ASME multi-leader lines and common datum feature

[aniiben]

Sanity check: Are these two schemes valid in ASME?
Is they are kosher per Y14.5, then are they clear enough?

 

[chez311]

greenimi,

I previously stated as much that I would have no issue with that. The main issue I think I had, and that you also rightly pointed out, was the lack of grouping/pattern notation. "2 COAXIAL HOLES" in your latest example would satisfy that.

 

[axym]

greenimi,

Sorry, this thread fell off my radar.

I would agree that making A and B a commom datum feature would be valid, and mean the same thing as the current drawing. The presence of the 2 COAXIAL HOLES makes a difference, as it is a grouping mechanism that makes the position tolerance apply to both features "simultaneously" and control their mutual coaxiality. The OP drawing did not have this, it only had multiple leader lines, which is not a grouping mechanism.

It would be more interesting if the two features did not have the same size tolerance and were referenced RMB ;^).

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.

http://www.axymetrix.ca

 

[greenimi]

It would be more interesting if the two features did not have the same size tolerance and were referenced RMB ;^).

I would say that is an YOYO example (to rephrase Don Day's statement)
YOYO = you are on your own (meaning you have to explain it to the end user because the standard is no help here)

Thank you again for your input.