×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• 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.

# Proper chamfer callout with the angle as a basic.

## Proper chamfer callout with the angle as a basic.

(OP)
By making the angle of a chamfer basic does this mean the angle has to be "Perfect"?

There is a discussion here about the validity of showing the angle as a basic and using the tolerance block in the drawing title block to control the chamfer size. Thus allowing angle variation within the limits of the depth of chamfer.

Is this a valid way of controlling the angle of the chamfer?

One discussion is to have the angle tolerance dictated by an angular tolerance in the title block.

Our ANSI Y14.5-1994 book does not discuss this.

Any help would be appreciated.

Tony

(OP)
ANYONE?

### RE: Proper chamfer callout with the angle as a basic.

The purpose of making a dimension "basic" is to exclude it from the title or drawing block tolerance.  So, assuming the block tolerance applies to a chamfer defined by basic dimensions is incorrect.

If you use basic dimensions, then you would need to also apply an appropriate geometric tolerance (probably a profile tolerance) to define the allowances for the surface.

ASME Y14.5M-1994 defines several methods for specifying a chamfer in paragraph 1.8.15 (page 14) and Figures 1-41, 1-42, 1-43 and 1-44. (pages 17-18).  All of the examples illustrated would default to the block tolerance as long as they were not enclosed in a box.  Select the method most appropriate for your application.

Hope this helps

GDT GUY

### RE: Proper chamfer callout with the angle as a basic.

(OP)
Thank you! This is what my associate and I were thinking but without our '1994 book (lost but another one on its way) we could not prove or dis-prove.

Thank you again!

Tony

#### 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.

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:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!