×
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

Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles
2

Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
thread1103-215826: basic dimensions and first article inspection

I have recently had an internal discussion at my company over whether or not to include Basic dimensions in an AS9102 First Article. The answer is yes you do. Pure and simple. To do otherwise is not complying with the AS9201 Standard. Basic Dimensions are part of the design characteristics on the drawing.

I read in one post "BASIC dims have no tolerances by themselves. They are nominals. Measuring their location directly violates the design intent and provides no useful information within the context of their design intent. A direct measurement of a BASIC dim does nothing to say if the feature is in tolerance. If one feels it is necessary to measure directly, they need to invoke some other method of tolerancing instead of BASIC."

I'm not sure why that person stated that, but measuring them directly is what you need to do to find Position. True that are nominals but so are that non-Basic dimensions. If I have a part that has a Hole and uses Cartesian dimensions showing the Hole Diameter, the X location and Y Location with ± tolerances everyone agrees that we record the Hole Diameter, the X and Y dimensions on the FAI Plan and measure directly from their respective surfaces on the FAI report. Fine we all agree on that principle. Why does anyone think it's different with geometric tolerancing. , Document the Hole Diameter with a ± tolerance, Basic Dimensions for X & Y direction, and Position tolerance Feature Control Frame. Yes the X & Y BASIC dimensions are theoretical however they ARE directly measured from the DATUM features called out in the Feature Control Frame. Those actual dimensions are recorded and compared to the basic dimensions to find the delta from each X & Y Basic Dimension (True Position). The outcome after the position calculation is called Position (Actual Position from the theoretical True Position in a diametrical circle/cylinder). So the Hole is measured DIRECTLY and related back to the DATUM Schema in a Cartesian manner (can be Polar too). The Basic dimensions have a tolerance when combined but not on there own. Both measurement directions must be ascertained to compute the actual Position within the Tolerance specified in the Feature Control Frame.

There are more cases of Basic Dimension use per ASME Y14.5-2009 that can be discussed. For instance, Basic Dimensions used to locate DATUM targets. Best Practice is to include those in the FAI to show the FAI approver that they were achieved by using whatever device to achieve those Basic dimensions( like Gage Blocks). Simply record the dimension you created with the gage block that you created the DATUM Targets . Now some may come back and say that's redundant but I can tell you it will always pass and external audit without question. Not putting characteristics that are on the Drawing (excluding Reference Dimensions per AS9102) can lead to auditors asking questions and you having to justify why that they may or may not accept.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

If the argument is getting reports accepted by auditors who don't understand Dimensioning and Tolerancing but think they do, then reporting raw data is what you are doing and no doubt will be accepted. Just like in school, graders often like it when people show their work.

On the side of those who do understand D&T, there's no point to it. If the inspector can't do the job correctly then it doesn't matter if they do show their work and it's a distraction from evaluating the product variations.

Basic dimensions can't be measured. They are, at inspection, set-up instructions and the errors in them are in the measuring equipment, not the part. They are used as a source of comparison. It's only required to measure the deviation of a feature from e.g. its true position, et al, based on the basic dimensions.

The entire point of basic dimensions was to separate the nominal dimension from the tolerance and to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges.

Let's say two holes are [5.000] from each other perpendicular to a datum feature reference, but the first is [1.000] away and perpendicular to the same datum feature referenced in the feature control frame that controls them both.

Measuring the distance ([5.000]) between the holes is useless. What's important is the difference between [6.000] inches and the actual distance from the datum simulator/datum feature.

IOW one would indicate the CMM on the datum reference/datum simulator and set the start value in that direction to -1.000 and -6.000 to measure each of the holes, respectively. Only the deviation is measured. Since allowable deviations are typically diametral or width, the measured deviation would be doubled for the report. For X, Y conditions, the measured deviations can be combined to produce diametral values or the CMM could be switched to polar measurements to get the radial deviation directly.

If you feel like reporting raw measurements, that's OK. But the measured values aren't the 'basic' ones and can be the wrong distance/dimension to inspect at all. A linear pattern of 100 holes on a [1.000] spacing rarely means making 99 measurements of 1.000 nominal.

This sort of reporting and getting acceptance from unskilled auditors is more in line with http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=286 .

At the end I am unsurprised that SAE fails to include detailed guidance and that examples from aerospace companies include in their AS9102 reporting requirements, pictures based on what looks like the 197x and earlier versions of Y14.5.

For example, from Goodrich




I do see a document about this which includes the following (https://www.sae.org/iaqg/publications/faq9102.pdf):
F11. Question:
Does "Reference Characteristic" (as defined in 9102) include both, "Basic" dimensions and "Reference" dimensions (as defined in ASME Y14.5-2009)?
F11. Answer:
The 9102 definition of Reference Characteristic is; "The characteristics that are used for information only” or to show relationship. These are dimensions without tolerances and refer to other dimensions on the drawing." Both basic and
reference dimensions fall under the definition of reference characteristics.

This page is similar:
http://www.mbccmm.com/cmmq/index.php/training/gd-t... (it has some delayed opening software.) "For conformance assessment, there is no requirement to report measured values that correspond to basic dimensions."

(added) And this document:
https://www.cobham.com/media/654302/supplierfai_tu...
"GD&T characteristics and their measured/calculated values must be recorded in the FAI. Basic dimensions may be omitted from the FAI."

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

More discussion here: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=411373

Quote (DCarnley)

...Document the Hole Diameter with a ± tolerance, Basic Dimensions for X & Y direction, and Position tolerance Feature Control Frame. Yes the X & Y BASIC dimensions are theoretical however they ARE directly measured from the DATUM features called out in the Feature Control Frame. Those actual dimensions are recorded and compared to the basic dimensions to find the delta from each X & Y Basic Dimension (True Position). The outcome after the position calculation is called Position (Actual Position from the theoretical True Position in a diametrical circle/cylinder). So the Hole is measured DIRECTLY and related back to the DATUM Schema in a Cartesian manner (can be Polar too). The Basic dimensions have a tolerance when combined but not on there own. Both measurement directions must be ascertained to compute the actual Position within the Tolerance specified in the Feature Control Frame.

This is not true. You are not measuring the "location" of the hole...ever. There is no such thing. The hole must satisfy a prescribed state of its unrelated actual mating envelope, or a prescribed state of the hole surface.

Reporting the location of a hole with XY coordinates is not rigorous. It's very poor, actually, and falls apart quite readily, even on nominally rectangular/orthagonal/planar parts. On more complex, free-form parts, it's laughable.

You're speaking as if a position feature control frame is some upgraded method of XY tolerancing, when the geometric tolerance is actually a completely different concept.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote 3DDave "The entire point of basic dimensions was to separate the nominal dimension from the tolerance and to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges."

I disagree with the above quote. Frequently the point of basic dimensions and position tolerances is to ensure mating parts fit. Many times the positional tolerances are too small to be accurately checked with functional gauges. One must use CMM or other measurement techniques. In the process of making the positional tolerance calculation, the CMM is measuring the X & Y basic dimensions as well as the hole diameter (or what ever the position tolerance is applied to) and then making the position calculation. I find it very useful to know the actual X & Y values especially when the position tolerance is exceeded and the part fails inspection. Knowing the actual location and size of the hole is very useful in figuring out how to correct the manufacturing process to make a good part. While I agree it's not necessary to "show your work" to accept or reject the positional tolerance, every machine on our floor does it and it's very useful when trouble shooting bad parts.

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

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: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

dgallup -- I think I know what Dave was saying, but yes that statement isn't quite true. In addition to the CMM point that you made, we could also consider profile tolerances: They use basic dims, but the purpose isn't "to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges."

Considering all the other good stuff he wrote in the post, we'll let that technicality slide smile

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (dgallup)

I find it very useful to know the actual X & Y values especially when the position tolerance is exceeded and the part fails inspection. Knowing the actual location and size of the hole is very useful in figuring out how to correct the manufacturing process to make a good part.

Rhetorically: Which end of a hole do you probe to report the XY "location".

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (Nescius)

Rhetorically: Which end of a hole do you probe to report the XY "location".

The entire hole axis must be into the tolerance zone as "Unless otherwise specified, all tolerances apply for full depth, length, and width of the feature."
From here it is risk management and control plan.

How much risk you want to take to make sure the therory is fullfilled.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Greenimi,

Yes, that's the point. A single XY pair is not necessarily meaningful at all.

A rhetorical question is one that is asked "with the aim of producing an effect or making a statement rather than eliciting information." In this case, I'm asking a question to highlight a flaw in what dgallup is proposing.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Nescius,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think dgallup was so far off in the weeds..... specially when you have to provide feedback for manufacturing.

Quote :"how to correct the manufacturing process to make a good part. While I agree it's not necessary to "show your work" to accept or reject the positional tolerance, every machine on our floor does it and it's very useful when trouble shooting bad parts"

And how do you know it is a single XY pair? Maybe XY pair down / up and another XY pair at cetrain length/depth is also used/reported.

However, I don't think basic dimensions should be reported, but some details on the CMM report (beside if the feature is IN or is OUT) could be very usefull.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

I'm in the report the value camp. As it can be used by manufacturing to help identify the cause of the error.
i.e. technician says "All the error seem to be in the X direction, maybe that slide is worn, I should look into that. Maybe we can get some better control on our process"

Now, what I do wish be could get to happen is have some of our vendors stop reporting the basic dimension with a pass/fail.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Per Evan J.
Y14.45 is in process to be released shortly.


"Y14.45 is not released yet. We're still working on it.
One of the reasons that I'm asking the question about reporting basic dimensions is to assess whether this is a practice that should (or even can) be standardized. As GD&T "purists", many of us have our preconceived opinion that basic dimensions are theoretically exact and therefore do not have measured values. At the same time, measured values of basic dimensions are often asked for and reported in industry (see JNieman's post above, for example). I've heard of similar things going on at a lot of other companies as well."

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=411373

Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca
said:

Quote: "Yes, I'm a member of the Y14.5.1 subcommittee and also the Y14.45 subcommittee for Measurement Data Reporting. Part of the reason that I participate in GD&T and CMM forums is to get a better idea of what challenges industry professionals are facing, and what their opinions are on various issues. A new revision of Y14.5.1 is in the committee review stage and Y14.45 is nearing completion as well. There should be public review drafts coming out later this year (I'll keep you posted). I'm hoping for lots of feedback from members of this forum, especially on the profile section."

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
Hi Dave,
I have read your initial response and want to point out that the passing an audit is ancillary and a perk to the actual requirement if AS9102 in recording Design Characteristics on a drawing. If an inspector doesn't understand GD&T they should not be a precision part inspector. You seem to believe that it does not matter whether the process of machining yields 3 of 6 holes are -.003 in X and -.004 in y and the other three +.003 in X and .003 in Y as long as they pass the Position tolerance of .010. Yes you have 3 holes in the lower left quadrant and 3 holes in the upper right quadrant. The question is, is the process for making the holes and position satisfactory. The answer is yes for the FAI. However is the process in control? The answer is no. How will any Quality or Manufacturing Engineer be able to understand the process from the benchmarking of an FAI without the much needed information that shows the out of control condition? Sorry I'm big on continual improvement from the baseline FAIRs. Basic dimensions in GD&T position tolerancing have tolerance. It's is an aggregate of the position tolerance from the Feature Control Frame. The Basic dimensions are a function of that tolerance just as the Diameter is a function when LMC or MMC is when specified. Deviation from LMC or MMC has function to increase the tolerance in the Feature Control Frame thus changing it. I have seen where some inspectors actual were training to reduce the actual position by the factor of LMC or MMC and report the position as "0" if it reaches "0" or below. How would you respond to a actual position on the report as .000. I requested where in ASME Y14.5 it told them to do that. They could find it. That's because it doesn't exist. What does exist, is an addition to the position tolerance (most people and books affectionately call "Bonus Tolerance")

Dave I truly disagree with your position. Seems to me that not reporting the X&Y actuals of a position if a hole is a shortcut that Companies try and take to save time. I believe this shortcut takes away from the intent of the FAIR as benchmarking the production "Process" to continually yield acceptable material. Most likely Quality Engineer or MFG Engineer or the Company paradigm doesn't care about process improvement yield measurements with an acceptable Ppk.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (greenimi)

And how do you know it is a single XY pair? Maybe XY pair down / up and another XY pair at cetrain length/depth is also used/reported.

How many extra lines are we going to put on the FAI? One for every XY hole "location" at some number of Z depths? For every hole?

A single basic dimension might serve to locate 1 hole...or 1000 holes. What about dimension that are not shown on the drawing, like implied 90 degree angles, or implied zero distances? What about dimensions that we might not be able to measure, like small segments of a radius? There are countless things that might be defined with basic dimensions that demonstrate the silliness of the whole exercise.

There is a big difference between a FAI and a metrology report used to investigate bad parts. Anybody that blindly wants to include all basic dimensions on a FAI doesn't know what they are asking for. They're missing the point (and power) of geometric tolerances altogether.

As an aside, who's waiting until a FAI to detect a failure mode that "measuring" basic dimensions would show? In my world, we're not doing our job if something like that makes it to the FAI stage. It should have been caught much sooner.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (DCarnley)

Seems to me that not reporting the X&Y actuals of a position if a hole is a shortcut that Companies try and take to save time.

I'll ask you directly: Which end of a hole do you probe to report the "X&Y actuals" of that hole?

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

DCarnley -

I noted that a number of companies specifically tell their suppliers to omit basic dimensions and so does an opinion from the AS9102 group.

Any manufacturing engineer should be looking at the across-the-shop raw data for all the process to see what the shop capability is in various areas, as well as individual features on individual parts. That level of detail isn't appropriate for an FAI report.

As a customer, I would like to see long term statistics across the shop. It's been my experience that shops change equipment, operators, bits get dull, cutters get replaced. Unless there's a new FAI done every time that happens, FAIs really only mean that the shop could make one passing part and it's not a guarantee that the rest will conform. I have never seen a shop include Cpk data with their bid package or in their website, though perhaps some have; they mostly list the machines they own.

For holes, there are two main questions, 1) How far from the target location and 2) how far from the target diameter?, are your X-sigma values for the equipment and operators the part will be run on and what are the corresponding values for this particular part for the FAI?

If I worried that much I would witness the inspection as well as the entire fabrication process and would have required a series of pre-qualification operations. It's all good stuff, but not for a snap-shot report.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
Nescius,
Thank you for your insight. I agree that some things don't need to be on the FAI like implied 90 degree angles, or implied zero distances. those thing are not on the Drawing and therefore are not required. I also agree that What Company waits till the FAI to fix the process and repeatability and reproducibility. Unfortunately many don't. But if I have a requirement to measure of a hole position in Y as 12X 1.000 ± .005 you would record is once, range it from Min and Max, or treat each hole individually and record the result for each hole? You as how many lines is necessary. I always fall back to the AS9102 to tell me.

3.6 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
Those dimensional, visual, functional, mechanical, and material features or properties, which describe and constitute the
design of the article, as specified by drawing or DPD requirements. These characteristics can be measured, inspected,
tested, or verified to determine conformance to the design requirements. Dimensional features include in-process locating
features (e.g., target-machined or forged/cast dimensions on forgings and castings, weld/braze joint preparation necessary
for acceptance of finished joint). Material features or properties may include processing variables and sequences, which
are specified by the drawing or DPD (e.g., heat treat temperature, fluorescent penetrant class, ultrasonic scans, sequence
of welding and heat treat). These provide assurance of intended characteristics that could not be otherwise defined.

3.10 FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION (FAI) - ALSO REFERRED TO AS PRODUCTION PROCESS VERIFICATION
A planned, complete, independent, and documented inspection and verification process to ensure that prescribed
production processes have produced an item conforming to engineering drawings, DPD, planning, purchase order,
engineering specifications, and/or other applicable design documents.

3.13 MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Identical characteristics that occur at more than one location (e.g., “4 places”), but are established by a single set of drawing
or DPD requirements (e.g., rivet hole size, dovetail slots, corner radii, chemical milling pocket thickness).

3.19 VARIABLE DATA
Quantitative measurements taken on a continuous scale (e.g., the diameter of a cylinder, the gap between mating parts).

c. The organization should consider the following activities during FAI planning and coordinate planning with the customer,
if required:
1. Determination of design characteristic inspection and sequencing for inspection of characteristics not measurable
in the final product.
2. Extraction of DPD design characteristics required for product realization that are not fully defined on 2D drawings,
including tolerances for nominal dimensions.
3. Determination of objective evidence to be included in the FAIR for each design characteristic.


RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
Nescius,
You are probably not going to like my answer on this because I normally do not take a 2D diameter on a three dimensional surface unless the a small depth of the cylinder precludes otherwise. Per ASME Y14.5-2009 and back to ANSI Y14.5-1973 version, the ø symbol in the Feature Control Frame is not a 2D diameter. It is a 3D cylindrical tolerance zone. In the old day (before CMM) I would use a surface Plate, Height Gage and test indicator to measure hole position. I measure the worst case deviation of the cylinder on both sided and use the side for the worst position. Now we have CMMs. We can project the cylinder axis. I program the CMM to measure each hole as a cylinder and bound the cylinder to the intersecting surface and the intersecting planar depth (Yes depth is a required measurement if it's on the drawing). CMM programs will calculate the worst case position at the intersection points. The shortcut is, if we believe the the machine used to create the cylinder is always exactly perpendicular to the adjacent surface or datum feature (not always the adjacent surface), then you only measure a 2D circle.

I know these shortcuts are timesavers. And I'm OK with Companies taking this approach to save money but they should stipulate so, like in a Contract or Procedure/ Work Instruction. To me the Normative Standards like AS9102 and ASME Y14.5-2009 are clear on their own. The grey area is created by individuals. Thus the continued debate over whether or not to document those Design Characteristics called "Basic Dimensions" on the face of the drawing.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

DCarnley -

From 3.10 - "have produced an item conforming to engineering drawings" Just one item. Not a way to the verify the process will remain in statistical control or act as a benchmark for getting better or worse results.

The implied 90s are on the drawing and are described by "and/or other applicable design documents." Failing to measure them is typical and the reason that large default angle tolerances are still on drawings, even though compliant parts would often be useless for purpose were they built to the limits of those tolerances. (<rant> Typical excuse is that extreme parts would be rejected for 'workmanship,' and so it doesn't matter what the tolerance value is, they won't be inspected anyway, closing the loop of ignorance.</rant>)

I don't know about the gray area - the AS9102 committee issued an opinion saying the basic dimensions are considered reference information. Since the basic dimension has no tolerance, inspecting it is of no value.

Is there anyone that publishes AS9102 guidance specifically requiring this reporting?

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (DCarnley)

...some things don't need to be on the FAI like implied 90 degree angles, or implied zero distances. those thing are not on the Drawing and therefore are not required.

The implied 90's and zero dimensions are as "on the drawing" as anything else. The information is required to make the part and it is absolutely communicated by the drawing. If it's not "on the drawing", where is it? Going further, what about model based definition? No drawing, no dimensions "shown" anywhere.

Quote (DCarnley)

I measure the worst case deviation of the cylinder on both sided and use the side for the worst position. Now we have CMMs. We can project the cylinder axis. I program the CMM to measure each hole as a cylinder and bound the cylinder to the intersecting surface and the intersecting planar depth (Yes depth is a required measurement if it's on the drawing). CMM programs will calculate the worst case position at the intersection points.

As the hole straightness and orientation error become worse, the conclusions you are drawing from this procedure are worth even less. Distilling the "location" of a hole down to an XY coordinate is impossible. Tolerancing the location of a hole with +/- dimensioning is and always has been complete madness. The only way any of this is valid is if you assume perfect form and orientation...which leads me to:

Quote (DCarnley)

The shortcut is, if we believe the the machine used to create the cylinder is always exactly perpendicular to the adjacent surface or datum feature (not always the adjacent surface), then you only measure a 2D circle.

So, you convince yourself that the machine drills perfect holes, perfectly oriented, but in the wrong spot...then you measure the location of a 2D best-fit circle at some cross-section of the hole...and consider this information so valuable that you spend tremendous amounts of time and money to gather and report it?

You're crippling the power of geometric tolerancing and the mathematical certainty of part definition that it tries to provide. Nothing is lost by not including basic dimensions on the FAI. There was nothing to lose. Thinking about the location of a hole in terms of XY coordinates is nonsensical. It's not limited to hole location, either. Most geometry is incapable of being described rigorously with only +/- dimensions, precisely why geometric tolerancing exists.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Hi All,

Excellent discussion - it's great to see input from both sides of the issue.

To me, the discussion reinforces the idea that verifying conformance to the specified GD&T characteristics and providing data for process analysis/correction are two different things. This really helps to clarify the purpose and scope of the different standards and quality documents.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

axym,

If I inspect a part, I ought to record the measurements I took. Ideally, I should measure from the datums, but often, I have to work with the tooling I have. Someone, probably not not necessarily me, has to process my measurements and compare them with the GD&T. If there is a basic dimension, there is a feature control frame showing what is allowed. As the inspector, I need to test this, and record the result.

Recently, I inspected some part by sitting them on gauge blocks. When parts were less than the maximum and more than the minimum, I quickly lost interest, and I don't really know what the dimensions were. I found some parts that did not conform, and then I made the effort to determine what the dimensions actually were.

I am not accustomed to FAI's, although I anticipate seeing some soon. I would want to see that actual measurements included in the report.

--
JHG

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

I see this exact problem every day. I work as an Engineer of a supplier for major Aerospace companies. The problem seems to stem from the Quality people on both the customer side and supplier side not understanding GD&T enough. From my research, Basic dimensions should be reported but they have no direct tolerance (obviously) so there is nothing to put a direct pass/fail on the individual Basic dimensions. In the past from the likes of GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce (all quality people) is that they cant pass a First Article because some dimensions (Basic) dont have tolerances attached to them so their system cant accept them. I've never dealt with any of the Quality systems of any of customer so I dont know if thats true/false. Some customers even go as far as forcing us to impose a made up tolerance on basic dimensions to pass their FAIs which is stupid. I dont know how to solve this issue as its not just one customer doing this.

As for many of the same type of dimensions, such as a ton of hole positions. Usually we are allowed to just give one report line and just put the range that all the inspected dimensions fall between. Ive never had any FAI fail over implied dimensions because every Quality person just looks at a drawing and basically makes a check list of the visual dimensions. If a dimension is not visible on the drawing then they dont do squat for it usually.

But Basic dimensions should be reported on the FAI and with no direct tolerance just as its definition suggests. No Basic dimension should ever fail. If any quality person says for you to do any more than that then tell them to schedule a GD&T course or learn to use their FAI software better.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Vindicit,

Okay. I now have seen some First Article Inspection reports. These are spreadsheets showing the dimensions, the tolerances and the as-measured dimensions. I assume these procedures were developed prior to rigorous understanding of GD&T. The logic is that I measure something. I record the result. I compare the result with the tolerances.

If I inspect a complex outline controlled by a profile, I can easily record pass and fail. It probably is not possible to reduce the test to a couple of recordable numbers. The solution might be prepare an inspection drawing with dimensions with ± values, with codes referencing the inspection spreadsheet. Obviously, the dimensions would be based on an interpretation of the GD&T on the original drawing.

--
JHG

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (drawoh)

If I inspect a complex outline controlled by a profile, I can easily record pass and fail. It probably is not possible to reduce the test to a couple of recordable numbers.

The CMM software I'm (slightly) familiar with will spit out the two extreme values of deviation from true profile, without much more effort than checking a box. If you are using some sort of functional gage, then it may be rather more difficult.

pylfrm

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
I'm glad we are having a very good debate on this subject.
I like what AS9102 says using a CMM and how we must program it for FAI purposes.
When automated inspection tooling produces measurement results, those results may be referenced on 9102 Form 3, identified as pass/fail, and attached only when:
  • The characteristic numbers are clearly linked in the attached report.
  • The results in the attached reports are clearly traceable to the characteristic numbers.
  • The results are directly comparable to the design characteristic.
NOTE: Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM) data alone would not be acceptable for a positional tolerance; the results shall show the actual positional value.

So you just can't put CMM Data (X,Y) coordinate you must also show the actual positional value. Also if the feature control frame has MMC or LMC that affect to true position tolerance those should be listed to show why the true position tolerance changed from .010 to .014 for a hole that was .004 larger then MMC.

And to another comment made. And I retort, I am not crippling the power of geometric tolerances. I am all for it if used properly you gain tolerance, control tolerance stack-up and ensure everyone is playing on the same field.... What I am doing is documenting what is on the drawing as design characteristics, yes Basic dimensions are design characteristics, and I give a place for the inspector to put there results. If there are 13 holes to measure I give them 13 places to record it all. Yes a place for each of the 13 holes, 13 for the X's, 13 for the Y, 13 for the diameter and 13 for the position tolerance. I also will index the holes with a lower case letter on the drawing and place that index in the cell so the inspector knows which place to put the result. You might find this overkill but in the interest of why we perform a First Article in the first place is to document the output of the process of making one part of the initial production run. We characterize the part as the benchmark. I can even agree with others that we should add the unspecified 90° surfaces. We look back at the benchmark FAI when something goes awry to see what it measured the first time and compare it to the current state.
Again this is a grand debate and I enjoy reading the thoughts of others on this subject.

Enjoy!

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Quote (DCarnley)

If there are 13 holes to measure I give them 13 places to record it all. Yes a place for each of the 13 holes, 13 for the X's, 13 for the Y, 13 for the diameter and 13 for the position tolerance. I also will index the holes with a lower case letter on the drawing and place that index in the cell so the inspector knows which place to put the result. You might find this overkill...

It may or may not be overkill, if you happen to want the data and believe that data to be valuable. As we discussed above, that data is fuzzy and relies on a number of assumptions.

What I do believe, is that such data is not appropriate on a FAI, because it is not related to whether or not a given part meets its specifications. You are creating a connection with your assumptions, but there cannot be a mathematically certain link because geometric tolerancing transcends the concept of +-/XY dimensioning completely. There is no ability within the language of +-/XY notation to describe the things that a geometric tolerance is describing.

I say that you're crippling the power of geometric tolerances because you're advocating a procedure that is easily shown to be nonsensical now, let alone if we look where part design, manufacturing, and measuring will be in the future. Our ability to design, make, and measure fantastic, organic, free-form, optimized shapes is only growing. XY dimensioning has always been a terrible, mathematically flawed way to describe a 3D part and it's becoming less and less acceptable by the minute.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

Nescius,

Assume I have to inspect your part and submit a report and I do not have a CMM. Either I work out a bunch of XY dimensions and tolerances based on your profile, or I create pass/fail inspection tools like a Go/NoGo gauge. I create an inspection drawing. I arbitrarily pick points around your profile and I inspect those points. The FAI is not perfect, but it provides useful information.

--
JHG

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

drawoh,

As I said to DCarnley, that information may or may not have value. It depends on the individual part and tolerance. I even agree that such information is usually great to have, especially on typical machined parts...which overwhelmingly consist of orthagonal features generated on machines that are very square and repeatable. Even so, that doesn't mean it belongs on a FAI.

If an entity wants to record said information on something they're calling an FAI, that's fine. What really grinds my gears is a customer demanding that I "measure" and record all basic dimensions as part of some PPAP. "Measure" is in quotes because, as I explain above, it is mathematically impossible to distill many things down to an XY pair...a hole "location", for example. "Location" is in quotes for a reason, too...because there's no such thing as a hole "location" in the universe of XY coordinates.

In your profile tolerance example, for XY numbers to have any value, the basic profile must be of constant cross section. Even then, you're assuming the part is uniform in the Z direction, so that your XY at the Z that you chose ends up being representative. This isn't necessarily a terrible assumption, but...

Of course, a profile tolerance can just as easily apply to a complex surface with no constant cross section...with the basic dimensions defined by a model or a mathematical equation. Where does it stop? Thousands of XYZ touch points listed on a FAI? Geometric tolerancing has the power to control an incredibly complex surface with only a single model and a single feature control frame. That is awesome. Being forced to record raw metrology data points, potentially by the thousands, on a FAI...? That is the very definition of crippling the power of geometric tolerancing.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)


Nescius,
Maybe you are not understanding my intend of why I record Basic Dimensions on the FAI. True they are not shown as passing or failing for that line item but the basic dimension actuals support the actual positional. They are absolutely necessary to calculate the position. Your argument is that the basic dimensions don't need to be part of the FAI because as long as the actual hole position is within the true position tolerance then no one need know why. This is where we differ. I'm surprised that you think that the basic dimension information is irrelevant on the FAI. I'm not sure you see the FAI as a benchmark for overall process to make the part successfully with data that shows why it was successful. I've reviewed many FAIs from many suppliers. I can tell the difference with suppliers that truly understand why we ask for a first article and other suppliers that just want to get it done from a minimalist approach. It is typically the minimalist suppliers that warrant higher scrutiny by our Supplier Quality Group. I have seen out right lies on a FAI where the inspector has no clue how to calculate position and just puts a passing number. When that same part is measured by the customer they find that the positions don't correlate on a significant scale. From the minimalist FAI (without basic dimensions) the customer cannot determine how the inspector came up with the result. When the part is returned and the customer witnesses a second inspection at the supplier that same inspector shows the lack of knowledge to make the calculation or they find out that out the customer is right and the hole position is not what was reported.

To respond to your gear grinding with customers asking to record the basic actuals for a PPAP, That is the only way to properly analyze the process. Like it or not the basic dimension coordinates are what tell you what the actual position is. Because the theta angle is not recorded I can have a hole with an actual position of .005 and that hole position has an infinite number of location possibilities in a Cartesian circle that the .005 position diameter creates. The PPAP will determine if the process will have repeatability in both the X and Y directions.

I have attached a file using a tool I created in excel to show actual delta position compared to the individual basic dimensions. (deviation from Nominal). Take a look at it and you will see that when plotted interesting things can be ascertained when you can visually see the actual hole positions and the true position tolerances applied.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

If I want to know about the inspection I want to know the XYZ and vector the CMM Probe was on at the time of each hit, and the diameter of the probe so I can check that the CMM did its math right. I also expect to see the source code and the compiled code to make sure that what the CMM software developers intended is what's happening, along with any errata sheets for the CPU. Also I need the full temperature distribution of the part and the CMM to make sure they are at exactly 68F.

If that's not on the report how can a person be sure?

It seems to me like you're avoiding qualifying vendor capabilities before letting contracts and using FAIs to inspect quality into the sub-contracting process.

I suppose that's the reason for the disconnect - I would not depend on a supplier with a conflict of interest to supply both the parts and the FAI data without seeing their operation and understanding their process. So why do you accept their FAI at all? Just do receiving inspection and send the failed parts back.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

How are FAI being done on parts that use MBD or 3D PMI, when the basic Dimensions do not appear on a "print" or 3D model.

RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles

(OP)
SDETER
MDB or 3D PMI requires the Engineer to complete the Model and all tolerancing for all features. Unfortunately this does not always occur for the Model

We do perform inspections on composite material using a GOM Blue Light ATOS 3D Scanner and gave the tolerance based on the Model with a Global Best Fit to a Profile of a surface of .060 (not related to any Datum's). This allowed specialized software to take the cloud of points and manipulate them all together and fit with the tolerance zone of +.030 / -.030 to the model surfaces. This approach does limit any continued analysis as the information is not from any Datum structure.
Don

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