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

Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

(OP)
Basically, I am trying to think of a way to dimension a pattern of holes where the size of the hole isn't too important, BUT the variation of the size of the holes IS important.

e.g. array of holes: 8X dia10 +/-0.5 (quite a slack tolerance as the size is not too important)
but whatever size the holes end up they must be within +/-0.05 of each other. So if min. size hole is 9.6 then all other holes must be between 9.6 and 9.65.

Not sure how best to put this clearly on a drawing other than adding some sort of NOTE description like above.

Thanks.

Regards,

Jon Reynolds

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

If this is ASME print, note is the only solution.

If this is ISO print, there is the SR (letters SR within an oval) modifier for what you want to accomplish. SR stands for Size Range - see ISO 14405-1.

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

This might be a good example of the "dynamic profile" modifier that will probably be added to the GD&T system next year.
I guess that doesn't help you right now -- you might have to use a written note to communicate the idea.

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

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

Am I allowed to ask - why?
I am genuinely curious - what kind of fit causing this requirement?

Also, it is highly unlikely that 8 holes made "at once" in the same fixturing will vary greatly in tolerance. And it could be fairly tight.

Just trying to educate myself smile

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

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

Quote (JCReynolds79)

e.g. array of holes: 8X dia10 +/-0.5 (quite a slack tolerance as the size is not too important)
but whatever size the holes end up they must be within +/-0.05 of each other. So if min. size hole is 9.6 then all other holes must be between 9.6 and 9.65.

Keep in mind that the actual size of any particular hole, which will inevitably have some form error, is not really a single value. If you end up writing a note, I'd recommend you consider something along the lines of the following:

Quote (example drawing note)

8X diameter D +/- 0.025, where D is any single value between 9.525 and 10.475

pylfrm

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

(OP)
Hi Folks,

Yes, sorry should have stated, it is ASME. So text note it is.

pylfrm, many thanks for the suggestion.

CheckerHater, the reasoning is because the holes are lightening holes in a circular pattern on a rotating part, so nothing fits in the holes (hence free size tolerance) but want them close in relative size to reduce balance issues.

Thanks all for your input.

Regards,

Jon Reynolds

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

Thank you Jon.

I understood your concern. Drilling may consistently produce holes 10+/-0.2, so you may be safe size-wise.

Do you think specifying positional tolerance may be in order? having your hole pattern off-center may be as well throwing your part off-balance.

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

RE: Slack Tolerance of Size of Feature in Pattern But Variation Must be Tighter

(OP)
Hi CheckerHater,

Yes, holes are tied up pretty tight positional-wise.

Cheers.

Regards,

Jon Reynolds

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