ASME Y14.5 - chamfers at degree other than 90

[pmarc]

Just to take a short break of radius considerations, I would like to propose chamfer considerations. Please take a look at fig. 1-44 of 1994 standard or 1-45 of 2009 version. Do you think that the method shown on sketches on the left (2 linear dimensions) is OK? I mean, does it fully dimension the chamfer?

 

[ctopher]

Yes, it does.
It's not the typical way of doing it for most people, but it works and it's in the standard.

Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP4.1
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[KENAT]

Yes, although inspection could be challenging by the time you get a real world break of the sharp edges.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[pmarc]

I could agree with, Guys, only if angle between chamfered surfaces is also specified. Without the angle there are infinite possibilities of chamfer's geometry. Am I missing something?

 

[KENAT]

The dimensions are parallel to the parts surfaces. Assuming that the angle of the part faces to each othe is given elsewhere I'm not sure I see the issue.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[drawoh]

pmarc,

You meant Fig 1-46 in the 2009 standard, right?

Both chamfers are unambiguous.

The second chamfer with the dimension and angle is fairly easy to inspect if both dimensions are basic and you use a profile tolerance on the chamfer face. I actually specify stuff like this all the time, although, functionally, the feature never is a chamfer.

As the designer, I would have made the 2X60° chamfer perpendicular to one of the edges.

JHG

 

[pmarc]

Kenat, as you said: "ASSUMING THAT THE ANGLE OF THE PART IS GIVEN ELSEWHERE I'm not sure I see the issue", I also can't see the issue then. But the example to the left (unlike to the right one) does not show this angle, and that's why I got confused.

 

[PeterStock]

It is best to remember that the drawings used in the standard should be considered incomplete. That said, when commenting on them, a statment like Kenat's should be used where necessary.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[KENAT]

pmarc, ASME Y14.5M-1994 section 1.1.4 should always be kept in mind anytime you see a figure in the standard that appears to missing something.

It would make me a lot happier if people would also keep it in mind when I post the odd sketch to try and show a point I'm making on this site.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[pmarc]

I am aware that figures in the standard are often incomplete by intent, however in this case, unlike to many other examples, lack of the angle created a confusion - at least to me. But OK, let it be. At least now I know that this example has to be considered with additional assumption that quite important information is specified elsewhere.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your quick reaction.