×
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

if surface profile tol in the title block ok?
7

if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

(OP)
Hi users hope you are all doing good.

I have two simple questions.

1) is it ok to have a profile surface tolerance in a drawing title block? (see the below picture)
2) if so, with it apply to all surfaces for inspection?

I'm used to seeing the old way; this profile tolerance must be new. (to me btw)

something like this was the old tol. block
X.X = ±0.25
X.XX = ±0.12
X.XXX = ±0.06
X.XXXX = SEE DIM TOLERANCE

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

The old method you mentioned (using ±) may seem easier, but it had many problems such as not controlling location adequately (datums were unknown or had no precedence indicated). So yes, that general profile method is OK, and usually actually better.
With that profile of a surface callout of 0.3, imagine the entire part (yes, all surfaces) to be contained within a tolerance "shell" of 0.3 mm. Not only does that control sizes, but it controls the relationship between features.
However, any other tolerances on the field of the drawing would override the general profile. That's where the designer has to be careful; there may need to be datum features identified and related to each other, and other relationships established.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

J-P,
I will strongly disagree with you.
If a feature is defined with a plus - minus dimension then the profile within 0.3 is NOT applicable.
UOS note of profile within 0.3 is relevant only for the features with no control.

This statement I find it incorrect.
"""""""""With that profile of a surface callout of 0.3, imagine the entire part (yes, all surfaces) to be contained within a tolerance "shell" of 0.3 mm. Not only does that control sizes, but it controls the relationship between feature""""""""

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

And one more comment

J-P Belanger's statement
"However, any other tolerances on the field of the drawing would override the general profile. That's where the designer has to be careful; there may need to be datum features........."
is questionable at best.

In order to avoid all the issues presented above DO NOT use "Unless otherwise specified". You are asking for trouble.
Just delete UOS.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

For many castings an overall profile of a surface tolerance is appropriate with the possibility that some areas are better controlled and have some smaller tolerance applied to them. Since it is formed as a single operation a casting can be considered a single feature for such a control. It's not universally used but the application has an interpretation that isn't ambiguous.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Blanket profile tolerances are common in my field. Usually they reside in drawing notes.

Wherever you place it, be sure it can be tailored by the designer/drafter and controlled within the drawing (not automatically updated if title block changes). Also true for the rest of TB tolerances. Internal control of values and datums. I've seen title block updates that change blanket tolerances and cause thousands of dollars of out-of-spec waste.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Yeah - watch for CAD systems that are set to use "Latest" for formats. Also watch out for people who do drawing update checks and look only at exactly what was on the change order.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote (greenimi)

If a feature is defined with a plus - minus dimension then the profile within 0.3 is NOT applicable.
Yes, that's why I explicitly wrote that "any other tolerances on the field of the drawing would override the general profile" (emphasis added).
Sorry if my follow-up statement seemed questionable to you -- I was hinting at some other profile callout in one of the views that would override this general one; then datums would probably be needed, which may mean that datums get referenced in this general profile of 0.3 -- I was trying to avoid a big, confusing explanation for the OP.


Quote (greenimi)

This statement I find it incorrect: "With that profile of a surface callout of 0.3, imagine the entire part (yes, all surfaces) to be contained within a tolerance "shell" of 0.3 mm. Not only does that control sizes, but it controls the relationship between features."
I presume you are familiar with an "all over" profile callout -- this is the same thing. All bases are covered: size, location, orientation, and form (SLOF). So you'll have to expand on what you disagree with.


Quote (greenimi)

In order to avoid all the issues presented above DO NOT use "Unless otherwise specified". You are asking for trouble.
Now it's my turn to disagree. Are you saying that the profile of 0.3 must always be THE only tolerance for every feature on that part? Or are you assuming that every reader just knows that anything in a general tolerance block can be overridden? Either one of those sounds mighty dangerous.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote (Belanger)

With that profile of a surface callout of 0.3, imagine the entire part (yes, all surfaces) to be contained within a tolerance "shell" of 0.3 mm.

I have to disagree with you this time.
This would be a valid interpretation if the profile control was applied with an all over symbol, or if it was constrained by datum references invoking a simultaneous requirement. Alternatively, it would also apply if the number of surfaces was specified. But not as currently shown in the note image posted above.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

juanMElvl300,
A general UOS profile note is widely acceptable, and it is a good practice to replace the "traditional" tolerance block by it, from the reasons mentioned by Belanger. But usually it is specified with the functionally appropriate datum references. This way, size of width features, as well as orientation and location of all features that are not otherwise specified, are controlled.
As it is now, it only controls the form of all individual features which are not otherwise specified.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote (Belanger)

I presume you are familiar with an "all over" profile callout -- this is the same thing. All bases are covered: size, location, orientation, and form (SLOF)

Yes, I am. Fig 11-21/2018 shows it.
However, that figures does not have any plus-minus dimennsions and tolerances. If the drawing has any plus-minus dimensions then UOS note breaks everyhting apart and it is subject to multiple legal interpretations.

Quote (Belanger)

Are you saying that the profile of 0.3 must always be THE only tolerance for every feature on that part? Or are you assuming that every reader just knows that anything in a general tolerance block can be overridden? Either one of those sounds mighty dangerous.


I agree here with you. And that is all BECAUSE of the ambiguous definition of UOS.
I would not recomend to use UOS eitherway, unless a note (however lenghty) is added to clarify if UOS is/ could be used as refinement or a nullification of the original/ specified requirement.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

If I have a note: "UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED PAINT PER XYZ" on a part, is that ambiguous? I could mark an area "OMIT PAINT" or "PLATE PER ZYX." Is it unclear what "otherwise" means? Perhaps a paragraph or multiple paragraphs defining all the "otherwises" possible to ensure that every possible test that might come up is covered? Would that be sufficient?

It's possible this needs a novelization treatment.

The largest problem is that notes like that are largely ignored. For example - most of the drawings I've seen include some default angle tolerance. This applies to every pair of surfaces/features that appear to be at right angles as well as those pairs with explicit angle dimensions. Over 30 years not once has any inspection report I've come across (in 6-7 different company's work) enumerated all the surface/feature pairs covered by the 90 degree rule and listed the part variation.

So ignored in fact that one program, for no reason, had the customer demand that no titleblock tolerances, including angle tolerances, be used. This left all nominally perpendicular surface/feature pairs with no tolerance limits at all. QA never said a word.

So, it seems clear to me that the only ambiguity is when someone says - hey this is controlled by something does that mean it is otherwise specified?

Lewis Carroll, with a strong interest in language and logic covered this:

Quote:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Burunduk and Greenimi,
Let's go back to the OP's graphic. He was kind enough to highlight in blue that this profile callout applies to "all surfaces." Thus, it's equivalent to an FCF on the field of the drawing with leaders pointing to every surface.
You (Burunduk) stated that this has a different meaning than specifying the number of surfaces or using the words "all over" (or the symbol for all over) -- please elaborate on the difference.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote (Belanger)

Let's go back to the OP's graphic. He was kind enough to highlight in blue that this profile callout applies to "all surfaces." Thus, it's equivalent to an FCF on the field of the drawing with leaders pointing to every surface.

If any feature is defined with plus-minus--a feature of size for example- (just to give you an example) then the profile within 0.3 is NOT applicable.
If you have an angular relationship (angle dimension) between two features then, again, the profile within 0.3 is NOT applicable.
If, for example - you have ONLY a parallelism tolerance specified then the profile within 0.3 is NOT applicable

Why, all the above?
Because something else IT is specified, and then unless otherwise specified = UOS is nulified.


RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

I think I get your point, greenimi -- since profile encompasses form, location, orientation, size, then a parallelism tolerance would tackle the orientation and form, but it would be unclear if the location and size aspects fall back to the general profile or simply be undefined. That might be good fodder for further discussion.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

J-P,

And one more comment (and this has been discussed before)
Let's say in fig 6-30/2018 you DON'T have profile|0.1|A| (center upper area of the figure) for the face of the vertical feature. Again, only parallelism within 0.06 at A is shown.
Assuming the above, are you saying that UOS ALL SURF within 0.5A|B| is applicable?
If you said , YES (it is applicable), I would argue NO, (it is not applicable) because it is already specified otherwise (with orientation control, parallelism) and the drawing is incomplete.
Why your (YES) interpretation is better than mine (NO) interpretation?
Could you say that for sure or become opinion based statement?


RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

J-P,
I think we posted in the same time :)

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

It is as applicable as the amount of control that remains to it. With that UOS profile of a surface control the drawing cannot be incomplete.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

(OP)
To everyone, thank you so much. Your answers were excellent.

Typically, I have seen surface profile tolerance for surfaces that mate parts to match characters.
I have never seen it used for a complete drawing before and especially for small CNC parts with no surfacing or matching surfaces.

once again, thank you so much dazed

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

2

Quote (Burunduk, 5 May 22 09:44)

As it is now, it only controls the form of all individual features which are not otherwise specified.

I would have to disagree. In Y14.5-2018 a profile tolerance applied in a tolerance block or general note is a perfectly valid way to specify an All-Over specification per para 11.3.1.5(c). I saw this was likely missed in the other thread discussed recently too.

Quote (ASME Y14.5-2018)

11.3.1.5 All Over Specification. A profile tolerance may be applied all over the three-dimensional profile of a part UOS. It shall be applied in one of the following ways:
(a) place the “all over” symbol on the leader from the feature control frame as shown in Figure 11-10
(b) place the term “ALL OVER” beneath the feature control frame
(c) place the profile tolerance requirement in the general tolerance block or general notes

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

chez311,
Thanks for pointing that out. Option (c) was not there in the 2009 version, it is a new addition in the 2018 version that I missed.
But, wouldn't it be clearer if the note included the words "ALL OVER"?
The text of the standard doesn't seem to impose this, and I personally think it's too bad. I would recommend adding "All OVER" in the note anyway if this is the intent.
Regardless, I will post a clarification in the other thread as well.

J-P, I was about to elaborate on how the "ALL SURFACES" wording or the fact the requirement appears in a general note is insufficient for creation of a pattern, but the above update from chez311 regarding how the rules changed in 2018 indicates that my statement is only valid for drawings based on previous versions of the standard.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

All is good -- I may have been right on a couple of points, but I got corrected by greenimi on one :)

By the way, this brings up an interesting question: In Fig. 11-18 of 2018, why would they use "2X" when they already have the two leader lines? Might someone argue that there are four surfaces involved?
(I see why they have "2X" in Fig. 11-16, but Fig. 11-18 kind of bothers me.)

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

JP - there is only one guy to answer that question. AFAIK he's the only one responsible for creating all the figure artwork.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Belanger,
Two leader lines without the number of places indication is not an official way to specify a pattern. The'09 version of this figure showed that (see below), but it was corrected in the '18 revision.


RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Burunduk -- that's true; thanks. But that opens up several cans of worms.
If they had "2X" but only pointed to one surface, we would know that it's still both surfaces. Then why spill extra ink?
Or... if the two leaders are still needed, why not do 2 leaders for other cases of 2X, such as the small holes in Fig. 7-46?

Just trying to stir the pot a little...

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

J-P,
The idea is that "2X" groups the features into a pattern, and the two leaders make it clear what specific two surfaces are referred to. For a more complex part, it could be an issue.
I don't like the multi-leader practice. It usually looks clumsy, and the leaders get in the way of other stuff that needs to be on the drawing. I usually prefer INDICATED.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote:

1.3.42 Pattern
pattern: two or more features or features of size to which a locational geometric tolerance is applied and are grouped by one of the following methods: nX, n COAXIAL HOLES, ALL OVER, A ↔ B, n SURFACES, simultaneous requirements, or INDICATED.

There is no definition or explanation for "locational geometric tolerance."
The term "locational" is not used elsewhere in the Y14.5-2009

On that basis I would suggest that the '2009 version has no traceable requirement for how a pattern is established.

It also excludes plus/minus tolerances on hole patterns.

Agreeing with that observation, the Y14.5 committee; the '2018 version had a massive rewrite to be very specific about what was acceptable. They would not have done so if the '2009 version was adequate.

Also from '2018, exemplary language to handling mismatch in profile of a surface controlled tolerance zones:

Quote:


Since the surface may lie anywhere within the profile boundary, the actual part contour could have abrupt surface variations. If this is undesirable, the drawing shall indicate the design requirements, such as rate of change and/or blend requirements.

As I have mentioned, the Y14.5 standard has no rate of change or blend requirement provisions and this suggests that profile of a surface geometric tolerance is not a way to achieve that or they would have proposed a solution to the problem they clearly identified - but they are committee members, what would they know?

I'd rewrite significant sections but for one problem. Those who make a living from the complexity of the document have a lot more to lose by accepting changes that clarify or simplify it. Why, one supposes, were the rules for custom datum reference frames added without noting that a composite tolerance might have 7 levels?

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

"Locational" is not ambiguous. If you know that profile of a surface and position are among those that control location, you can understand the different ways a pattern controlled by these tolerances can be created per the '09 standard. The '18 standard only makes these two the exclusive tolerances to control a pattern.

Profile of a surface limits abrupt surface variations up to the tolerance value. It is impossible to limit them to zero anyway.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

As long as you believe the committee is wrong, that's what matters.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

3DDave,
Why would anyone expect the committee to never be wrong?
And why are they wrong in this case?
Rate of change is "per unit" and it's well covered for nominally straight elements or planar surfaces. It can help limit abrupt surface variations to be small enough while maintaining a more generous total tolerance for gradual form error. It doesn't mean it is always necessary, or that a simple form or profile tolerance won't do for both being affordable and limiting the abrupt variation adequately.
For nominally curved surfaces, the user might have to be creative if abrupt variations need to be controlled more tightly than the tolerance for the entire surface. I don't know what blend requirements are, and it doesn't sound important.
Why did you bring up profile as a means to limit abrupt changes in this thread? It was discussed in another one.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

I don't know why you have changed your opinion. You have previously acted as if they were always right.

As I mentioned - limits by current geometric tolerances on surface continuity are expensive and over-constrain the problem. As you know, straightness specifies a zone, so the same discontinuity problem exists with it as well. The committee tells you that other methods that aren't geometric tolerances are appropriate, but you disagree. Who are you to judge that blend requirements aren't important? That just tells me you have never worked on structural parts or parts that need to avoid fatigue cracks.

My statement was "you believe the committee is wrong" and you confirmed that with "Why would anyone expect the committee to never be wrong?" I think they are right about concepts but their explanations are poor and sometimes their math is wrong, but you agree with their wrong math. Curious.

The ASME used to have a quiz to show people who took it they needed training in Y14.5. I took it and got all but one answer marked correct. So I contacted them, showed the math I did. They took down the quiz rather than fix it. That was around 2000. When I sent in comments about that time for the next version I was told consideration for changes was closed as a new version would be released soon, an event that would take nearly a decade. "Soon" has a different meaning I guess.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

The current tools to limit abrupt surface variation are enough for most realistic cases, and are not any more expensive than any alternative method that could limit these variations to the same level of allowance. There should be no over-constrain if the tolerances are applied correctly, by a user knowing how to apply the provided tools to correspond with the tolerancing intent - with differentiation between means to control form (including abrupt variations), orientation, location, and size. Knowing when they can be combined, should be separated, or specified as refinements.

I never acted as if the committee was always right. In fact, you recently blamed me for scanning every word and figure looking for flaws in the standard, so make up your mind.

I don't know what happened with the quiz you took 22 years ago, but I remember you making claims to wrong math in the standard that ended up being the result of your misinterpretations of concepts and terms.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Anything that is part of the title block becomes relevant for the entire dwg. Unless, stated otherwise in a note or the dim itself.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '19
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

I interpreted the outcome correctly. The creator of the figure did the math incorrectly. You agree with the incorrect math. Others on this forum agreed with me. I cannot teach you math; that should have been done in grade school or whatever the equivalent is where you went. You and the creator of the figure wanted a simple answer and don't care if it is wrong. Noble goals indeed. You say "interpret," I say you follow without thinking.

You again deflect. Your specific means are expensive. You want the surfaces to have a tight overall form control to avoid local discontinuity. Perhaps you cannot find an example in the standard and therefore don't know what to do and thinking the expensive option is the only option, choose it. Like the simple, but incorrect, math.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Your unusual method to calculate that MMB boundary resulted from failure to either understand or consider the purpose of the original calculation and its connection to the practical application. You also ignored my in-depth step by step explanation of the datum simulation process that uses the correct math as shown in the standard, which I posted in the thread where we were discussing it, but that's not the topic now.

The topic now is that you keep claiming that the existing geometric controls, including the ones that can be specified per unit length as I mentioned, restrict the overall form error more than necessary to avoid the discontinuities. Yet you offer no alternatives, while you point the finger at me for suggesting those existing tools.  Where are your "workable solutions"? 

Quote (3DDave)

As I have mentioned, the Y14.5 standard has no rate of change or blend requirement provisions

Quote (3DDave)

The committee tells you that other methods that aren't geometric tolerances are appropriate, but you disagree. Who are you to judge that blend requirements aren't important? That just tells me you have never worked on structural parts or parts that need to avoid fatigue cracks.

So ASME Y14.5 doesn't cover blend requirements, but it recommends using them for controlling abrupt surface variations. Considering how you frowned at my suggestion that the mention of blend requirements is not important, suggesting that I lack any experience in fields that require its implementation, I conclude you are well familiar with blend requirements and experienced in their application, you know information sources where they are covered (as we know, it is not Y14.5), and can tell a lot about how you use them to specify limits to control abrupt surface variations. I'm looking forward for you to elaborate on all this, and clarify how the mention of blend requirements in the Y14.5 paragraph you quoted earlier is not just two words remotely related to the addressed  topic, thrown in to complete a sentence, and make it look like more than one solution is offered.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Yes - the standard clearly says - you need to find an answer elsewhere. If there was an answer within the standard it would be given. Clearly blending can be very important, your dismissal of it tells me you don't know anything about the reason for it. I could tell you that it is managed by detailed discussions with the fabricator - which is why I suggested on the other thread to fire the fabricator that was not responsive to fixing the problem - but creating rules for just anyone who isn't capable of handling the task to understand isn't useful.

The purpose of the original calculation was not matched by the given calculation. In particular depending on it would lead to far more deviation than expected by the calculation due to seeming to require more clearance than is actually required. But if you like the idea of undercontrolled mechanisms rattling about even though the calculation suggests it doesn't happen, then go for it.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Needless to say, I didn't expect anything else.
Like everyone else who reads that paragraph you don't have an idea what "blend requirements" are, apart from that it probably has something to do with blending, yet you got all worked up to condemn me for suggesting that it is unimportant. The fact is that throwing in "blend requirements" by the committee didn't add any value to the paragraph on profile tolerance zone boundaries, it could be as complete without it. Your guess is that it has to do with discussions with the fabricator. I don't need Y14.5 to tell me that I can have discussions with the fabricator, I have them regularly without reading suggestions on it in the standard. Ideally, these discussions end with agreement on some specification in the drawing or any other documents that define the product - that is what I need the standards for.

You still didn't offer anything better, to replace the suggestions that you don't find good enough or over-restricting. Suggesting firing the vendor doesn't count, the user on the other thread was looking for a product requirements documentation advice. It was expected that he is not in any position to influence the choice of vendor, as he later indicated.
Here is advice for you which you will probably not listen to - don't talk about how you are better than others by being able to provide workable solutions as opposed to reciting what's written. Provide these solutions.

I still don't understand why you moved the discussion of that topic to this thread.

As for your better math than the committee "achievements", the original MMB calculation does not provide more clearance than needed. I explained it in details in the past. You are fixed by being convinced by your own "workable" solution of running a software simulation to calculate the dimensions of a semi-rectangular datum feature simulator for a cylindrical datum feature.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Hi Burunduk,
Could you please provide a link to the thread in which you gave the "in-depth step by step explanation of the datum simulation process that uses the correct math as shown in the standard"? Thanks.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Hi pmarc, here is a copy-paste of the relevant part.
The main purpose was to explain my understanding of the reasoning behind how the MMB is calculated for case (c) of figure 4-16 in Y14.5-'09.




"For a correct analysis of the shape and size of the MMB boundary of datum feature D in option (c), one has to understand the translation and rotation constraining aspects of the relevant datum reference frames, and the step by step establishment process of these datum reference frames.

First, the position and perpendicularity controls for the 7mm pin. The perpendicularity control references datum feature A only, and creates a 7.3 virtual condition boundary for the pin's orientation, not taking into account it's location.

For the position control, a datum reference frame is established constraining 6 degrees of freedom: datum feature A constrains 2 rotations and one translation. Suppose those are u, v, and Z. The first plane of the DRF is established, coincident with datum A. Datum feature B(M) constrains two translations: X and Y and establishes the other two planes of the datum reference frame, intersecting at right angles at datum feature B axis, which is also the Z axis. And here is an important point: these two planes are the origin references for the location of the pin. By now, there is already a cylindrical virtual condition boundary that exists, and the size of this boundary is 7.5mm, as results from the tolerance of location applied and the MMC size. But, this boundary is still not constrained in rotation around the Z axis (datum axis B): it can be anywhere 360° around it, at a fixed distance of 29mm. The tertiary datum feature C(M) doesn't take a part in setting the size of that boundary. What it does is locking its rotation about Z - the w rotation, by orienting one of the planes of the datum reference frame to be at the center of the C datum feature simulator.

So far, there is a 7.3mm boundary for orientation only and a fully constrained 7.5mm boundary for orientation and location.

Next, one has to look at the datum reference frame in option (c). The primary and secondary datum features are the same as in the position control for the pin. Datum reference A is taking care of all rotations but w, and B taking care of the X and Y translations. Which once again, makes for a meaningful location tolerance zone size, even though not all DOF are constrained. Obviously, the datum feature simulator for D, which will have to be basically oriented normal to A, has to be at the worst case size that will contain the datum feature, and take into account it's permissible orientation AND location. Therefore it is not the 7.3mm orientation-only boundary that is relevant. The relationship of datum feature D with A as primary and B(M) as secondary is per the above analysis of the position control applied to it:

The feature must be contained in a 7.5mm cylindrical boundary unconstrained in rotation about Z.

Once this is realized in the form of a datum feature simulator for D with the correct shape and size, it can work as a clocking datum reference for the 3.5mm hole controlled by the FCF in option (c)."

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Fig 4-16 (along with UOS definition for that matter) has been discussed here many (nx) times.
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=372340

Here is just one example in which Evan and pmarc participated. (I am looking for big names in this area of expertise)


RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

If the pin can only tilt 0.2 tangentially for a maximum tangential width of 7.3 however can the correct limit case in the tangential direction be 7.5? Using 7.5 leaves too much clearance, to the feature that depends on it can be farther than expected from it's correct position.

I assume you cannot use a CAD system or you would have been able to look at this yourself. No matter.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

The feature will be limited by a 7.5 diameter MMB, because 7.5 is the virtual condition of the pin relative to datums A primary and B(M) secondary, even when a rotational degree of freedom remains unconstrained, allowing the 7.5 diameter virtual condition (for datum feature D position) or MMB (for the case C position) of the pin to float in a ring shaped space about datum D.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

I bet you think that switching doors on the Monte Hall problem has a 1/3 chance just like the first choice did because the initial odds were 1 in 3 and that didn't change.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Not really,

But the way I described it is the way it works, although you probably have your own ideas of what the MMB and VC are.
The fact is, that these are agreed upon terms. Needed among other things to construct functional gages.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Quote (3DDave, )

I bet you think that switching doors on the Monte Hall problem has a 1/3 chance just like the first choice did because the initial odds were 1 in 3 and that didn't change.


What is the "right" answer on this tangential discussion about Monte Hall's problem?
Could you, please, kindly advise?
I am trying to understand what is/ could be the issue.....

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

<off topic>

The Monty Hall problem is one where the naive expectation that the odds remain the same doesn't hold up because there is a change in the information/viewpoint of the person making the decision.

A contestant is given a selection of 3 doors and asked to pick one, presumably one with a valuable item behind it. The other two each have undesirable prizes, such as live goats (1st world problems, sigh).

When the first selection is to be made there is a 1 in 3 chance. So they pick one.

Then Monty changes to a new set of rules, like selecting a new datum reference frame. The key is understanding that. No matter what prize door the person originally selected there will be at least one that has an undesirable prize, like a live goat. If the person chose one of the live goats then Monty will not reveal the big prize (car? washer-dryer set) because then the game is over and is uninteresting. Instead he will reveal the other goat.

This means that the person knows that there are two doors remaining, one with a live goat and the other with the good prize and that they have selected one of those two - do they want to switch.

Since it appears to be 50/50 at that point one might say - why switch? The problem is that in the first round their chance of getting it wrong is 2 of 3. So 2 of 3 times they have a goat. In only 1 of 3 cases at the second choice changing their minds moves them from the prize to a goat and 2 of 3 cases changing their mind moves them from a goat to a prize.

The stumbling block is when the calculation of the odds does not include that Monty will always reject a goat - his choice of which door to reveal is never random.

A more extreme example is 100 doors - chose one. Then Monty Hall reveals that 98 of the doors had goats. The original odds were 99 of 100 that the original guess was a goat. Now it's one door has a goat, one has a prize. So 99/100 of the time the person selected a goat on the first guess and switching is the right choice and 1/100 they got the prize on the first guess and switching is the wrong one.

</off topic>

In the same way - by no longer referring to C, that piece of information that told the tangential movement allowance due to the position tolerance has been removed. The odds that the pin can have a location variation have been reduced to zero because the pin is now the origin of the measurement of where the pin is. The only impediment is the orientation in the tangential direction which does not affect where the center of the pin is relative to the center of the pin - only how fat it appears to be. If position was the only restriction then the position tolerance is also the limit on the orientation and that would give one answer. But there is also a perpendicularity tolerance that is smaller and that then is the limit on orientation.

Fixed Monte to Monty.

However - born Monte Halparin. He moved to Toronto in 1946 and found a job with radio station CHUM, where management shortened his name to Hall and misspelled his first name as "Monty" on billboards. per Wikipedia.

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Not to be pedantic (but in case anyone wants to do a web search for further info)... the game show host spelled his name Monty.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

RE: if surface profile tol in the title block ok?

Fixed it - but Google Search will make the correct suggestion anyway. See the end of the corrected post for the amazing reveal.

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