Small tolerance always on the lower segment?

[SeasonLee]

For a composite profile callout, we know the small tolerance always on the lower segment for the reason of refinement, is this rule also apply to multiple single segment profile callout and multiple geometric control? Please ref to the attached for details.
Thanks

Season

 

[3DDave]

Each single segment tolerance is independent, so there is no particular order required.

 

[pmarc]

I agree with 3DDave.

If you need examples from Y14.5-2009, take a look at fig. 8-23.
Change profile tolerance to something less than 0.5 in fig. 8-24, and you will get another example.

So to conclude, I would say that in your attachment both options in 2 and both options in 3 are acceptable.

 

[SeasonLee]

Thanks for your comments, pmarc and 3DDave.

In fig. 8-24 2009 standard, the position control is a refinement of the profile control, is this the reason why the position callout on the lower segment ? Can we place the position callout on top of the profile callout ?

Season

 

[greenimi]

Please be gentle...... (I am not at pmarc's level of GD and T)

How the position is a refinement of the profile?
"In fig. 8-24 2009 standard, the position control is a refinement of the profile control, is this the reason why the position callout on the lower segment" ?

Profile will not control ONLY the size and form ? And position will not control ONLY location?

And if we would like to refine the location then a composite position is needed? PLTZF 0.5(M) to a, B and C, FRTZF: 0.3(M) (or something lower than 0.5) to A (or A, B and or C for example)

"Can we place the position callout on top of the profile callout " I would vote for yes.
see below: isn't it what you are asking for? If not.....sorry.... again my shameless disclaimer (I am learning)

http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=284

 

[greenimi]

Two more links

http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=154

http://www.tec-ease.com/gdt-tips-view.php?q=153

 

[SeasonLee]

Which one is correct for this case?

Season

 

[Tarator]

SeasonLee,

Both are correct and have exactly the same meaning. The order is not important. Both frames do not even have to "touch" each other, because they are two different call-outs. However, perpendicularity has to be a refinement of the position call-out.

That being said, I am questioning why the perpendicularity call-out doesn't have MMC modifier? Technically and "grammatically", it doesn't have to have the MMC modifier. Functionally, I am wondering what kind of application is this feature for? Do you have a good reason?