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!
Tertiary Modifier is B(MMC)- C(MMC)?
- Thread starter rvenzon
- Start date
You may need to post it to help us interpret. Sometimes a datum is derived from 2 datum features. However, this is also sometimes mis used so without seeing your application it's difficult to know. Also, what GD&T standard?
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
To be a brave soul, I'll guess that someone is spelling out MMC instead of using the M-circle symbol.
Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
- Thread starter
- #4
Sorry, I wasn't confused by that, I meant the actual application on the drawing, what the datum identifiers represent etc.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
PeterStock
Mechanical
I would wonder about a compound datum for a tertiary reference. You should only be removing the last degree of freedom, the need to reference two featurs of the part should not be needed for that.
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
rvenzon,
The datums B and C are (ought to be?) features of size. The tolerance applies when datums B and C are at MMC.
Compound datums allow you to use two or more features to define a face, a centre, or an edge. This makes sense for primary and secondary datums. I do not reject the possibiliy that this could be a valid callup, but I would want to see the drawing.
I am trying to visualize how this might work. The primary datum could be a face. The secondary datum could be a centre. The tertiary datum could be an axis used for clocking?
JHG
The datums B and C are (ought to be?) features of size. The tolerance applies when datums B and C are at MMC.
Compound datums allow you to use two or more features to define a face, a centre, or an edge. This makes sense for primary and secondary datums. I do not reject the possibiliy that this could be a valid callup, but I would want to see the drawing.
I am trying to visualize how this might work. The primary datum could be a face. The secondary datum could be a centre. The tertiary datum could be an axis used for clocking?
My point exactly drawoh, it sounds odd but off the top of my head I'm not sure there isn't some situation it might be valid.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
- Thread starter
- #9
- Thread starter
- #10
Here is a snap shot of the feature frame. It occurs several times, all in reference to a hole or bore.
Some additional information:
Datum [A] is 3 surfaces on the same plane.
Datum is a hole with a perpendicularity tolerance to [A]
Datum [C] is a hole with a positional tolerance to [A] &
Sorry I have to be a bit vauge with providing visuals for you guys as I have customer proprietary MBD.
Some additional information:
Datum [A] is 3 surfaces on the same plane.
Datum is a hole with a perpendicularity tolerance to [A]
Datum [C] is a hole with a positional tolerance to [A] &
Sorry I have to be a bit vauge with providing visuals for you guys as I have customer proprietary MBD.
What is the secondary datum feature, it's starting to sound like it may be legit.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
- Thread starter
- #12
- Thread starter
- #14
My apologies... I really can't send captures of the actual model showing the datum features. Liability and legality reasons, that I'm sure most of you can understand.
If I still have trouble resolving this, I will mock up a model/drawing to show the locations and concept of whats in question and post to this thread.
Thanks again for the input.
If I still have trouble resolving this, I will mock up a model/drawing to show the locations and concept of whats in question and post to this thread.
Thanks again for the input.
rvenzon,
I think you have provided enough to work with.
Datum A is irrelevant, because you are not calling it up.
By the sound of it, Datums G and F are non-parallel surfaces. These locate your part in two orthogonal displacement axes, and three rotational axes. You need positional reference for your tertiary datum.
The compound datum B and C does not make sense. Your tertiary locator would be a diamond pin picking up either B or C. Picking up both of them controls side to side displacement and rotation. Your datum F already controls rotation.
You could use B-C as a secondary datum and F as your tertiary. That would make sense to me, although it is a horrible fixturing procedure.
GD&T datums are fixturing specifications, not dimensioning references. Most of your FCFs should specify the same datums. Is is the drafter using different datums for each face of the part?
Also, I think the MMC on the Ø.007" positional tolerance is hardly worth the trouble. I do MMC on features with sizes that are sloppy in comparison to the positional tolerance.
JHG
I think you have provided enough to work with.
Datum A is irrelevant, because you are not calling it up.
By the sound of it, Datums G and F are non-parallel surfaces. These locate your part in two orthogonal displacement axes, and three rotational axes. You need positional reference for your tertiary datum.
The compound datum B and C does not make sense. Your tertiary locator would be a diamond pin picking up either B or C. Picking up both of them controls side to side displacement and rotation. Your datum F already controls rotation.
You could use B-C as a secondary datum and F as your tertiary. That would make sense to me, although it is a horrible fixturing procedure.
GD&T datums are fixturing specifications, not dimensioning references. Most of your FCFs should specify the same datums. Is is the drafter using different datums for each face of the part?
Also, I think the MMC on the Ø.007" positional tolerance is hardly worth the trouble. I do MMC on features with sizes that are sloppy in comparison to the positional tolerance.
So primary datum is a face, fine.
Secondary datum is a face/surface, fine.
Tertiary datum is some kind of Plane through the axis of 2 holes.
Have I understood correctly?
Starting to sound overconstrained to me.
Secondary datum is a face/surface, fine.
Tertiary datum is some kind of Plane through the axis of 2 holes.
Have I understood correctly?
Starting to sound overconstrained to me.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
The FCF doesn't look illegal to me. If B and C are holes, then the tertiary simulator will be a pattern of fixed-size pins. This could constrain the last degree of freedom.
Whether the datum scheme captures the functional requirement is another question entirely.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
Whether the datum scheme captures the functional requirement is another question entirely.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
Axym, that's where I was losing myself. I could see how you might be able to simulate a plane, even taking acount of the MMC, using pins.
However, I was concerned about the theoretical plane. Usually when you have a plane from a hole it's based on the axis. This is fine for one hole. However, for two holes to form the plane both axis have to be on the plane. I suppose the for the theoretically perfect part this will be true.
So I suppose it is legit, though as you say, whether it reflects function is another matter.
However, I was concerned about the theoretical plane. Usually when you have a plane from a hole it's based on the axis. This is fine for one hole. However, for two holes to form the plane both axis have to be on the plane. I suppose the for the theoretically perfect part this will be true.
So I suppose it is legit, though as you say, whether it reflects function is another matter.
Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
KENAT,
Keep in mind that the theoretical planes are in the simulators, and the simulators are perfect. So the two pins for our tertiary datum feature will have perfect spacing and perfect orientation and location to the higher precedence datums.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
Keep in mind that the theoretical planes are in the simulators, and the simulators are perfect. So the two pins for our tertiary datum feature will have perfect spacing and perfect orientation and location to the higher precedence datums.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
axym,
The only plane that is any use for fixturing is a real one that can be picked up by a pin. A simulated plane may have some meaning on a drawing, but it is useless on an real part. The FCF does not violate ASME Y14.5, but it is not a good specification.
JHG
The only plane that is any use for fixturing is a real one that can be picked up by a pin. A simulated plane may have some meaning on a drawing, but it is useless on an real part. The FCF does not violate ASME Y14.5, but it is not a good specification.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question