting at an angle and blended with a tangent radius, see para. 1.7.2.2 and Fig. 1-12.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between dimensioning and tolerancing. A lot of things that that are perfectly unambiguous with basic dimensions become much less clearly defined with toleranced dimensions.

- pylfrm

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

I don't think it's a good idea generally to dimension to arc centers or tangent points. Radii are not that easy to measure accurately and the center point is even more ambiguous. Typical methods such as an optical comparator only pick 3 points on the arc to compute the radius and center. It becomes highly operator dependent. Unless you specify CR (controlled radius) there can be reversals and kinks in the radius that, if picked, will give all kinds of crazy measurements.

I'm much more likely to dimension to a theoretical sharp point. Even though it doesn't exist physically, it is a much more repeatable measurement assuming you have enough of a straight line in each segment. You can draw extension lines to the intersection point to make the dimension clear.

As others have said, using basic dimensions and profile will work well in most cases.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

wallybanger,

The ASME standard provides you a list of things you are allowed to do, and it explains what they mean. That is all it does. Don't worry about the standard. Worry about your fabricator and your inspector.

In the case of two straight lines with a connecting radius, I dimension to the sharp connection point between the lines. I have been told by machinists, admittedly quite a long time ago, that this is the convenient way. Generally, this method expresses my design requirement the most clearly.

A good test of any dimensioning scheme is to load your favourite CAD software, and draw out your geometry as per your drawing. If you find this easy, the guy programming CNC probably will find it easy too.

--
JHG

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

drawoh: I totally agree with your first statement. However, there is one caveat that one must always be aware of: if your parts are outsourced to other companies and are not made in-house, deviating from drawing Standards can confuse the person trying to read (interpret) the drawing. Y14.5 is a product definition tool and is a "dictionary" of the symbols that communication design intent. Ignoring the "dictionary" is not recommended.

RE: Dimensioning Radii & Tangency for ASME Y14.5-2009

mkcski,

I have not checked carefully, but I would guess that everything we have suggested in this discussion complies with the standard. We have a toolkit. In our discussions with fellow designers, fabricators and inspectors, we need to select the appropriate tool.

Dimensioning to the centre of a radius is shown explicitly in ASME Y14.5-2009, in Figure-1.23. Any tolerancing scheme other than a profile on both edges and the radius, is hellish. A dimension to the sharp corner is shown in Figure-1.12.

In a lot of tolerancing scenarios, one or both edges are critical, and you don't care (much) about the radius. You need to dimension to the sharp point, specify the edges accurately, and apply a sloppy dimension tolerance to the radius.

In an alternate design, the size of the radius is critical. The location of the radius is less critical, and you don't care much about the edges. I assume you cannot apply true position to a radius. I would apply a composite profile tolerance with a tight profile to Datum A, and a looser profile to Datums A, B, and C.

GD&T is not a procedure. It is a language. You need to specify something that makes your design work.

--
JHG

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