Form/size control and all around profile

[greenimi]

Questions about Fig. 8.24 /page 176 from Y14.5-2009 standard

Profile all around controls: Size/form in 1.2mm
Position 0.5M|A|B|C| : controls location/orientation

1.) Are the radiuses controlled in ±1.2mm by the profile ? (basic 3mm and 10mm, respectively)

2.) If the answer on Q#1 is yes, how would you control the radiuses in 2mm , but keep the edges size/form in the original tolerance of 1.2mm?

3.) Potential solution: If no basic is used for the radiuses (but rather ± and, consequently, profile all around will become 4 (four) individual profile callouts, one for each edge), can the position/with Boundary (optional in 2009, mandatory in 1994)still legal to be used? Or to be able to use position with Boundary a continuous feature (dimensioned with basic all around) must be used?

4.) Can angularity be applied on each edge individual profile callouts (four) and also to be used to control the form? Is this a good idea

 

[drawoh]

greenimi,

A 1.2 profile tolerance is approximately equivalent to [±]0.6mm.

If I wanted to call up 0.5mm radii, on the profile controlled form, I would apply a tolerance to it, i.e., the radius would be 0.5[±]0.1. I believe an all-round profile tolerance still applies, controlling the location of the radius.

--
JHG

 

[greenimi]

To give you more details:
I have an application with a similar profile with Fig. 8-24 (attachment) –where we want to control the boundary of this non cylindrical feature---and where the flats must be in 1.2mm shape and size, but the radii / radiuses (BTW, in English are accepted both) should be in 2mm (functionally we can live with bigger radii /radiuses than given by the 1.2mm profile all around)
How we can say that in the GD and T language? Please help if you know a good solution.
Same questions as original post:
1.) Are the radiuses controlled (Fig 8-24 / Y14.5-2009 page 176) in ±1.2mm by the profile? (basic 3mm and 10mm, respectively). I am “almost” sure : yes, but not positive.

2.) If the answer on Q#1 is yes, how would you control the radiuses in 2mm , but keep the edges size/form in the original tolerance of 1.2mm?

3.) Potential solution : If no basic is used for the radiuses (but rather ± and, consequently, profile all around will become 4 (four) individual profile callouts, one for each edge), can the position/with Boundary (optional in 2009, mandatory in 1994) still legal to be used?
Or to be able to use position with Boundary a continuous feature (dimensioned with basic all around) must be used?

4.) Can angularity be applied on each edge individual profile callouts (four) and also to be used to control the form? Is this a good idea?

 

[SeasonLee]

1) The radii controlled by the true profile of the radii, which means they are controlled by the location of the radii (28=25+3,63=35+25+3) and the radii , not only the radii itself.

2) You can specify different profile tolerance on segments of a profile, pls ref to Fig.8-6 2009 Standard for more detailed information.

3) As long as the profile control applied, the outline is defined by the true profile, whenever a true profile is used, it is associated with a basic dimension.

4) It’s not a good idea to apply angularity control here.

Season

 

[SeasonLee]

Corrected as below:
they are controlled by the location of the radii (28=25+3,57=35+25-3)

Season

 

[greenimi]

This feature mates with a similarly shaped feature with a clearance fit. We don't care so much where is located, but we want to be aligned-oriented in a tighter tolerance with the datum A.
How we can say that?
Proposed solutions:
1.) Add datum A on the profile ? But, we don't want to make the boundary position callout irrelevant. If datum A is added is the profile controlling the orientation only or is controlling the location too?

2.)Add angularity callout, below the position with boundary, so angularity in .xxx wrt A. Would that work in the GD and T world?

3.) Change the single segment position to composite position: upper segment .yyy to A, B, C and second segment .xxx to A, B, C where y>x

4.) Change the profile to composite profile: same as position (upper segment .yyy to A, B, C and second segment .xxx to A, B, C where y>x)

Are those callouts valid? Which one do you think is better for our issue (We don't care so much where is located, but we want to be aligned-oriented in a tighter tolerance with the datum A)