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 LittleInch on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Different profile tolerance at each end of plate
- Thread starter bxbzq
- Start date
CheckerHater
Mechanical
I understood what you are trying to achieve without problem, but I agree it looks unusual.
It appears like you essentially trying to control the edges of the part (Side surface at bottom flat surface = edge between side and bottom)
Did you consider using Profile of a line instead? Profile of a line will apply to horizontal “slices” and requirement that slices on top are controlled looser than on bottom makes sense.
Just an idea.
It appears like you essentially trying to control the edges of the part (Side surface at bottom flat surface = edge between side and bottom)
Did you consider using Profile of a line instead? Profile of a line will apply to horizontal “slices” and requirement that slices on top are controlled looser than on bottom makes sense.
Just an idea.
- Thread starter
- #3
CheckerHater
Mechanical
I am not sure.
In your example, how do you specify where “A” tolerance zone ends and “B” tolerance zone starts?
Are you actually trying to control something different like taper?
In your example, how do you specify where “A” tolerance zone ends and “B” tolerance zone starts?
Are you actually trying to control something different like taper?
CheckerHater
Mechanical
I would say it’s “two-step” extension: first, we stretch from position controlling axis to position controlling boundary, then from position to profile.
Like I said, I understood the idea, it just wasn’t clear to me, are we trying to control the area where side meets the flat AKA “edge”, or trying to create tapered tolerance zone.
So, maybe we are extending the principles too little too far.
I am really interested what others have to say.
Like I said, I understood the idea, it just wasn’t clear to me, are we trying to control the area where side meets the flat AKA “edge”, or trying to create tapered tolerance zone.
So, maybe we are extending the principles too little too far.
I am really interested what others have to say.
- Thread starter
- #7
Why we cannot use all around (not all over) profile (for size and form) with position with Boundary for location/orientation for the upper surface and the same thing (all around profile + position with Boundary) for the lower surface, with basic draft angle showing draft’s direction?
CheckerHater
Mechanical
bxbzq said:
I would agree that this extension of principle is “interesting”, but I am not sure it can be universally understood to be considered “unambiguous”.
Technically, it violates mathematical definition of profile tolerance zone.
At least, “conical position” has a couple of pages dedicated to it in ASME Y14.5.1M, where it is being explained to the finest detail.
- Thread starter
- #10
CheckerHater
Mechanical
Bxbzq:
According to ASME Y14.5.1M “A profile tolerance zone is an area or a volume generated by offsetting each point on the nominal surface in a direction normal to the nominal surface at that point”.
ASME Y14.5.1M also has entire Chapter 5.4 CONICAL TOLERANCE ZONE dedicated to position.
Belanger:
Well, use of tangent modifier with datum-related characteristics other then orientation is “explicitly encouraged” (if it’s possible) in Para 6.5, for better or for worse. It is also understood, that tangent requirement overrides tolerance zone it applied to.
When somebody uses tangent with run-out, then it will be really disturbing.
According to ASME Y14.5.1M “A profile tolerance zone is an area or a volume generated by offsetting each point on the nominal surface in a direction normal to the nominal surface at that point”.
ASME Y14.5.1M also has entire Chapter 5.4 CONICAL TOLERANCE ZONE dedicated to position.
Belanger:
Well, use of tangent modifier with datum-related characteristics other then orientation is “explicitly encouraged” (if it’s possible) in Para 6.5, for better or for worse. It is also understood, that tangent requirement overrides tolerance zone it applied to.
When somebody uses tangent with run-out, then it will be really disturbing.
Hi All,
If this type of tapered tolerance zone is intended, I would recommend using the non-uniform profile method described in Section 8.3.2 of Y14.5-2009. The tolerance zone would be annotated with basic dimensions. I would not recommend trying to adapt the conical position tolerance zone concept for use with profile.
Non-uniform profile is a new tool in the Y14.5-2009 standard. The Y14.5.1M-1994 mathematical definitions standard was based on Y14.5M-1994, and thus did not deal with non-uniform profile. The next version of Y14.5.1 will address it.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
If this type of tapered tolerance zone is intended, I would recommend using the non-uniform profile method described in Section 8.3.2 of Y14.5-2009. The tolerance zone would be annotated with basic dimensions. I would not recommend trying to adapt the conical position tolerance zone concept for use with profile.
Non-uniform profile is a new tool in the Y14.5-2009 standard. The Y14.5.1M-1994 mathematical definitions standard was based on Y14.5M-1994, and thus did not deal with non-uniform profile. The next version of Y14.5.1 will address it.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
CheckerHater
Mechanical
Axym,
You beat me to it while I was making nice picture
You beat me to it while I was making nice picture
Sorry to be persuasive, but what *IS* wrong with my proposal:
"Why we cannot use all around (not all over) profile (for size and form) with position with Boundary for location/orientation for the upper surface and the same thing (all around profile + position with Boundary) for the lower surface, with basic draft angle showing draft’s direction?"
Why this does not work?
I am NOT implying it does. I am asking.
Thank you for your input
"Why we cannot use all around (not all over) profile (for size and form) with position with Boundary for location/orientation for the upper surface and the same thing (all around profile + position with Boundary) for the lower surface, with basic draft angle showing draft’s direction?"
Why this does not work?
I am NOT implying it does. I am asking.
Thank you for your input
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,248
I agree that non-uniform profile tolerance is better choice. However I have two caveats to CH's graphic (sorry CH):
1. Minor thing - the leader of profile feature control frame should touch true profile of the part, not the contour of non-uniform profile tolerance zone (see figs. 8-9 through 8-11 in Y14.5-2009).
2. Bigger issue - since the height of the part on bxbzq's original drawing is directly toleranced, height of the profile tolerance zone shown on CH's picture may vary from 25.0 to 25.2 depending on the actual height of the part. In my opinion, since it was decided not to apply the principle shown in fig. 7-27 in this case, the unique height of the profile tolerance zone can't be clearly determined. This in turn means that we may get different profile tolerance zone shapes (with different included angles) depending on the height of the part. In order to eliminate this ambiguity I would suggest adding basic height dimension to the detail view, for instance basic 25.2. Unless bxbzq is fully comfortable with this changing included angle depending on the height of the part.
1. Minor thing - the leader of profile feature control frame should touch true profile of the part, not the contour of non-uniform profile tolerance zone (see figs. 8-9 through 8-11 in Y14.5-2009).
2. Bigger issue - since the height of the part on bxbzq's original drawing is directly toleranced, height of the profile tolerance zone shown on CH's picture may vary from 25.0 to 25.2 depending on the actual height of the part. In my opinion, since it was decided not to apply the principle shown in fig. 7-27 in this case, the unique height of the profile tolerance zone can't be clearly determined. This in turn means that we may get different profile tolerance zone shapes (with different included angles) depending on the height of the part. In order to eliminate this ambiguity I would suggest adding basic height dimension to the detail view, for instance basic 25.2. Unless bxbzq is fully comfortable with this changing included angle depending on the height of the part.
CheckerHater
Mechanical
You forgot to mention that I should use phantom line instead of center line.
- Thread starter
- #19
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Solved
- Locked
- Question