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

Proper LMC Callout

Proper LMC Callout

(OP)
So I have a boss with a blind hole going into it and want to ensure a minimum wall thickness if either the hole or boss moves or changes diameter but want to give bonus tolerance so that the part isn't rejected.

It seems like the LMC callout is what I need for both the location as well as datum B (assuming datum B is the hole going into the boss) to convey the condition that when both the hole and boss are both at their LMC then the parts have to be dead nuts on one another but anything other than that you get bonus tolerance for the boss to move around. Is what I have drawn right now conveying that correctly or is it supposed to be called out differently? I wasn't able to find anything exactly like this online or in the ASME book that describes something like this.

RE: Proper LMC Callout

Can you show the datum features too.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: Proper LMC Callout

abrewmaster:

The LMC concept can communicate the design intent - wall thickness - you described. But be aware, the tolerance zone (mating envelope) is "in the metal" and requires calculations based on surface analysis. This demands careful planning from a QA standpoint to confirm requirements.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: Proper LMC Callout

INDIVIDUALLY is used when a datum feature is repeated. It looks like C is not repeated. SEPARATE REQUIREMENT is used if the features are to be evaluated separately.

RE: Proper LMC Callout

First, no bonus tolerance will be added because there is no tolerances on Dia 0.292. You need to show Datums B & C to properly understand the position frame. It is chopped from the image.

RE: Proper LMC Callout

3DDave has a good point. What is the intent of using the term "INDIVIDUALLY"? And...are the (5) holes one pattern or are there two patterns of holes - group f 2 and a group of 3? So are you using the term to separate the patterns or the holes in each pattern - assuming there are two patterns?

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: Proper LMC Callout

(OP)
Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

There are two sets of patterns as you seem to have guessed. The two sets of holes are on different planes which is probably more evident with the new picture I attached. I believe the INDIVIDUALLY is valid here since the datum feature is repeated but I have only used the callout a couple of times before so I might be using it wrong.

Quote (mkcski)

The LMC concept can communicate the design intent - wall thickness - you described. But be aware, the tolerance zone (mating envelope) is "in the metal" and requires calculations based on surface analysis. This demands careful planning from a QA standpoint to confirm requirements.
Is there a better way to achive the same result or is it something our Quality department has to accept will involve some work? when I talked about what I wanted to do they seemed like they would be able to do it, granted they weren't the most excited.

Quote (Pyromech)

First, no bonus tolerance will be added because there is no tolerances on Dia 0.292. You need to show Datums B & C to properly understand the position frame. It is chopped from the image.
The title block has standard tolerances of +/-.005" so the LMC should be .287" Attached is a view that shows datums B and C as well.

RE: Proper LMC Callout

That just makes it worse. On the right side of the drawing is a profile and position FCF that refers to C. Which C?

RE: Proper LMC Callout

One other thing to remember is that when you specify a FOS with LMC modifier it turns rule #1 on its head. Perfect form is now required at LMC size, not at MMC size for that FOS. And, yes, as mentioned by Mkcski the bonus is now taken from the size of the actual minimum material envelope (the low points, inside the material).

Based upon size limits of the hole and the boss and the LMC FCFs you are able to calculate what the minimum wall thickness allowed is. This is what QA needs to verify (along with correct size). If you were not using GD&T there would most likely be a note stating the minimum allowable wall thickness for these features. Although that note might lead to the measurement being taken with calipers. So, the LMC FCF is superior to a wall thickness note, in that it clearly describes how that minimum thickness needs to be thought of.

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