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!

*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.

Jobs

fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

(OP)
If we remove datum feature C from the positional callout of Ø7.0 OD, does the meaning of the drawing or 4.11.6.1 (a, b and c)subsequent explanations change?
If yes, how?
If no, why?

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary



Not an expert. I would say : No (does not change the meaning for 4.11.6.1 )
I can provide a picture for quick reference.

If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

Yes. The boss will not be located on the center-plane that passes through datum axis B and the datum center-plane established from/by the keyway - Datum C. Without Datum C the bosses can be located anywhere "around" datum axis B.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

Datum C is not directly referenced at all in that section, so it doesn't appear to. It referenced Datum D, which is located using C as a tertiary, but I don't see how removing that would have any real impact on how to interpret the conditions explained in 4.11.6.1

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

Sorry. I missed the intent of you question. Removing C will NOT change the determination of MMB as discussed in 4.11.6.1 because C is not part of the calculation. It does, as I mention in my previous post, change the motion controlled for locating Datum feature D inself

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

And the drawing will still be fully defined (well only for the features shown anyway) due to the simultaneous requirement implied A primary and B(MMB ) secondary.

Therefore, C does nothing?
Can we conclude just that?
Or that is a stretch/ unfortunate misleading?

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

greenimi:

I agree with your statement for the simultaneous reqmnt. But I always waffle at not adding the "extra" datum (C). Although redundant, datum C adds clarity for those who are not cognizant with simultaneous reqmnt conventions.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

For my clarity, are we agreed that the material boundary at D does not change if there is no Datum C call out on the keyway and Datum C is not called out on the ∅7 post? But the part could now look like the attached image.

In reality you would only not have a datum C if there were no keyway, just a simple hole for Datum B, correct? But then the Datum D would become your clocking feature, that is needed, to use a profile geometric tolerance to describe the outer periphery of the part. Still correct?

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

"Re:"But the part could now look like the attached image."
No.
Zero basic implied.
Sim Req. in effect.

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

Does simultaneous requirements apply to sub-sets of the FCF? That would indicate that A|B and A|D would not allow repositioning relative to A. I'm not sure there is anything that supports something besides the entire Datum Reference Frame.

The language in the standard is vague on this. Perhaps:

When a Datum Reference Frame is referred to in multiple feature control frames, including datum feature modifiers, then the part shall not be repositioned when checking individual features that have tolerances based on that Datum Reference Frame.

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

3DDave,
Well nobody said it does apply to sub-sets. If you are reading a little more careful the thread the OP talked about removing C and then DRF to become A and B, same as the slot
 

RE: fig 4-16 -Y14.5-2009 and datum feature C -as tertiary

greenimi - Sure, when you write it that way. I do dislike this figure, as discussed previously.

I should have fallen back to an investigative method I suggested before, which is to envision the gauge required for each case and see if there would be any difference between them. This avoids trying to figure out which part variations are compliant in favor of looking at the compliance criteria. Since the simulator for C{M} is identical to the one that verifies the slot location, there is no difference, so I agree.

If [-D-] is changed to be controlled by [A|B(M)|C], in which case the gauges would not be the same for the removal of C.

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


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close