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!
  • Students Click Here

*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


extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

It isn't prevented and the rules allow it.

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

I would ensure the non-uniform tolerance zone completely engulfs the tolerance zone of the second-half, however, or it'll start some interesting fights, I bet.

Say the upper frame values are
[ (PoS) | .010 (U) 0 | A | B ]

You would then have a .0025 area of uncertainty where the .005 uniform zone doesn't overlap.

I don't know if it's forbidden, but there's certainly a risk of misapplying it.

Edit: Actually I think I was wrong, as my coffee starts to kick in. Given that you've reduced the second segment to only reference a primary datum, I suppose it is likely only tolerancing form, and not location, whereas location is only controlled in the first segment. That likely works out fine in the situations I imagine applying it. I'll leave the first part of my post in case it helps discussion any. But I think I mostly just jumped the gun.

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)


I agree with JNieman in that since it is composite profile the lower zone is a refinement of the upper and it must lie inside the Non Uniform boundary. Us of the U symbol is recommended too

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

I think that you guys are confusing "unequally disposed profile" with "non-uniform profile". See figure 8-9 & 8-10.

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. I should stop posting on Monday mornings.

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

Woops. I fell into the trap too. Reconsidering, I think the two are compatible. The Non-U tolerance zone boundary for the upper FCF is defined by the R45 MMC and R60 LMC BASIC dimensions (or a CAD file). However, the lower frame requires a BASIC profile which the tolerance zone "follows". Referring to figure 8-9, the BASIC dimension is the R50 and the lower FCF must fall within the upper FCF.

Certified Sr. GD&T Professional

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

Quote (AndrewTT)

Can anyone tell me a reason why the attached would not be allowed by ASME Y14.5-2009?
Nothing other than para. I wouldn't even feel the need to call it an extension of principle.

Additionally, I see no reason the lower segment tolerance zone needs to be completely contained within the upper segment non-uniform tolerance zone. In fact, since the lower segment tolerance zone is free to translate and possibly rotate relative to the upper segment non-uniform tolerance zone, you could probably get away without any overlap at all initially. I agree with JNieman that this might start some interesting fights though.


RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

Yes, in my mind it is not an extension of principles either. However, I called it that due to the fact that there is no example of it in the standard. Really, it is nothing more than a compound profile FCF, except that the upper tolerance zone is not a simple offset of the true profile, but something else. I expect to receive some resistance which is why I wanted some back-up from the experts here saying that it is allowed.

RE: extension of principles - composite profile (non-uniform)

OK, lets take it to the next level. Any reason why you could not do a compound profile tolerance with a non-uniform for the upper segment and a smaller non-uniform for the lower segment? I think this is still legit per the standard but could be confusing in showing the true profile and MMB and LMB for both non-uniform tolerance zones with basic dims (thats a lot of basic dims pointing to the same area on a print). Also, would you need to distinguish the two non-uniform tolerance zones from each other by designating them with names (i.e. non-uniform-1, non-uniform-2, or non-uniform-A, non-uniform-B)? Naming them might make distinguishing them on the print easier but the standard does not have any direction for this.

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!


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