×
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

Primary Datum Material Modified

Primary Datum Material Modified

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

T. Hinkle,

Your drawing appears to have been done to ANSI Y14.5M-1982. I am more familiar with the later versions of this, and there may be stuff I am missing.

The circle M stands for Maximum Material Condition. In the case of your datums B and C, these would be fixtured by pins .058" and .0388" respectively. The datum C pin would be diamond shaped. If the holes are larger than the minimum, you have some wiggle room to position your part at inspection time.

The drawing is badly prepared. Datum A should be applied to the top or bottom face. Applied to the edge, it is redundant.

--
JHG

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

(OP)
Drawoh,

Thanks for the reply. I agree the drawing is badly prepared and Datum A should be a face(which they are probably using during inspection process). Seems like the designer placed MMC modifiers at every possible location. After looking thru the 73&82 standards, I do see primary datums with MMC, but have not seen a primary and secondary datum at MMC within the same Feature Control Frame. Does this violate any of the rules or just make inspection harder?

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

It clearly says MIL-A-2550 and ANSI Y14.5-73; That's why the datum references are to the left of the tolerance.

What the callout means is that the part is not necessarily held with the face of the plate perpendicular to the pins that simulate A and B - think of it like the part is going to be impaled on spikes - the callout means that all the spikes go through the plate at the same time. I think there was some leftover notion of the implied datums, but I think that they don't work when the datums are explicit. They may also have been counting on the default angle tolerance to limit perpendicularity.

Most odd is the reference to datum A at MMC in defining datum C, since A is a face of the part, not one with size.

It looks like it was generated by a and whatever the previous maker did to make parts that worked is not represented by this drawing. As I commented elsewhere, too many are self taught and had bad teachers. I would not be surprised if there were calls and memos from the supplier about changes he needed to make to the parts to get them to work, even though what he sent was probably acceptable.

I have no idea what parts of the Mil Spec apply.

MIL-A-2550B, MILITARY SPECIFICATION: AMMUNITION, GENERAL SPECIFICATION FOR (08 FEB 1973) [NO S/S DOCUMENT]., This specification covers general requirements for all types of ammunition (non-nuclear and nuclear) and all components, propellants, explosives and other supplies used in ammunition. (It looks like it was inactivated, but then validated)

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident... I think this will take you to it.

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

I agree with all of the posts. I have a few comments to add but they may be moot as there are more serious issues with the dimensioning schema.

Datum A in the Feature Control Frame (FCF)for Datum C is called out at MMC (M in circle). Material condition modifiers (MMC LMC and RFA) are only applied to features of size (FOS) However Datum A it is NOT a FOS, so the application is not consistent with Standard practice.

In other FCF where Datums B and C are at MMC, there may be a need to use a virtual condition size and not MMC size to determine shift.

The amount of available shift with multiple datums FOS is cumulative and dependent on the shift provide by the higher precedence datums.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

(OP)
Thanks for the replies!

Mkcski, you are hitting on one of my main questions. "The amount of available shift with multiple datums FOS is cumulative and dependent on the shift provide by the higher precedence datums."

With the dimension and FCF in red from my original post. The shift(up and down) allowed from C having a material modifier is canceled out because you are already hitting your limits from the primary datum?

Thanks!!

RE: Primary Datum Material Modified

Your conclusion is only true if actual size of datum feature B is at MMC (or virtual condition) size. As the actual size datum feature moves toward LMC more up and down shift will be provided.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

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