×
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

ISO14405-2 example interpretation

ISO14405-2 example interpretation

ISO14405-2 example interpretation

(OP)
Hi

An extract from ISO14405-2 is attached. (Geometrical product specifications (GPS) -- Dimensional tolerancing -- Part 2: Dimensions other than linear sizes)

// ISO 14405-2:2011 illustrates the use of geometrical tolerancing for dimensions that are not linear sizes to avoid the ambiguity that the use of ± tolerances on these dimensions causes. Both linear and angular dimensions, except size of features of size, are covered.
Dimensional tolerancing can be indicated by ± tolerancing or geometrical tolerancing.
The ambiguity caused by using ± tolerances for dimensions other than linear sizes is explained in an informative annex. //


Is my way of understanding correct? since I open this standard I saw only examples where common zone surfaces were more or less in the same line (if you know what I mean)
not sure how to inteprete this correctly

thanks

RE: ISO14405-2 example interpretation

<CZ> parameter creates condition similar to "simultaneous requirement", meaning that both tolerance zones are behaving as one.

Other then that, the definition of position will stay the same, meaning 0.4 thick tolerance zone equally disposed about theoretical surface. (t/2 in both directions)

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

RE: ISO14405-2 example interpretation

(OP)
Thanks, so it was simpler than I thought. I have tendency to go overboard with intepretations sometimes.

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