×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

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

Datum targets and their relationship

Datum targets and their relationship

Datum targets and their relationship

(OP)
ASME Y14.5-2009 or 2018

Is there any requirements for datum targets to be related (orientated or located) to its higher precedence datums?
Searching for applicable and relevant figures in the 2009 and 2018 standards, I cannot find a single figure where datum targets are used AND the relationship between primary and secondary are shown with geometrical relationships (callouts).

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

The relationship is considered basic - there's no requirement to use geometric characteristics symbols to control a tolerance for the targets. Depending on the order they are referenced datums derived from datum targets are oriented based on higher precedence datum feature callouts, just like any other datums are.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (3DDave)

Depending on the order they are referenced datums derived from datum targets are oriented based on higher precedence datum feature callouts, just like any other datums are

3DDave,

Do you have a figure or an example of such relationship?

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Andera,

No.

Your datum targets can be used as your primary datum.

--
JHG

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (ASME Y14.5-2009)

4.24.7 Datum Target Dimensions
The location and size, where applicable, of datum targets are defined with either basic or toleranced dimensions. If defined with basic dimensions, established tooling or gaging tolerances apply.

Specification of datum targets defines the simulator geometry and location/orientation, and when the dimensions applied are basic the default tolerances are "established tooling or gaging tolerances" because as I said you are defining the simulator. I suppose the allowance for directly toleranced dimensions would mean one could apply a geometric tolerance to the *datum targets by extension of concept however there is no example of either in the standard and it seems unadvisable - it would also likely override any applicable gage tolerances. Even then, regardless of how the datum targets are defined since as previously noted you are only defining the simulator (or in 2018, the True Geometric Counterpart) - the feature which it contacts still needs some tolerance applied to the feature itself otherwise it is uncontrolled.

*Edited

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi

Like a nominally rectangular, but lumpy cast block with 3 target points on one face, two on a perpendicular face, and one on a mutually perpendicular one, establishing three datum planes.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Andera, there are many examples in section 4 illustrating datum targets related to higher precedence datums using basic dimensions. (But no toleranced examples.) Also, in accord with chez311, datum targets appear to be essentially a proxy for datum simulator geometry. And as such, I believe they should have the same requirements for basic location and orientation as datum feature simulators. This implies that lower precedence datum targets need to be orientated and located to other relevant datum feature simulators. Furthermore, look at subsection 4.24.14.(2009) It looks like they want us to specify which lower precedence targets to use for locating the datum targets referenced in a feature control frame, even when there are no secondary or tertiary datum features beyond the primary reference.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship



So, why do you think datum target A and B are not related with each other?
Should I understand that they are perfectly perpendicular to each other?

Are there any examples within Y14.5 or ISO within which those datum targets ARE related with geometrical tolerances with each other?

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (greenimi, 8 Oct 21 12:39)

So, why do you think datum target A and B are not related with each other?
They are - where do you see suggested they aren't?

Quote (greenimi)

Should I understand that they are perfectly perpendicular to each other?
Well A and B are points, so I'm not sure how perpendicularity comes into it. Yes the datum targets are defined by a perfect theoretical basic distance to each other. This determines what the theoretical simulators should look like and their basic geometry/location/orientation, and the resulting physical datum target simulators are defined by applicable gage tolerances.

Quote (greenimi, 8 Oct 21 12:39)

Are there any examples within Y14.5 or ISO within which those datum targets ARE related with geometrical tolerances with each other?
As far as I can tell, not in Y14.5-2009 or 2018. I can't speak to ISO.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=449165

I have to disagree slightly with you here.
See the above discussion.
Looks like the opinions are split between the experts.

“ This isn't really a question about datum targets. Regardless if datum feature B is referenced RMB or MMB and regardless if secondary datum axis is derived from datum targets or from the entire feature, it shall have a perpendicularity control relative to A, othwerwise the feature won't be fully defined.

Besides, if you take a look at the RMB definition (1.3.49) it says that: "regardless of material boundary (RMB) indicates that a datum feature simulator progresses from MMB toward LMB...". This means that even in RMB case there has to be a MMB from which the progression of datum feature simulator should start.”

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

@greenimi

This is a good discussion for me. I'm studying datum targets next week. In Fig 4-53, I don't see an MMB boundary for the B target set. There's a feature of size spec for B. And if I'm not mistaken, there is an implied 90 degree angle between nominal datum features A and B, but it goes un-toleranced. (Technically, I think Y14.5 says there isn't a BASIC 90 until an associated geometric tolerance controlling that angle has been specified.) I think the orientation and location of the B target simulators is clear, but the MMB boundary from which they progress has not been defined due to the missing perpendicularity control on feature B.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

2.1.1.4 Implied 90° or 0° Basic Angle "basic dimensions or geometric tolerances have been specified"

Just basic dimensions is enough.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,

I don't see anything in that thread that contradicts what I said. In fact, its right there in your quote "this isn't really a question about datum targets."

Lets read the rest of the statement:

Quote (pmarc, 10 Feb 19 15:22)

Regardless if datum feature B is referenced RMB or MMB and regardless if secondary datum axis is derived from datum targets or from the entire feature, it shall have a perpendicularity control relative to A, othwerwise the feature won't be fully defined.

If I'm reading it correctly, the "it" refers to the datum feature which must have a perpendicularity control, NOT the datum targets. I said something similar in my responses above:

Quote (chez311, 5 Oct 21 20:18)

Even then, regardless of how the datum targets are defined since as previously noted you are only defining the simulator (or in 2018, the True Geometric Counterpart) - the feature which it contacts still needs some tolerance applied to the feature itself otherwise it is uncontrolled.

"The feature" being the datum feature here.

Of course I don't want to put words in pmarc's mouth but thats how I read it.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

@3DDave

Good catch! In 2.1.1.3, why is there only an implied 90 degree angle versus an implied 90 and 0 basic in 2.1.1.4?

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Chez311,

This statement threw me off "Regardless if datum feature B is referenced RMB or MMB and regardless if secondary datum axis is derived from datum targets or from the entire feature, it shall have a perpendicularity control relative to A"

Should I understand that even if datum targets are used, a perpendicularity between Ø170 feature and the planar surface/ the flange is needed?
I am confused now about your replay.

Thank you for the clarification

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (greenimi, 11 Oct 21 10:43)

Should I understand that even if datum targets are used, a perpendicularity between Ø170 feature and the planar surface/ the flange is needed?

Correct.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (chez311)

chez311 (Automotive)11 Oct 21 12:31
Quote (greenimi, 11 Oct 21 10:43)
Should I understand that even if datum targets are used, a perpendicularity between Ø170 feature and the planar surface/ the flange is needed?

Correct.


Then why do you think the standard does not have absolutely any figures to show such?
For so long and for so many revisions....1994, 2009, 2018
Seems strage to me...

Maybe the intent is NOT what we have concluded...I am just saying.
Couldn't be a missed from the standard committee for so long.




RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,

I cannot say exactly why they may have done this, the only thing that comes to mind is that we can fully define our datum targets without tolerances applied* to the feature themselves and know exactly what our simulators should look like with basic dimensions so the figures were simplified. I guess the only exception would be if MMB is specified for a feature like the one in your thread (Y14.5-2009 fig 4-53) we would need a tolerance applied to B to determine our MMB. Speaking of, I can't think of a good reason why someone would apply MMB to datum targets - seems like it would allow some irregular behavior that could be difficult to quantify without an in-depth study. Perhaps on features that are very large where a fixed FOS gage wouldn't make sense or be practical?

Lets take it from your angle. In Y14.5-2009 fig 4-53 what do you believe to be the orientation tolerance, implied or otherwise, which relates datum feature B to A? Or in other words, what control do you believe is relating orientation of datum feature B to A that keeps it from being undefined?

*Edit to add: Even if the datum features which the datum target simulators contact are undefined.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Chez311,

Quote (chez311)

In Y14.5-2009 fig 4-53 what do you believe to be the orientation tolerance, implied or otherwise, which relates datum feature B to A? Or in other words, what control do you believe is relating orientation of datum feature B to A that keeps it from being undefined?

My personal opinion. The standard speaks with both sides of their mouth.
I would say drawings are "intentionally" incomplete (from this point of view) to not contradict past practices or people's prefferences.
Let's ask commitee members, on why?

See attachment. Even Y14.8-20xx draft does not deal with that question you addressed me. So I have no idea.
Not sure why this issue is not addressed. Shouldn't be clarfied?

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Well if theres going to be another side, there has to be some substance to the other side/opinion right? I'm not asking why in my question to you, I'm asking what. If you think there is an alternate interpretation, I'd be interested to know what it is.

Theres plenty of places the standard comes up short or contradicts, I don't see this one as one of them. Sure, the drawings could be a bit more complete for clarity but I don't see the omission as suggesting ambiguity.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Assuming the committee deliberately decided to leave a perpendicularity callout wrt A on datum feature B off of the fig. 4-53, I guess the reason might be that this common way of defining the orientation relationship between primary planar and secondary cylindrical datum features would lead to non-repeatable setup of the part against the datum target simulators A1-A3 and create a need to modify the figure to address the issue.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (pmarc)

...and create a need to modify the figure to address the issue.

pmarc,

I would agree with your statement up to the quote above.
What do you mean by THE NEED to modify the figure?

Quote (pmarc)

I guess the reason might be that this common way of defining the orientation relationship between primary planar and secondary cylindrical datum features would lead to non-repeatable setup of the part against the datum target simulators

What is the difference between what you described above and the candidate datum set / rocking datum feature-default per 1994/ 2009?
Wouldn't be the same concept? I would say it would.
So, I still don't think the reason you described above is [u]good enough[/u] or at least in my humble opinion, the reason does not hold water.
But for sure you know how the committee works.

Therefore, I don't disagree with you pmarc, I am just trying to get more details, if possible.



RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,
Just to clarify, I didn't describe the rocking datum feature scenario. I was thinking about a situation when there is no control over how the part should be located relative to the set of datum target simulators A1-A3 for the measurement of the perpendicularity tolerance wrt to A and the relationship may be completely different for the measurement of the geometric characteristics referencing other DRFs like A|B or A|B|C.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

pmarc,

Seems like that could be solved by adding the note at the end of Y14.5-2009 para 4.24.14 and shown in Y14.5-2018 fig 9-16, right?

Regardless, do you believe that the application of datum targets establishes any kind of implied or indirect control on the location/orientation of their associated datum features?

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

chez311,

Yes, seems like the note was designed for that purpose, although personally I have always struggled with the wording it uses, and the lack of pictorial example in the standard did not help either.

No, I don't think that the application of datum targets establishes a control between datum features. This should be established by tolerances.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

pmarc,

At least you are consistent with what you said 2 years ago... in the above referenced thread.
"This isn't really a question about datum targets. Regardless if datum feature B is referenced RMB or MMB and regardless if secondary datum axis is derived from datum targets or from the entire feature, it shall have a perpendicularity control relative to A, othwerwise the feature won't be fully defined."

At least to me your today's quote "No, I don't think that the application of datum targets establishes a control between datum features. This should be established by tolerances." is in aligmnent with your general idea of having to have an estblished a relationship between datum features regardless if datum targets are used or not.

Is my understanding correct?

Even, if you said yes for the question (Is my understanding correct?) the lack of pictures is still puzzling, at least to me.




RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,

My answer to your question is yes.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,

In light of this - do you still believe some ambiguity exists about any implied/indirect controls? I don't see anything presented here which contradicts my initial statements.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

Quote (chez311)

In light of this - do you still believe some ambiguity exists about any implied/indirect controls? I don't see anything presented here which contradicts my initial statements.

I would like to thank you for your contribution in this discussion. I have no further questions (at least not for now).
I had to re-read your statements mentioned above and I think I do understand what was your stance in the begining. Thank you chez311

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

pmarc,

I forgot to say THANK YOU to you too.
Based on your input and with your help, I understood better the Y14.5 current statements (regardless if there is room for improvements or everything is crystal clear)

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

No problem, greenimi.

RE: Datum targets and their relationship

greenimi,

Of course, always a pleasure discussing the finer points of GD&T with you. And pmarc as well of course!

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

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. 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