My company is still operating under ASME Y14.5-1994, but I'd like to take advantage of the non-uniform profile tolerance concept in 2009. Any ideas on a general note that could be added to the general profile tolerance annotation to communicate this concept without having to transition to the 2009 edition?
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 MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Non-uniform profile tolerance
- Thread starter prdave00
- Start date
Or even better to ASME Y14.5-2009.;-)
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
- Thread starter
- #4
- Thread starter
- #5
KENAT: I would love to transition over to the 2009 revision of Y14.5, but there is push back from quality assurance and engineers only familiar with earlier versions of Y14.5. I did it successfully once, but I don't think I can do it twice.
I think I'd have an easier/better chance of selling my the addition to my annotation that I am seeking to QA and engineering as an extension of principal to Y14.5M-1994.
I think I'd have an easier/better chance of selling my the addition to my annotation that I am seeking to QA and engineering as an extension of principal to Y14.5M-1994.
ewh's point - or at least mine - was not to transfer the entire drawing over, just that 1 tolerance.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
It is the same definition as that in the Y14.5-2009. I have seen (and used) a note to allow use of the newer symbology without invoking the entire standard ("PROFILE TOLERANCE TO BE INTERPRETED PER ASME Y14.41-2003"). The reference to Y14.41 was so as not to confuse the issue for companies not yet using Y14.5-2009. I doubt it matters very much which standard you refer to, as long as you refer to one with the interpretation you want to use.
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
- Thread starter
- #10
All: Thanks for your feedback. I've now attached the problem I'm trying to solve - see the two circled areas in the bottom half of the presentation. I want to communicate that the transitions between the surfaces controlled by profile and the surfaces controlled by the position & size should be smooth. In reality the part could be stepped and still be functional based on a gut feel, but I don't necessarily want there to be a sharp and potential stress riser (and it would look funny). I guess this is a bit different than the NON-UNIFORM concept in 2009, but I'd say it's a similar spirit.
pmarc: Please see attached for what the general note says currently.
Belanger: My colleagues are already confused enough on GD&T in general, so added confusion may not help. Instead of understanding, I think they'd just pick on the fact that we don't subscribe to the 2009 revision yet and no one is technically trained to it. 1994 has already been grandfathered in, so no one has been technically trained to that either, but pointing that out won't help my cause! Argh.
pmarc: Please see attached for what the general note says currently.
Belanger: My colleagues are already confused enough on GD&T in general, so added confusion may not help. Instead of understanding, I think they'd just pick on the fact that we don't subscribe to the 2009 revision yet and no one is technically trained to it. 1994 has already been grandfathered in, so no one has been technically trained to that either, but pointing that out won't help my cause! Argh.
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,248
prdave00,
Two things:
1. Seeing how your general notes look like, I would suggest:
- changing note #1 a little bit to something like: "UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED GD&T PER ASME Y14.5M-1994";
- and like Kenat said, mark somehow that this particular tolerance should be interpreted per Y14.5-2009.
If you do not feel comfortable with referring to 2009 edition on the print you could try to...:
- remove phrase "NON-UNIFORM" from profile FCF, put remark "SEE NOTE #3" instead and write in general notes that: "3. PROFILE OF SURFACE TOLERANCE ZONE AS DEFINED BY BASIC DIMENSIONS" or similar.
2. Regardless of how you wil do it, I think profile of surface with non-uniform tolerance zone can work here only if there is no datum reference within non-uniform profile FCF. Presence of any datum reference will cause that the zone for profile of surface tolerance will be fixed with relation to that datum. While nominally tangent surface of .063 cylinder controlled by .002 positional tolerance can float up and down within limits allowed by positional tolerance, the blended surface must stay within fixed tolerance zone, so theoretically there is still a possibility of an abruption in the transition area.
Side note: if the single radius was tangent on its both sides I would recommend using typical directly toleranced radius dimension which as a matter of fact creates non-uniform tolerance zone, quite similar to the one you probably want to define by profile callout (see fig. 2-22 of Y14.5-2009).
Two things:
1. Seeing how your general notes look like, I would suggest:
- changing note #1 a little bit to something like: "UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED GD&T PER ASME Y14.5M-1994";
- and like Kenat said, mark somehow that this particular tolerance should be interpreted per Y14.5-2009.
If you do not feel comfortable with referring to 2009 edition on the print you could try to...:
- remove phrase "NON-UNIFORM" from profile FCF, put remark "SEE NOTE #3" instead and write in general notes that: "3. PROFILE OF SURFACE TOLERANCE ZONE AS DEFINED BY BASIC DIMENSIONS" or similar.
2. Regardless of how you wil do it, I think profile of surface with non-uniform tolerance zone can work here only if there is no datum reference within non-uniform profile FCF. Presence of any datum reference will cause that the zone for profile of surface tolerance will be fixed with relation to that datum. While nominally tangent surface of .063 cylinder controlled by .002 positional tolerance can float up and down within limits allowed by positional tolerance, the blended surface must stay within fixed tolerance zone, so theoretically there is still a possibility of an abruption in the transition area.
Side note: if the single radius was tangent on its both sides I would recommend using typical directly toleranced radius dimension which as a matter of fact creates non-uniform tolerance zone, quite similar to the one you probably want to define by profile callout (see fig. 2-22 of Y14.5-2009).
- Thread starter
- #20
Thanks for all the suggestions. Although it's possible that the finished part could look like I drew it where the surfaces aren't blended, I've convinced myself that it's probably not probable given the way our supplier intends to manufacture it. If this bites me in the rear end, I'll repost to offer up a life's lesson.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
