Search results for query: *

Thanks for the replies. mfgenggear, apologizes I'm not sure what you mean?

I'm creating a 3D model of an external involute spline in SolidWorks. The model is to be used directly for manufacturing programming, as such the model needs to reflect as best possible the required geometry at mid tolerance. I've created the involute flanks with parametric equation curves...

Hi All, I'm looking at a drawing the below call-out on a hole - doesn't seem to make sense to me.. Isn't the first row redundant since you get that same control as part of the Position tolerance row anyway? Datum feature A is a face perpendicular to the hole.

yes its a simultaneous requirement?

Another questions, if I make both holes relative to [A][B], does it evoke a simultaneous requirement and control the symmetry of the two holes about the centerline?

I'm glad it makes no sense to other people as well, think i'll just start from scratch on this one..

Hi All, Can anyone help me interpret the drawing below. I've no idea what that second FCF row means? I'm re-drawing the part and am trying to decide if what was originally drawn is the best approach (I've added stuff in red for clarity that's on another view) I already have issues with...

Yep could do that, although I liked the idea of using a profile tolerance and simultaneous requirement to control rotation as suggested in an earlier post. Presumably if there was interference then B should remain secondary? Is this because an interference fit on the stud would not allow the...

I can see how the datum sequence effects points of contact in the diagram from CheckerHater. I'm struggling to see how one might be preferred over the other in my application.

Yes, clearance in all conditions - but only a few thou.

In this instance the part locates on the stud(1) and then slides down to abut onto the mating face (2). I was trying to mirror that with the datum sequence.

Hi All, Thanks for your inputs. Some good ideas thanks! I don't have a preference at this point whether the constraints come from a simultaneous requirements or not. Datum surface [B] abuts a mating faces so I chose the corresponding hole as [A].

Hi All, I have a part that looks like a figure of 8 with two holes, similar to a chain link. The holes need aligning with one another but i'm struggling to decide how to apply a tertiary datum to lock any rotation - see attached. I don't want the holes wandering off so the wall thickness get...

Yep sorry i missed the diameter symbol. My question is regarding cylinders.

Hi Greenimi thanks for the reply. Are the two call-outs below legal in ASME then? If so how do they differ? Ta.

Hi all, Referring too Fig.4-11 in ASME '09 which shows the method for establishing a cylinder axis. How does that differ from establishing a datum from a cylinder surface? Thanks, Rich.

Thanks CheckerHater, Its starting to make a bit more sense. So far my part looks a little like the below: I'm still struggling to decide if i really need to define and relationship between my forged and my final machined part. As long as I get complete clean up and a finished part I'm happy...

Thanks for the responses; CheckerHater: OK I see what your saying. On your example does that mean that don't have to use Datum A, but they could if they wanted? The word non-mandatory suggests a choice? Also, how would an inspector verify that positional tolerance on the final part? Any reason...

Hi 3DDave, Thanks for your response, On this machined part, my primary datum is the bearing diameter and the secondary datum is the corresponding bearing abutment shoulder. So your suggesting identifying datum target points on the forging, and then dimension from those to the two datum's I...

Hi all, I have a forged wheel rim where all surfaces are subsequently machined, no forged faces are left. The forging looks like a wheel, no surprise there.. Since the part is machined call over, machined faces relative to forging features are not important to me, as long as I end up with a...