Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Angle Less than One Degree. 4
- Thread starter SDETERS
- Start date
-
1
- #2
lifttrucks
Mechanical
This may or may not help you, but the 2009 standard added wording to the end section 1.5.5 stating that "Where decimal degrees less than one are specified, a zero shall precede the decimal value."
This wording was not in the 1994 standard that I am aware of.
If you look at figure 2-2 in the 94 standard, it does show a tolerance of -0.2 degrees with a leading zero.
This wording was not in the 1994 standard that I am aware of.
If you look at figure 2-2 in the 94 standard, it does show a tolerance of -0.2 degrees with a leading zero.
-
1
- #3
- Thread starter
- #4
-
1
- #6
SteveMartin
Mechanical
As far as I can tell Y14.5-1994 is silent on this question. I would be inclined to go without the leading zero, just for similar look to any linear dimensions less than one. I'd say either one would be 'legal'. If it's a common situation for your company I'd say it should go in a company standard.
-
1
- #7
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
I'd be inclined to use a leading 0 because the decimal point is easy to miss.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
- Thread starter
- #8
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
pmarc,
Does Y14.5-2009 (paras. 1.5.5 & 2.3.3) really show the angle using mixed unit symbols? (deg and '), as opposed to 0°35' ±0°15' ?
Does Y14.5-2009 (paras. 1.5.5 & 2.3.3) really show the angle using mixed unit symbols? (deg and '), as opposed to 0°35' ±0°15' ?
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
There are many TGML characters and formatting codes listed at the Process TGML link below the reply box.
You can also use the standard Alt key method;
Alt 0176 = °
Alt 0177 = ±
You can also use the standard Alt key method;
Alt 0176 = °
Alt 0177 = ±
The title of this thread seems to allow the question that I'm about to ask, but with the discussion being about leading zeros, just tell me to go away and stop hijacking the thread if I'm off base...
What about the fact that a directly toleranced angle is very likely ambiguous and/or not providing the control that the part's function requires? If the considered feature is a planar surface then there is no tolerance zone for such a spec other than 4 lines drawn on a 2D cross-section of the feature that define min & max angles. If the considered feature is cylindrical then what is the controlled feature component and what is it controlled relative to?
For drafted features all the same issues apply. We've all seen direct tolerances applied to draft angles, but "relative to what measurable element/reference frame?" is the unanswered part of those specs.
Since this is a GD&T forum it seems appropriate to bring up the fact that the directly toleranced angle being discussed should be replaced with a basic angle from a plane or axis of a datum reference frame that is included as part of a position or profile call-out... Yes? No?
Should I have started a new thread?
What about the fact that a directly toleranced angle is very likely ambiguous and/or not providing the control that the part's function requires? If the considered feature is a planar surface then there is no tolerance zone for such a spec other than 4 lines drawn on a 2D cross-section of the feature that define min & max angles. If the considered feature is cylindrical then what is the controlled feature component and what is it controlled relative to?
For drafted features all the same issues apply. We've all seen direct tolerances applied to draft angles, but "relative to what measurable element/reference frame?" is the unanswered part of those specs.
Since this is a GD&T forum it seems appropriate to bring up the fact that the directly toleranced angle being discussed should be replaced with a basic angle from a plane or axis of a datum reference frame that is included as part of a position or profile call-out... Yes? No?
Should I have started a new thread?
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
GD&T is not _all_ this forum is about.
Whether to use GD&T is a separate discussion.
One other extraneous point that's a little closer to the core of the discussion is that it will almost certainly be necessary to include a synthesized view with the angle exaggerated, in order to make any sense of the direction of a small angle.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
Whether to use GD&T is a separate discussion.
One other extraneous point that's a little closer to the core of the discussion is that it will almost certainly be necessary to include a synthesized view with the angle exaggerated, in order to make any sense of the direction of a small angle.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
Hi Dean -- I'm not sure what you mean by the 4 lines, but there is indeed some baggage that comes with a directly toleranced angle. One issue is that a ± angle tolerance will yield a widening zone as you go further out from the vertex. This is not illegal, but something to be aware of (and thus, form of the surface is not controlled). Also, how do we know which "leg" of the angle gets the tolerance? If I see a drawing with 45º ± 1º I might measure that ±1º as being on the base leg, where another person might think of the tolerance as being on the other part of the 45º -- and there are times when it could make a difference.
I think that's along the same lines as your comment, so yes I agree!
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
I think that's along the same lines as your comment, so yes I agree!
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
- Thread starter
- #16
Please see example for what is getting dimensioned.
I made the drawing more simple just to show the feature in question. I see how a profile of surface could be used instead of of a directly dimensioned angle with a +/- dimenion. The r2.0 is there to show the cross section go through a circular area of the part
Thanks
I made the drawing more simple just to show the feature in question. I see how a profile of surface could be used instead of of a directly dimensioned angle with a +/- dimenion. The r2.0 is there to show the cross section go through a circular area of the part
Thanks
lifttrucks
Mechanical
SDETERS,
Since you are using The Y14.5 standard, may I suggest you relocate your datum feature symbol B. The standard states that datum feature symbols identify physical features and should not be applied to center lines, planes, or axes.
The problem for manufacturing/inspection is how do they know which feature the center line/plane is referring to.
I would also consider Mike Halloran's point - how do they know which way the angle goes? Is it tapered up, or down? You may have to exaggerate the angle or clarify with a note.
Since you are using The Y14.5 standard, may I suggest you relocate your datum feature symbol B. The standard states that datum feature symbols identify physical features and should not be applied to center lines, planes, or axes.
The problem for manufacturing/inspection is how do they know which feature the center line/plane is referring to.
I would also consider Mike Halloran's point - how do they know which way the angle goes? Is it tapered up, or down? You may have to exaggerate the angle or clarify with a note.
- Thread starter
- #18
The B datum is specified somewhere else on the print. B datum is a feature on the print. I did not show the entire print. I want to make sure the angle is dimensioned from the datum B plane.
The angle direction should be implied. This part comes off a mold and for this to happen the draft can only be in one direction because the if it was the other way the tool we would crash.
Good points and also thanks for the feedback.
The angle direction should be implied. This part comes off a mold and for this to happen the draft can only be in one direction because the if it was the other way the tool we would crash.
Good points and also thanks for the feedback.
PeterStock
Mechanical
If you dimensioned the angle from A instead of B it may be clearer.
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,247
SDETERS,
If you have access to ASME Y14.8-2009: "Castings, Forgings, and Molded Parts", section 3.6 specifies different methods of assigning draft angles. Maybe you can find something interesting for you.
'Directly toleranced angle' method is not among them mainly because of all the reasons that Dean and J-P highlighted.
If you have access to ASME Y14.8-2009: "Castings, Forgings, and Molded Parts", section 3.6 specifies different methods of assigning draft angles. Maybe you can find something interesting for you.
'Directly toleranced angle' method is not among them mainly because of all the reasons that Dean and J-P highlighted.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question