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!
Rule1 not required
- Thread starter aniiben
- Start date
The maximum envelope would seem to be 38.4 mm -- this comes from the maximum local size of 38.2 plus the form error of 0.2 on the datum feature.
The minimum envelope would be 37.6 mm, derived in a similar way. (We usually don't speak about a minimum mating envelope for an external feature of size, but it makes for a good discussion question here).
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
The minimum envelope would be 37.6 mm, derived in a similar way. (We usually don't speak about a minimum mating envelope for an external feature of size, but it makes for a good discussion question here).
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
Hi drawoh -- the corner angles have nothing to do with the question. And Rule #1 has nothing to do with angle tolerances.
The OP asked about the envelope of the 38 mm width dimension. Using terminology from Y14.5, it's a question about the unrelated actual mating envelope (UAME) rather than the related actual mating envelope (RAME).
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
The OP asked about the envelope of the 38 mm width dimension. Using terminology from Y14.5, it's a question about the unrelated actual mating envelope (UAME) rather than the related actual mating envelope (RAME).
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
J-P:
Sorry coming late to this thread. I was off for a long weekend.
I wrestle with the interrelationship between size and form when independency "I" is applied - is assume "I" is equal to "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQUIRED" . So, given your 38.4 value, which includes the flatness on Datum C, why did you ignore the parallelism with implied flatness on the other side?
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Sorry coming late to this thread. I was off for a long weekend.
I wrestle with the interrelationship between size and form when independency "I" is applied - is assume "I" is equal to "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQUIRED" . So, given your 38.4 value, which includes the flatness on Datum C, why did you ignore the parallelism with implied flatness on the other side?
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Mkscski -- I've created a hand sketch to show how I look at it (see attached). I didn't include the parallelism tolerance because I was assuming that the part is already at its maximum local size. If the right-hand surface of my sketch curved the other way (and made the parallelism additive), then it would fail the actual local size requirement.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
mkcski,
Could you, please, expand a little bit on how the ISO allows GDT to be additive and how the ASME (with "I" applied) doesn't?
I am trying to grasp the differences between these two concepts (ISO vs ASME) on an seemingly equivalent schemes.
Thank you
Gab
Could you, please, expand a little bit on how the ISO allows GDT to be additive and how the ASME (with "I" applied) doesn't?
I am trying to grasp the differences between these two concepts (ISO vs ASME) on an seemingly equivalent schemes.
Thank you
Gab
Thank you mkcski. You have the entire week... if you wish.
And will be a Christmas gift!
P.S. I do not have much ISO material (except this forum)and the search.
And will be a Christmas gift!
P.S. I do not have much ISO material (except this forum)and the search.
Let me try and I am sure if I will miss something or provide wrong information there are people/experts here who will set the record straight.
I do not know if ISO (with Independency principle, ISO 8015 stated) and ASME (with I symbol attached to 38±0.2 dimension) will have different extreme boundaries (OP question has been: what would be the maximum and minimum envelope that 38±0.2 dimension would never violate?)
In my opinion would be the same for both envelopes or extreme boundaries (38.4 and 37.6) Please, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying to learn from each and every discussion.
Also, the parallelism would not be added to the sum of flatness and maximum material size. I am not sure how can I explain why (would not be added), but I would say because the orientation (parallelism in our case) never locates only orients and the extreme boundaries are already determined by the flatness and the size tolerance. Am I correct? Any orientation error should only be toward the inside of the material in order to not be exceeding the limits of size.
What I know is: The tolerance zone is limited by two parallel planes a distance 0.2 apart and parallel to the datum plane C. The extracted (actual) surface shall be contained between two parallel planes 0,2 apart, which are parallel to datum plane C.
Hmm, any errors in my statements? Or better to ask any truth?
I do not know if ISO (with Independency principle, ISO 8015 stated) and ASME (with I symbol attached to 38±0.2 dimension) will have different extreme boundaries (OP question has been: what would be the maximum and minimum envelope that 38±0.2 dimension would never violate?)
In my opinion would be the same for both envelopes or extreme boundaries (38.4 and 37.6) Please, correct me if I am wrong. I am trying to learn from each and every discussion.
Also, the parallelism would not be added to the sum of flatness and maximum material size. I am not sure how can I explain why (would not be added), but I would say because the orientation (parallelism in our case) never locates only orients and the extreme boundaries are already determined by the flatness and the size tolerance. Am I correct? Any orientation error should only be toward the inside of the material in order to not be exceeding the limits of size.
What I know is: The tolerance zone is limited by two parallel planes a distance 0.2 apart and parallel to the datum plane C. The extracted (actual) surface shall be contained between two parallel planes 0,2 apart, which are parallel to datum plane C.
Hmm, any errors in my statements? Or better to ask any truth?
With ISO 8015 the linear measurements are all 2 opposing point measurements so the part could look like a banana or a wavy cut potato chip and still pass as long as every opposing point pair is within the tolerance. There really is no upper maximum on the envelope. ISO 8015 wants you to explicitly state each and every GD&T requirement rather than falling back on the envelope "crutch". I hate it.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
greenimi:
Look at the attachment J-P on 12 Dec 17. This clarifies the ASME boundaries very well. The ISO analysis is more expansive because "I" is the default. I am not up to snuff as to how the GDT tolerances interact with the size.
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Look at the attachment J-P on 12 Dec 17. This clarifies the ASME boundaries very well. The ISO analysis is more expansive because "I" is the default. I am not up to snuff as to how the GDT tolerances interact with the size.
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question