×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Questions on connector cut out
2

Questions on connector cut out

Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
I’m looking at a bracket that has a couple of mating pairs of D type connectors that mount to it.  The location of the cut outs in the bracket isn’t too important but the size/shape of the cut-outs, and the holes associated to the cut-outs are more critical.  See attached sketch.

I’m thinking this is an ideal case for composite profile like ASME Y14.5M-1994 fig 6-25 for the cut-out.  However, I’m not over confident on then relating my holes to follow the cut-out.  I found a similar example in some training material from Gary Whitmire but my cut out is a lot more complex and I don’t fully understand the datum structure regarding use of D-E rather than D|E.

Q1: Which of the hole feature control frames in my sketch makes more sense or is there another better way.

Q2: Where symmetrical I’ve given overall dimensions for the cutout, like you would for a simple slot.  However some of the examples around here that my previous checker did have additional dimensions to relate the overalls to the ‘center’, e.g. a .656 dimension from the center to one of the holes and similar for the width and height of the slot.  Are these extra dimensions really needed?

(Please note I haven't properly calculated the values of the positional tolerances yet, I probably should have made them the same for the sketch.)

Thanks.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,

   Your specification looks okay to me, although it is a little complicated.  I take it your Datum_D is the outside quadrant of your radii.

   I think you can make the drawing views simpler.  Apply positional tolerances to the jack screw holes with respect to the main drawing datums.  Apply the profile tolerance all around the big hole, showing the boundary outside.  This makes your nominal dimensions the MMC.  All you need to do is make sure your D-sub poke out through the hole when it is located by the jack screws.

   On main drawing views, I tend to dimension to one of the jack screws.  On my detail view, I can use the jack screw as a datum.  Unless your D-sub is fixed to a printed circult board, its location is not nearly as critical as the location of the pattern elements to each other.  You can buy D-sub hole punches, so there is a way a fabricator can take advantage of well prepared drawings.

   Your form obviously is symmetric, and you cannot measure from a centreline, anyway.  I think you are right to leave of the centring dimensions of the jack screw holes.

                         JHG

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Thanks Drawoh,.

I take it with your proposed scheme the profile FCF would also refer back to the main drawing datums.

In this case how do you propose to take advantage of the fact that the connector cutouts positions can vary a lot with respect to the main drawing datums but that that the shape/size of the cutouts and the position of the holes reletive to them must be more more closely controlled?

I've updated my sketch to show what I understand of your proposal.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

If you can could you include the A|B|C datum features in your sketch so I can get clearer understanding.  Off the cuff, I'm thinking fig. 6-19 in conjunction with fig 5-28, the kicker would be declaring the two hole pattern as a datum as well and position the cutout wrt it.  Although that might be to much for what you need.  This is just a knee jerk until I see what else you've got going here.

RE: Questions on connector cut out

I think your original print was good except that I would have repeated all the datums in FRTZ of the composite profile tolerance. Also, don't forget to add the "all around" circle to the elbow of the leader line.
 I don't understand the alternative method that you show on your drawing at all. I've always understood that type of callout to apply to axes or planar features but have never seen it used like this before. I'm curious to know how that method even works.
As for your second question; if you position the hole pattern relative to D and E and show no dimension from center of D to the center of the hole and from the center of E to the center of the hole then the dimension is an implied zero and thus "centered". You don't have to add dimensions to show it centered.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,
Check out the March tip on the tec-ease website that I frequently refer to. It directly addresses your second question.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Xplicator, I looked at those figures.  I'm not sure 6-19 actually achieves what I want, in fact it's almost opposite.  If I understand correctly it has a relatively lose profile and then puts a tighter position.  I effectively want the opposite, relatively tight profile to control size & shape but looser position.  I don't see what you're referring to on 5-28.

Powerhound, I looked more closely at 6.5.9 after what you put about the lower profile size/form/orientation refinement control and I'm tempted to think I don't necessarily need to add them as I'm not too concerned about orientation to A & B.  However, the fact I'd put this already was more by luck then understanding, having looked at it again I better understand it and will think some more about adding them.  Given that D & E are derived from the cutout itself I don’t think having loose orientation of the cut-out will negatively effect the location of the holes relative to the cut out, but please correct me if I’m wrong.  Thanks for prompting me to take another look.

I realized the all around symbol was missing after I posted the sketch, thanks for reminding me though.  

I was lost by the second option on the FCF for the holes too, it didn't make sense to me in this application but I thought maybe I was missing something.  I know there's a couple of errors in the material I was looking at, maybe that's one of them.

On my second question what you, drawoh and tec-ease say confirmed my understanding of things.  I was doubting myself because the other drawings were done by someone who really knows their stuff and if he'd put it I was thinking maybe I was missing something.

Attached, is updated sketch again with the all around symbol & datums A & B shown.  C is the far side face of the tab that the cut outs are in, so is normal to them.  It’s slightly higher resolution so hopefully clearer where leaders/dim lines are going to (I’ve cramped it up to keep the file size down, on the drawing it’s more spread out).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,

  The reason I would have repeated the datums in the lower portion of the composite profile FCF is not as much for orientation as it was to maintain a smooth profile. As it is the profile would have to be perp to C within .010 but the profile itself can still wander within .050 of the true profile. For example the vertical line across the top of the cutout can still wander + and - .025 from the true profile, making for a potentially jagged line. If this is not a concern then never mind.
  Something I just noticed about the print is the feature that makes up datum D. It is comprised of 2 tangent points on the arcs. It might be better to make datum D the .875 dimension instead...just an observation.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Powerhound, are you sure about the profile still being able to wander the .05 rather than .01 effectively wrt istself (not quite the right terminology I suppose sorry)?  I'm looking at 6.5.9 and especially at figure 6-25 and that isn't my understanding of it.

You'd be more likely to know than I but I don't see it matching what the standard says or figures show.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Regarding the implied symmetry tolerances that powerhound and Kenat mention. The March Tec-ease tip does clarify that a dimension off a centerline isn't needed but the tolerance definitely is.
I often get drawings where the designer assumes symmetry on a linear feature dimensioned with a ± tolerance and shown symmetrical to a feature centerline, but without giving  either a GD&T tolerance or a toleranced dimension to the centerline. As I understand the tec-ease tip, you need one or the other.  Agree or disagree?

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
If you're not using appropriate GD & T to apply the tolerance then yeah, I'd say you need a dimension to center it.

The examples I was looking at (CCA faceplates if that rings a bell Ron) had both GD&T and centering (basic) dimensions.

However my main concern now is that I'm using the composite profile properly and that my holes are following it.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,

   Yes, in my first proposal, the outline usually would be controlled by the main drawing datums.  My second suggestion accounts for the possibility that the location of the hole is controlled separately from the profile.  

   I agree that allowing the D-sub pattern to float is good practise, but fabricators cannot always take advantage of this.  The more complicated drawing would not help a machine shop at all.  Now on the other hand, it looks like you have a bent sheet metal part there.  Dimensions from the bend can be fabricated to +/-.015".  

                            JHG

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
drawoh, on your second idea how does making the first hole the datum and positioning the cutout and other hole from it work better than positioning the cutout and then the holes from it as I've effectively done?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by coming off the profile being more complicated, there's not much in it is there?  The holes are tied to the cutout.  The cutout is relatively free to float but the holes and the form/size of the cutout must be more closely controlled.

The +-.015 you mention is fine for me for location but no good for the size of the cut out.  (Well it might be but I don't have the information to be sure, my information says +-.005 which I've put in as surface profile to better control it).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,

   I think one of the jack screw holes makes a better location datum than parts of your cutout would.  The jack screws are what will locate your connector.  Either method is valid according to the standard.  The standard D-sub cutout for front mounting is sized to allow you to insert the connector from the rear, with the cable attached.  This is gross oversizing.  

   If my part is being machined, or it is a flat piece of sheet metal, I tend to not worry about patterns.  I would rather have a simple drawing that the fabricator does not spend too much time studying.  Everything will be accurately located.

   If the sheet metal is being bent, or one or more datums are controlled by welding or casting, then I worry about patterns.  It is easy to design stuff that cannot be fabricated.

                           JHG

RE: Questions on connector cut out

After looking at your last drawing spec I believe that what you have will probably work fine to get by but with some  risks.  Here is what I would question, which of the features in this collection constrains the next component.  Is it the cut out or the mounting holes?  Next would be the second cutout/holes collection, what are they to be controlled wrt? Since the detail is in two places are we to assume that it is a separate requirement and that it also has replicated duplicate datum(s)?

It would be my guess only, that the mounting holes are your constraints here and dictate assembled orientation and location of the connector to the bracket. The cutout is merely a relief and must allow clearance albeit minimum when the connector is constrained. Now a connector to connector may be an entirely different story but that isn't what this is.

My proposal is that you locate the mounting holes wrt the main DRF.  Make the pattern of the two mounting holes your sub-secondary/tertiary datum leaving C as primary.  Then locate the cutout with respect to it using Surface profile to refine the size, form and orientation to your liking.  You can now call the second collection wrt this "sub-datum scheme".  

This is not complicated neither just thorough. If I am wrong about the intended function which I could be, in the dynamic of speculation about intent in this forum then I'm sorry,  But if not, these are a couple things you should consider.

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Hmm, I've been thinking about it a bit more and you may both be right about the holes being the real location feature.

Nominally I care where the connector itself ends up not the mounting screws but the screws probably do define that more than the cutout.

One of the examples I looked at was mating to a CCA where the connector location was driving it.  The other was just a generic example in some training materiall.

I'll think about it some more and may post again.

Thanks,

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

I understand your plight.

I am not comfortable with using the cutout as a datum to locate the holes or vice-versa.  Unless I am mistaken, datums are fixed and do not "transfer" from one instance to the next.  Even though your meaning is clear, I do not believe it is correct.

I can not find a precedent for using a single position on the cutout.  If you can do this, then you could cover the holes and cutout with the same composite position callout.

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Tick,

  While this may not apply to what KENAT is trying to do, you can, in fact, transfer datums as shown in Fig. 5-39. An extension of this principle can be used as shown in the following tec-ease tip:

http://www.tec-ease.com/tips/march-01.htm

This kind of looks like what KENAT is doing but he only has 2 cutouts to deal with and it's hardly worth the effort.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Simple enough to understand.  I still have doubts as to how kosher it is w.r.t. the actual standards.  Can anyone out there find chapter and verse?

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Section 5.7 in the standard...Fig. 5-39

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Sorry.  I see you had to write it twice.  Didn't read slow enough the first time.

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
OK, I got caught up on other emergencies and now am back to this.

I've looked at the spec, the links and tried to incorporate what various ones have said.

I also found another more recent drawing which appears to use nominally the same connector cut out but has slightly different dimensions so I've adjusted my drawing to be closer to that.  (Connector is on vendor cable who aren't currently in contact with - don't ask - so going back to the source would be time consuming).

So what say you all, it's a bit over the top by some reckoning but I've used it as a learning experience as well as trying to be thorough.

So, marks out of 10?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Kenat,
Here are my comments on the latest rev.

Change 4X to 2X on the mounting hole pattern

Drop the tertiary "A" on the surface profile since it is already covered with "D"

I am bit torn on the added notes, may I suggest substituting what you have written next to the datum and FCF for "2X SEPARATE REQUIREMENT" under Detail A.

Ultimately, however I believe the cleanest most unambiguous method would be to just specify using position and profile on the second cutout and holes wrt to datum "C"& "D".  You may gain something in the way of a stack, but I truthfully don't see where that will functionally get you.
 

RE: Questions on connector cut out

I have a problem with the basic 2X 3.500 being called out from the bent flange in the lower RH view.  You'll get less rejection if the d-sub cut-outs are dimensioned from the part edge.  There must be dims that already locate the tab these features are being placed in.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
I think you're correct that putting the number of holes in in the detail view like I did is unclear.  

Is the Tertiary A not still needed for orientation?  

The added notes are straight out of the standard, sort of.  In 14.5 I believe it only talks about using this for C'bores like in fig 5-39 however the link Powerhound gave suggests my use is legit..

I wondered about referencing the 'left hand' holes to the datum hole.  Last night I decided against it but now I'm wondering again.

Maybe this is one of those cases where there isn't a 'one size fits all' solution that the majority of people can agree on.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Kenat,

One thing that I might question is the use of a 4 place basic dim to locate the centerline when a 3 place to one of the holes would seem more appropriate.

 

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Mad, functionally that face is the datum, I'd hope they can hit +-.05 on the position of the cutouts, and overalls are +-.03.  In fact from a function point of view it should perhaps be -A- but as a concession to inspection I made it -B-.

ringman, I'm not a fan of that 4dp either especially as dimension and tol dp should match.  Comes from a dimension scheme designed to be centered on the middle of the cutout, not from one of the holes.  In reality .0005 either way probably isn't gonna matter but I hate just rounding and not actually drawing/modelling it like that.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

Kenat, I would additionally tighten the tolerance to a capable range to be used on the subsquent connector cutout/hole features again wrt C|D

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Mad, sorry I just noticed I don't have anything near +-.05, not sure what I was thinking.  I've loosened the tol to dia .085 which is about +-.03.

Xplicator thanks for the redlines, I've looked them over.  I'm still keeping the tolerance scheme based on 5-39 in the standard and this link http://www.tec-ease.com/tips/march-01.htm but incorporated some of your other points.  Datum C in the lower half of the composite FCF was meant to be C, not sure what went on there.

Everytime I look at it I doubt myself or have another idea, and almost every post above has variations on how best to handle it so, having mulled it over I've arrived at the attatched.  I had my boss look at it but he just got back from an unscheduled dentist appnt so isn't on top form.

I guess the proof of the pudding will be if the vendor has any concerns/crazy pricing.


 

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Questions on connector cut out

KENAT,
  Sorry, I just scanned over this thread again and noticed I hadn't answered your question about whether or not I was sure about my contention that the profile of your cutout would be pretty jagged.
  Looking at Fig 6-25 you will notice the 0,1 wide tolerance zone located within the 0,8 tolerance zone. Without orienting the profile to datums B or C that 0,1 wide tolerance zone can float anywhere within the 0,8 tolerance zone and still be good. That applies to every linear element, so while the view shows the profile that is perp to datum A a little closer to the bottom than the top, if you move 1mm further along the profile, the 0,1 tolerance zone can be completely up at the top of the 0,8 zone and as long as the perp is still within the 0,1 zone it will still be good. Move another 1mm along the profile and the 0,1 zone can be totally shifted to the bottom and as long as the profile is within the 0,1 zone it's still good.
  If you look closely at Fig 6-25 you'll notice that the 0,1 tolerance zone is not centered within the 0,8 zone, it's actually all over the place just to show that the only profile that's oriented is the 0,8 true profile zone, the 0,1 zone can float anywhere within it at any point and the only thing the 0,1 zone is controlling in this example is the perpendicularity.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

RE: Questions on connector cut out

(OP)
Thanks Powerhound.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Solutions Brief - Protecting and Rescuing On-Ground Personnel
Keeping our warfighters safe and delivering them a competitive advantage is a key goal of departments of defense around the world. It’s a goal shared by embedded computing manufacturers like Abaco: we never forget who we serve.This case study describes how a major international contractor integrated an Abaco single board computer at the heart of its CAS/CSAR solution. Download Now
Datasheet - Top Enhancements Creo 7.0
PTC's Creo 7.0 has breakthrough innovations in the areas of generative design, real-time simulation, multibody design, additive manufacturing, and more! With Creo 7.0, you will be able to design the most innovative products faster than ever before, keeping you on the cutting edge of product design and ahead of your competition. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close