Often I have patterns of holes or other features symmetrically located on a part. My question is if the symmetry is implied according figure B in the attached picture or is is neccessary to dimension each of the holes separately to the symmetry plane as in figure A?
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 TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Positional tolerancing and implied symmetry 1
- Thread starter PobbeS
- Start date
-
1
- #2
Although paragraph 1.4(k) of ASME Y14.5-2009 makes it sound like Figure B might be allowable, I would always use Figure A. In fact, the Y14.5 standard always shows it as Figure A in their subsequent pictures-- go with that.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,248
Both methods are valid however I agree figure A is much clearer and I would also recommend it.
J-P, method presented on figure B is actually shown in Y14.5-2009 at least on 2 figs.: 7-4 and 7-18. Maybe there are more examples but I only did very quick search through the standard.
J-P, method presented on figure B is actually shown in Y14.5-2009 at least on 2 figs.: 7-4 and 7-18. Maybe there are more examples but I only did very quick search through the standard.
pmarc,
I actually prefer figure_B most of the time. There is less clutter on the drawing, and the design intent is clear.
Much of time, then I do a drawing like this, I show a double FCF indicating an accurate pattern and a sloppy overall location. The 60mm is critical. The 15mm dimension and the centreing, often much less so.
JHG
I actually prefer figure_B most of the time. There is less clutter on the drawing, and the design intent is clear.
Much of time, then I do a drawing like this, I show a double FCF indicating an accurate pattern and a sloppy overall location. The 60mm is critical. The 15mm dimension and the centreing, often much less so.
pmarc
Mechanical
- Sep 2, 2008
- 3,248
Since both methods are legal per Y14.5, I think it is a matter of personal preferences which one to choose. I can imagine applications when one method has some advantages over the other and vice versa. IMO it really does not make sense to deliberate about it more.
- Thread starter
- #8
Thank's for your valuable comments.
I agree that Figure A is more clear and that the theoretical exact dimensions 30 are consistent with datum B. However, Figure B is more clean in my view and I wish it was more clearly stated in the standard that symmetry is implied in this case.
A related case is shown in the attached figure. The situation is much the same but now in polar coordinates. Here it is more natural for me to use Figure B and I am almost sure that symmetry is implied. However, I want to be 100% sure.
I agree that Figure A is more clear and that the theoretical exact dimensions 30 are consistent with datum B. However, Figure B is more clean in my view and I wish it was more clearly stated in the standard that symmetry is implied in this case.
A related case is shown in the attached figure. The situation is much the same but now in polar coordinates. Here it is more natural for me to use Figure B and I am almost sure that symmetry is implied. However, I want to be 100% sure.
PaulJackson
Automotive
I prefer A... but for another reason. It is good practice to layout the basic dimensions directly to the DRF origin orthogonal to the feature being controlled for inspection reporting purposes... that way the measured displacements relate directly to the specified basics.
It helps all diciplines in reviewing the data.
Paul
It helps all diciplines in reviewing the data.
Paul
PobbeS,
A word of caution. This may sound “picky” however, there is a distinct difference between “symmetry” and “positional tolerancing for symmetrical relationships.”
What you are discussing here is “positional tolerancing for symmetrical relationship.” Using the true position symbol to establish a relationship of features referencing the feature’s datum axis or datum plane.
Symmetry using the symmetry symbol is referencing “median points” of the feature’s surfaces.
Ref 1994 5.13 and 5.14_Fig 5-60 and 5-61; 2009 7.7 and 7.72_Fig 7-65 and Fig 7-66
There is enough confusion surrounding the standard and IMO using the correct terminology is helpful to prevent some of it.
A word of caution. This may sound “picky” however, there is a distinct difference between “symmetry” and “positional tolerancing for symmetrical relationships.”
What you are discussing here is “positional tolerancing for symmetrical relationship.” Using the true position symbol to establish a relationship of features referencing the feature’s datum axis or datum plane.
Symmetry using the symmetry symbol is referencing “median points” of the feature’s surfaces.
Ref 1994 5.13 and 5.14_Fig 5-60 and 5-61; 2009 7.7 and 7.72_Fig 7-65 and Fig 7-66
There is enough confusion surrounding the standard and IMO using the correct terminology is helpful to prevent some of it.
drawoh,
Just being technical in a technical enviroment.
I do believe it is important to know exactly what is being talked about to avoid "implying" as much as possible.
According to the standard there is a distinct difference.
IMO I think this site is a "learning / teaching" resource as good as you will find online. Considering the knowledge range of those who participate, I believe it is helpful especially for new or less experienced users to know what "the standard states".
FYI; for an example,
An variable curvature profile symmetric about a center plane would be an example that I have run into.
Just being technical in a technical enviroment.
I do believe it is important to know exactly what is being talked about to avoid "implying" as much as possible.
According to the standard there is a distinct difference.
IMO I think this site is a "learning / teaching" resource as good as you will find online. Considering the knowledge range of those who participate, I believe it is helpful especially for new or less experienced users to know what "the standard states".
FYI; for an example,
An variable curvature profile symmetric about a center plane would be an example that I have run into.
- Thread starter
- #16
This comes up now and then, pretty sure at one point most of the 'experts' on here kept claiming only A was allowed.
However, I'm convinced B is ok, an that it makes a nicer more easy to read drawing most of the time in the real world for the reasons drawoh gives.
However, I'm convinced B is ok, an that it makes a nicer more easy to read drawing most of the time in the real world for the reasons drawoh gives.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
Hi everyone.
I have a drawing with a variety of straight-line and curved geometry. If I create a vertical plane down the middle of the part, I have identical features with identical dimensions originating from that same center plane. The only features not originating from that plane are hole diameters. It seems pointless to dimension both halves and wondered how I can use a symmetry symbol. Back in the day, I'd just place a "CL SYM" at the bottom of the center line and the machinist knew exactly what to do with no ambiguity. I'd like to do more to follow a national standard and I'm not so sure that note is legal anymore.
Thanks.
Mike
I have a drawing with a variety of straight-line and curved geometry. If I create a vertical plane down the middle of the part, I have identical features with identical dimensions originating from that same center plane. The only features not originating from that plane are hole diameters. It seems pointless to dimension both halves and wondered how I can use a symmetry symbol. Back in the day, I'd just place a "CL SYM" at the bottom of the center line and the machinist knew exactly what to do with no ambiguity. I'd like to do more to follow a national standard and I'm not so sure that note is legal anymore.
Thanks.
Mike
Redlerm -- be aware that the general term "symmetry" as used by most people takes on a very specific meaning when we then discuss the GD&T symbol called "symmetry." So I see what you are trying to do, but don't use the GD&T symbol symmetry. I would actually recommend continuing to use the CL SYM note.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
