I have a metal door, just a flat piece with formed edges for rigidity. The prototype had an issue with concave bowing. Concave bowing is not acceptable, but x-amount of convex bowing is ok...I'm not quite sure how to call this out on the drawing. I immediately think of a straightness...
No tertiary datum is needed for the second pattern since D establishes 2 planes at once. If pattern D were to be clocked in one way or the other, the second pattern would clock with it. As far as I can tell, your example looks fine.
Please take a look at the attached image.
Do the hole centerlines imply that the outer edges are square with the hole pattern? Or do I need a clocking datum (one of the widths) to line everything up correctly?
Thanks!
Please see the attached drawing.
I am using ASME Y14.5-2009, I think the '94 version would have "two surfaces" in place of my "2x", but anyway...
Profile of a surface requires the true profile to be established with basic dimensions. I can't find anything in the standard that overrides this...
If you have a profile with radii at corners and straight sections between them, I don't think the all-around symbol can be used on the radii dimension leader. The reason being that the dimension is only applicable on the radii - but the all-around symbol is telling you to apply it everywhere on...
Saving a little math was the only practical reason I could think of, but since I'm not experienced I figured I better consult with the masterminds. I also thought since the centerplane is what goes into establishing the DRF, technically this is what you should dimension from.
When you have a pattern of holes as a datum, do the dimensions for other features come from the centerplane derived from the pattern, or from the center of one of the holes? I've been searching around and I keep finding it done both ways, are both ways really allowed? I believe inspection is...
Defining a hole is an interesting thing. A hole dug in the ground is quite a different beast from a hole in a sweater.
I'd be inclined to think "hole" would need a definition referenced on the drawing somewhere. Or at least more specific, ex. drilled thru hole
In all my areas of CAD work (electrical, civil, architectural) I have always used, and seen, a dot for a leader to a surface, as KENAT said. A dot will read "surface" and the arrow would read "this point on the surface", but I don't know if this in a standard anywhere.
If a datum is referenced, should that datum be fully defined (in this case hole size, size tol, gd&t) on the same sheet? Or is it ok to have to look back at an earlier sheet?
In my case I have Datum B fully defined on Sheet 1, but the other sheets have features that reference datum B. So my...
I have a part drawing that contains 6 sheets.
A pattern of 2 holes is called out as Datum B on Sheet 1.
I need to identify Datum B on the other sheets, but it's not necessary to callout the size of the holes. What is the proper way to do this (if there is a proper way)?
Do I need to callout...
What if you gave the small hole X,Y dimensions from your datum A, or large hole, and then apply positional tolerance and reference datum A. This will maintain the distance you desire and since there is no clocking datum, the small hole can orbit around datum axis A.
Consider the .04 the implied 90 tolerance (or it's equivelent in decimal terms), then we still have the issue of whether the size tolerance matters.
The problem I'm seeing is - when do we consider the dimension to include the entire surface it extends from, and when do we not?
