Controlling the geometry of slots

GD&T Best Practices

Controlling the geometry of slots.

Figure 1. Alternative Approaches to Controlling an Open Slot

Figure 2. The Mid-Line, the Bi-Directional and the Double Ended Approaches to
Controlling a Round Ended Slot
Figure 3. The Between and the ALL AROUND - Stretching Approaches to Controlling a
Round Ended Slot
PREV
NEXT
April 12, 2013
Bill Tandler
KEYWORDS bi-direction / datum /double ended / GD&T
Reprints
03
One Comment
Once we come up with a useful set of concepts (a Datum, Cylindricity, the Virtual Condition), its
time to create a set of tools with which to implement them. And once we have a set of tools, we
need a set of rules to make sure we dont misuse them. Next its time to put them to work, and we
do that with processes, like the feature function analysis process, the Feature Control Frame
stuffing process, and the Feature Control Frame decoding process, etc. And once were into
processes, we come face to face with the need for best practices.
Lets look at what it takes to control the geometry of slots, and see if there is indeed a best
practice. First of all, what is a slot? In fact an official slot consists of nothing but two opposed
planar surfaces whose normal vectors point toward each other, end of story. The round ends of a
slot, if it has them, or its bottom, if it has one, are not parts of the slot, but merely terminate it in
various ways.

The Single Ended, Through Slot

Lets start by focusing on the simpler of the two alternatives shown in Figure 1, namely the single
ended through slots on the left hand edge of the part. The first question is always: What are the
functional objectives of the slot which we will need to encode?, the second is What can go
wrong? and the third is What tools should we use to impose adequate, but fault tolerant
controls? In answer to question 1) lets say the slots primary function is to very reliably orient a
mating slab whose location and depth, however, are five times less important. In answer to
question 2) there could be problems with the size of the slot, with the form of its surfaces, with its
orientation, and finally, with its location and depth. Working toward an answer to question 3), the
two most important requirements for meeting the most important objective, namely orientation,
are first, that there be very little play between the slot and its mating slab, and second, that the
slots perpendicularity to A and parallelism to B be tightly controlled. Lets see how the two
illustrated alternatives stack up:

Example 1The Everything Tool: Because the Surface Profile tool can do everything,
namely control size, form, orientation and location, and is very clean and simple to apply, its very
attractive. In this case, with the help of the between modifier, Surface Profile creates three
planar, skin-like tolerance zones which actually do control everything. They control the form of all
three faces, the mutual offset and parallelism of the two opposing facesand therefore the size of
the slotand also the orientation and location of all three faces relative to the Datum Reference
Frame (DRF) defined by Datum Features A, B and C. Thats everything, so we are in fact done.
However we also see that the everything tool has imposed a heavy hand, namely by using the
same tool only once to control everything, weve had to impose unnecessarily tight tolerances on
the location of the slot and on its bottom, in order to have the required tight tolerances on its size
and orientation. As a result, by keeping things simple, we are pushing up manufacturing costs
and increasing the chances that fully functional parts will have to be discarded. We therefore have
to ask if theres a way to separate control of the slots width and orientation from its location, and
to treat its bottom entirely independently.

Example 2The Mixed Bag Tool Set: Starting down a new path, if we use the good old
fashioned width tool to control the size of the slot, then, as a result of the Envelope Rule and the
Rule of Size & Form (Rule #1), we will also control its form, namely the flatness of both surfaces.
Next, if we use the Position tool to control the orientation and location of the slots mid-plane
quite loosely, and then the Angularity tool (neither the Perpendicularity nor the Parallelism tool
are appropriate in this case) to refine control of its orientation, we will have imposed truly
functional but also cleverly fault tolerant requirements on the slot. And, when it comes to
controlling the location of the relatively unimportant bottom of the slot, the good old fashioned
depth tool is just ideal, and we are done. Note: Because of the already present, very loose ALL
OVER Surface Profile tolerance imposed on the entire part, instead of adding the depth tool, we
could have left the bottom of the slot under its control. On the other hand, tying all the controls
imposed on a single group of related features together, has lots of ergonomic benefits.
The Round Ended, Blind Slot
Moving on to the round ended slot, we again start by asking what are its functional objectives and
what can go wrong, before we start to worry about selecting geometry control tools. In terms of
the functional objectives, in general it is only the opposing faces of such a slot which are critical,
making its ends merely convenient terminations whose main function is to stay out of the way. In
the current case, let us propose that this time both the orientation and location of the slot are
critical, and that it serves to reliably both orient and locate a mating slab. When it comes to
determining what can go wrong, focusing on the opposed faces, we must control their mutual
distance, their parallelism and their form, and in addition, their orientation and location relative to
DRF[AB]namely in this case Datum Feature C has no impact. When it comes to the round ends,
we must control their diameter, their form and their orientation and location relative to
DRF[A,B,C]yes, now C does have an impactbut across the board much more loosely than in
the case of the parallel faces.

Note: Because the process by which the round ends will be manufactureda computer controlled
end mill sliding back and forthguarantees that they will probably be just as perfect as the
opposed faces of the slot, loosening their tolerances will have little impact on reducing
manufacturing cost. Nevertheless, to not loosen those tolerances might lead to the unnecessary
rejection of perfectly functional parts, therefore making those looser tolerances a financial must.

Figures 2 and 3 show five different possible approaches to imposing controls, and in each case, all
the tolerance zones as well, whereby those for size are shown in blue and those for orientation and
location in red. The tool used to control the depth of the slot is the same in all five cases, namely
the beautifully simple depth tool.

Example 3The Mid-Line Approach: Here, the width and Position tools at the bottom of the
illustration apply to all three features and serve to control 1) both the width of the slot and the
up/down size of the rounded ends, 2) the orientation and location of the mid-plane of the slot,
and 3) the up/down orientation and location of the axes of the rounded ends relative to DRF[A,B].
The width and Position tools at the top of the illustration, on the other hand, control the distance
between the two line elements at opposite ends of the rounded slot, and the left and right
orientation and location of the median line of those two line elements relative to DRF [A,B,C]. In
this alternative, no direct controls are imposed on the form of the rounded ends which is
comfortably left to chance based on the manufacturing process.
Note: In all three cases, the Tolerance Zone Size (Material Condition) modifier (S) is appropriate
for the slot, because it encodes its aiming or centering function, whereas the modifier (M) is
appropriate for the rounded ends to encode their clearance function.

Example 4The Bi-Directional Approach: Here the controls at the bottom of the illustration
are identical to those in Example 3, but those at the top now control the diameters and therefore
the size and form of the two cylindrical ends, as well as the left/right orientations and locations of
their axes rather than the symmetry element of their opposed surface lines, as was the case in
alternative 3.

Example 5The Double Ended Approach: Here the width and Position tools at the bottom
of the illustration apply only to the slot and fully control its width and form as well as the up/down
orientation and location of its mid-plane. The upper controls, for the first time, control all the
characteristics of the two cylindrical ends independently of the slot, and in a fully functional, very
fault tolerant way. Alternative 5 is by far the most attractive alternative so far.
Two More TAKES ON the Round Ended Slot
Having ignored the everything tool so far in the case of the round ended slot, because it
dangerously usually controls everything to the same extent at the same time, it might be
interesting to play with it anyway and see where it takes us.

Example 6The Between Approach: A very simple way to control the geometry of a round
ended slot would be with an All Around Surface Profile tool. But just as in Example 1 for the
single ended through slot, wed be imposing improperly tight tolerances on the round ends in
order to fulfill the tight requirements on the walls. With the help of Between modifiers,
however, we can apply the required tight tolerances to the opposed faces, and at the same time, the
permissibly loose tolerances to the rounded ends in a most efficient and fault tolerant way. Pretty
interesting!

Example 7The All Around - Stretching Approach: How about another idea? How about
trying the All Around Surface Profile tool this time, but allowing the 0.1 mm thick tube-like
portions of the tolerance zone at the rounded ends to slide left and right using variable Basic
dimensions? This is actually implied as permissible under the Y14.5 2009 Standard as shown in
Fig. 8-27 (p.179), but where a variable nominal instead of a variable Basic dimension is used to
permit a stack of straight ribbon-like, Line Profile tolerance zones to slide up and down! Our
Example 7 is essentially identical and represents a very functional solution.

Because it is blatantly illogical to permit a toleranced nominal dimension which serves to control
the size of a slab see the Y14.5 example to also control the location of a Profile tolerance zone,
it seems time to get that corrected in the Standard and finally authorize the use of variable Basic
dimensions.

And so, of all five alternatives for the round ended slot, which feels the best? I like alternatives 6
and 7 best myself, but because 7 is currently illegal, in the end, 6 seems the most fault tolerant
as well as the most intuitive and simple approach.

Comments? I would appreciate complimentary as well as critical ones all the time, and also, topic
ideas youd like to see addressed that I might miss. In our July workshop, well continue looking
at best practices, so please stay tuned.

GD&T Best Practices

Controlling the geometry of slots.
Figure 1. Alternative Approaches to Controlling an Open Slot

Figure 2. The Mid-Line, the Bi-Directional and the Double Ended Approaches to
Controlling a Round Ended Slot
Figure 3. The Between and the ALL AROUND - Stretching Approaches to Controlling a
Round Ended Slot
PREV
NEXT
April 12, 2013
Bill Tandler
KEYWORDS bi-direction / datum /double ended / GD&T
Reprints
03
One Comment
Once we come up with a useful set of concepts (a Datum, Cylindricity, the Virtual Condition), its
time to create a set of tools with which to implement them. And once we have a set of tools, we
need a set of rules to make sure we dont misuse them. Next its time to put them to work, and we
do that with processes, like the feature function analysis process, the Feature Control Frame
stuffing process, and the Feature Control Frame decoding process, etc. And once were into
processes, we come face to face with the need for best practices.
Lets look at what it takes to control the geometry of slots, and see if there is indeed a best
practice. First of all, what is a slot? In fact an official slot consists of nothing but two opposed
planar surfaces whose normal vectors point toward each other, end of story. The round ends of a
slot, if it has them, or its bottom, if it has one, are not parts of the slot, but merely terminate it in
various ways.

The Single Ended, Through Slot

Lets start by focusing on the simpler of the two alternatives shown in Figure 1, namely the single
ended through slots on the left hand edge of the part. The first question is always: What are the
functional objectives of the slot which we will need to encode?, the second is What can go
wrong? and the third is What tools should we use to impose adequate, but fault tolerant
controls? In answer to question 1) lets say the slots primary function is to very reliably orient a
mating slab whose location and depth, however, are five times less important. In answer to
question 2) there could be problems with the size of the slot, with the form of its surfaces, with its
orientation, and finally, with its location and depth. Working toward an answer to question 3), the
two most important requirements for meeting the most important objective, namely orientation,
are first, that there be very little play between the slot and its mating slab, and second, that the
slots perpendicularity to A and parallelism to B be tightly controlled. Lets see how the two
illustrated alternatives stack up:

Example 1The Everything Tool: Because the Surface Profile tool can do everything,
namely control size, form, orientation and location, and is very clean and simple to apply, its very
attractive. In this case, with the help of the between modifier, Surface Profile creates three
planar, skin-like tolerance zones which actually do control everything. They control the form of all
three faces, the mutual offset and parallelism of the two opposing facesand therefore the size of
the slotand also the orientation and location of all three faces relative to the Datum Reference
Frame (DRF) defined by Datum Features A, B and C. Thats everything, so we are in fact done.
However we also see that the everything tool has imposed a heavy hand, namely by using the
same tool only once to control everything, weve had to impose unnecessarily tight tolerances on
the location of the slot and on its bottom, in order to have the required tight tolerances on its size
and orientation. As a result, by keeping things simple, we are pushing up manufacturing costs
and increasing the chances that fully functional parts will have to be discarded. We therefore have
to ask if theres a way to separate control of the slots width and orientation from its location, and
to treat its bottom entirely independently.

Example 2The Mixed Bag Tool Set: Starting down a new path, if we use the good old
fashioned width tool to control the size of the slot, then, as a result of the Envelope Rule and the
Rule of Size & Form (Rule #1), we will also control its form, namely the flatness of both surfaces.
Next, if we use the Position tool to control the orientation and location of the slots mid-plane
quite loosely, and then the Angularity tool (neither the Perpendicularity nor the Parallelism tool
are appropriate in this case) to refine control of its orientation, we will have imposed truly
functional but also cleverly fault tolerant requirements on the slot. And, when it comes to
controlling the location of the relatively unimportant bottom of the slot, the good old fashioned
depth tool is just ideal, and we are done. Note: Because of the already present, very loose ALL
OVER Surface Profile tolerance imposed on the entire part, instead of adding the depth tool, we
could have left the bottom of the slot under its control. On the other hand, tying all the controls
imposed on a single group of related features together, has lots of ergonomic benefits.
The Round Ended, Blind Slot
Moving on to the round ended slot, we again start by asking what are its functional objectives and
what can go wrong, before we start to worry about selecting geometry control tools. In terms of
the functional objectives, in general it is only the opposing faces of such a slot which are critical,
making its ends merely convenient terminations whose main function is to stay out of the way. In
the current case, let us propose that this time both the orientation and location of the slot are
critical, and that it serves to reliably both orient and locate a mating slab. When it comes to
determining what can go wrong, focusing on the opposed faces, we must control their mutual
distance, their parallelism and their form, and in addition, their orientation and location relative to
DRF[AB]namely in this case Datum Feature C has no impact. When it comes to the round ends,
we must control their diameter, their form and their orientation and location relative to
DRF[A,B,C]yes, now C does have an impactbut across the board much more loosely than in
the case of the parallel faces.

Note: Because the process by which the round ends will be manufactureda computer controlled
end mill sliding back and forthguarantees that they will probably be just as perfect as the
opposed faces of the slot, loosening their tolerances will have little impact on reducing
manufacturing cost. Nevertheless, to not loosen those tolerances might lead to the unnecessary
rejection of perfectly functional parts, therefore making those looser tolerances a financial must.

Figures 2 and 3 show five different possible approaches to imposing controls, and in each case, all
the tolerance zones as well, whereby those for size are shown in blue and those for orientation and
location in red. The tool used to control the depth of the slot is the same in all five cases, namely
the beautifully simple depth tool.

Example 3The Mid-Line Approach: Here, the width and Position tools at the bottom of the
illustration apply to all three features and serve to control 1) both the width of the slot and the
up/down size of the rounded ends, 2) the orientation and location of the mid-plane of the slot,
and 3) the up/down orientation and location of the axes of the rounded ends relative to DRF[A,B].
The width and Position tools at the top of the illustration, on the other hand, control the distance
between the two line elements at opposite ends of the rounded slot, and the left and right
orientation and location of the median line of those two line elements relative to DRF [A,B,C]. In
this alternative, no direct controls are imposed on the form of the rounded ends which is
comfortably left to chance based on the manufacturing process.
Note: In all three cases, the Tolerance Zone Size (Material Condition) modifier (S) is appropriate
for the slot, because it encodes its aiming or centering function, whereas the modifier (M) is
appropriate for the rounded ends to encode their clearance function.

Example 4The Bi-Directional Approach: Here the controls at the bottom of the illustration
are identical to those in Example 3, but those at the top now control the diameters and therefore
the size and form of the two cylindrical ends, as well as the left/right orientations and locations of
their axes rather than the symmetry element of their opposed surface lines, as was the case in
alternative 3.

Example 5The Double Ended Approach: Here the width and Position tools at the bottom
of the illustration apply only to the slot and fully control its width and form as well as the up/down
orientation and location of its mid-plane. The upper controls, for the first time, control all the
characteristics of the two cylindrical ends independently of the slot, and in a fully functional, very
fault tolerant way. Alternative 5 is by far the most attractive alternative so far.
Two More TAKES ON the Round Ended Slot
Having ignored the everything tool so far in the case of the round ended slot, because it
dangerously usually controls everything to the same extent at the same time, it might be
interesting to play with it anyway and see where it takes us.

Example 6The Between Approach: A very simple way to control the geometry of a round
ended slot would be with an All Around Surface Profile tool. But just as in Example 1 for the
single ended through slot, wed be imposing improperly tight tolerances on the round ends in
order to fulfill the tight requirements on the walls. With the help of Between modifiers,
however, we can apply the required tight tolerances to the opposed faces, and at the same time, the
permissibly loose tolerances to the rounded ends in a most efficient and fault tolerant way. Pretty
interesting!

Example 7The All Around - Stretching Approach: How about another idea? How about
trying the All Around Surface Profile tool this time, but allowing the 0.1 mm thick tube-like
portions of the tolerance zone at the rounded ends to slide left and right using variable Basic
dimensions? This is actually implied as permissible under the Y14.5 2009 Standard as shown in
Fig. 8-27 (p.179), but where a variable nominal instead of a variable Basic dimension is used to
permit a stack of straight ribbon-like, Line Profile tolerance zones to slide up and down! Our
Example 7 is essentially identical and represents a very functional solution.

Because it is blatantly illogical to permit a toleranced nominal dimension which serves to control
the size of a slab see the Y14.5 example to also control the location of a Profile tolerance zone,
it seems time to get that corrected in the Standard and finally authorize the use of variable Basic
dimensions.

And so, of all five alternatives for the round ended slot, which feels the best? I like alternatives 6
and 7 best myself, but because 7 is currently illegal, in the end, 6 seems the most fault tolerant
as well as the most intuitive and simple approach.

Comments? I would appreciate complimentary as well as critical ones all the time, and also, topic
ideas youd like to see addressed that I might miss. In our July workshop, well continue looking
at best practices, so please stay tuned.

GD&T Best Practices

Controlling the geometry of slots.
Figure 1. Alternative Approaches to Controlling an Open Slot

Figure 2. The Mid-Line, the Bi-Directional and the Double Ended Approaches to
Controlling a Round Ended Slot
Figure 3. The Between and the ALL AROUND - Stretching Approaches to Controlling a
Round Ended Slot
PREV
NEXT
April 12, 2013
Bill Tandler
KEYWORDS bi-direction / datum /double ended / GD&T
Reprints
03
One Comment
Once we come up with a useful set of concepts (a Datum, Cylindricity, the Virtual Condition), its
time to create a set of tools with which to implement them. And once we have a set of tools, we
need a set of rules to make sure we dont misuse them. Next its time to put them to work, and we
do that with processes, like the feature function analysis process, the Feature Control Frame
stuffing process, and the Feature Control Frame decoding process, etc. And once were into
processes, we come face to face with the need for best practices.
Lets look at what it takes to control the geometry of slots, and see if there is indeed a best
practice. First of all, what is a slot? In fact an official slot consists of nothing but two opposed
planar surfaces whose normal vectors point toward each other, end of story. The round ends of a
slot, if it has them, or its bottom, if it has one, are not parts of the slot, but merely terminate it in
various ways.

The Single Ended, Through Slot

Lets start by focusing on the simpler of the two alternatives shown in Figure 1, namely the single
ended through slots on the left hand edge of the part. The first question is always: What are the
functional objectives of the slot which we will need to encode?, the second is What can go
wrong? and the third is What tools should we use to impose adequate, but fault tolerant
controls? In answer to question 1) lets say the slots primary function is to very reliably orient a
mating slab whose location and depth, however, are five times less important. In answer to
question 2) there could be problems with the size of the slot, with the form of its surfaces, with its
orientation, and finally, with its location and depth. Working toward an answer to question 3), the
two most important requirements for meeting the most important objective, namely orientation,
are first, that there be very little play between the slot and its mating slab, and second, that the
slots perpendicularity to A and parallelism to B be tightly controlled. Lets see how the two
illustrated alternatives stack up:

Example 1The Everything Tool: Because the Surface Profile tool can do everything,
namely control size, form, orientation and location, and is very clean and simple to apply, its very
attractive. In this case, with the help of the between modifier, Surface Profile creates three
planar, skin-like tolerance zones which actually do control everything. They control the form of all
three faces, the mutual offset and parallelism of the two opposing facesand therefore the size of
the slotand also the orientation and location of all three faces relative to the Datum Reference
Frame (DRF) defined by Datum Features A, B and C. Thats everything, so we are in fact done.
However we also see that the everything tool has imposed a heavy hand, namely by using the
same tool only once to control everything, weve had to impose unnecessarily tight tolerances on
the location of the slot and on its bottom, in order to have the required tight tolerances on its size
and orientation. As a result, by keeping things simple, we are pushing up manufacturing costs
and increasing the chances that fully functional parts will have to be discarded. We therefore have
to ask if theres a way to separate control of the slots width and orientation from its location, and
to treat its bottom entirely independently.

Example 2The Mixed Bag Tool Set: Starting down a new path, if we use the good old
fashioned width tool to control the size of the slot, then, as a result of the Envelope Rule and the
Rule of Size & Form (Rule #1), we will also control its form, namely the flatness of both surfaces.
Next, if we use the Position tool to control the orientation and location of the slots mid-plane
quite loosely, and then the Angularity tool (neither the Perpendicularity nor the Parallelism tool
are appropriate in this case) to refine control of its orientation, we will have imposed truly
functional but also cleverly fault tolerant requirements on the slot. And, when it comes to
controlling the location of the relatively unimportant bottom of the slot, the good old fashioned
depth tool is just ideal, and we are done. Note: Because of the already present, very loose ALL
OVER Surface Profile tolerance imposed on the entire part, instead of adding the depth tool, we
could have left the bottom of the slot under its control. On the other hand, tying all the controls
imposed on a single group of related features together, has lots of ergonomic benefits.
The Round Ended, Blind Slot
Moving on to the round ended slot, we again start by asking what are its functional objectives and
what can go wrong, before we start to worry about selecting geometry control tools. In terms of
the functional objectives, in general it is only the opposing faces of such a slot which are critical,
making its ends merely convenient terminations whose main function is to stay out of the way. In
the current case, let us propose that this time both the orientation and location of the slot are
critical, and that it serves to reliably both orient and locate a mating slab. When it comes to
determining what can go wrong, focusing on the opposed faces, we must control their mutual
distance, their parallelism and their form, and in addition, their orientation and location relative to
DRF[AB]namely in this case Datum Feature C has no impact. When it comes to the round ends,
we must control their diameter, their form and their orientation and location relative to
DRF[A,B,C]yes, now C does have an impactbut across the board much more loosely than in
the case of the parallel faces.

Note: Because the process by which the round ends will be manufactureda computer controlled
end mill sliding back and forthguarantees that they will probably be just as perfect as the
opposed faces of the slot, loosening their tolerances will have little impact on reducing
manufacturing cost. Nevertheless, to not loosen those tolerances might lead to the unnecessary
rejection of perfectly functional parts, therefore making those looser tolerances a financial must.

Figures 2 and 3 show five different possible approaches to imposing controls, and in each case, all
the tolerance zones as well, whereby those for size are shown in blue and those for orientation and
location in red. The tool used to control the depth of the slot is the same in all five cases, namely
the beautifully simple depth tool.

Example 3The Mid-Line Approach: Here, the width and Position tools at the bottom of the
illustration apply to all three features and serve to control 1) both the width of the slot and the
up/down size of the rounded ends, 2) the orientation and location of the mid-plane of the slot,
and 3) the up/down orientation and location of the axes of the rounded ends relative to DRF[A,B].
The width and Position tools at the top of the illustration, on the other hand, control the distance
between the two line elements at opposite ends of the rounded slot, and the left and right
orientation and location of the median line of those two line elements relative to DRF [A,B,C]. In
this alternative, no direct controls are imposed on the form of the rounded ends which is
comfortably left to chance based on the manufacturing process.
Note: In all three cases, the Tolerance Zone Size (Material Condition) modifier (S) is appropriate
for the slot, because it encodes its aiming or centering function, whereas the modifier (M) is
appropriate for the rounded ends to encode their clearance function.

Example 4The Bi-Directional Approach: Here the controls at the bottom of the illustration
are identical to those in Example 3, but those at the top now control the diameters and therefore
the size and form of the two cylindrical ends, as well as the left/right orientations and locations of
their axes rather than the symmetry element of their opposed surface lines, as was the case in
alternative 3.

Example 5The Double Ended Approach: Here the width and Position tools at the bottom
of the illustration apply only to the slot and fully control its width and form as well as the up/down
orientation and location of its mid-plane. The upper controls, for the first time, control all the
characteristics of the two cylindrical ends independently of the slot, and in a fully functional, very
fault tolerant way. Alternative 5 is by far the most attractive alternative so far.
 Two More TAKES ON the Round Ended Slot
Having ignored the everything tool so far in the case of the round ended slot, because it
dangerously usually controls everything to the same extent at the same time, it might be
interesting to play with it anyway and see where it takes us.

Example 6The Between Approach: A very simple way to control the geometry of a round
ended slot would be with an All Around Surface Profile tool. But just as in Example 1 for the
single ended through slot, wed be imposing improperly tight tolerances on the round ends in
order to fulfill the tight requirements on the walls. With the help of Between modifiers,
however, we can apply the required tight tolerances to the opposed faces, and at the same time, the
permissibly loose tolerances to the rounded ends in a most efficient and fault tolerant way. Pretty
interesting!

Example 7The All Around - Stretching Approach: How about another idea? How about
trying the All Around Surface Profile tool this time, but allowing the 0.1 mm thick tube-like
portions of the tolerance zone at the rounded ends to slide left and right using variable Basic
dimensions? This is actually implied as permissible under the Y14.5 2009 Standard as shown in
Fig. 8-27 (p.179), but where a variable nominal instead of a variable Basic dimension is used to
permit a stack of straight ribbon-like, Line Profile tolerance zones to slide up and down! Our
Example 7 is essentially identical and represents a very functional solution.

Because it is blatantly illogical to permit a toleranced nominal dimension which serves to control
the size of a slab see the Y14.5 example to also control the location of a Profile tolerance zone,
it seems time to get that corrected in the Standard and finally authorize the use of variable Basic
dimensions.

And so, of all five alternatives for the round ended slot, which feels the best? I like alternatives 6
and 7 best myself, but because 7 is currently illegal, in the end, 6 seems the most fault tolerant
as well as the most intuitive and simple approach.

Comments? I would appreciate complimentary as well as critical ones all the time, and also, topic
ideas youd like to see addressed that I might miss. In our July workshop, well continue looking
at best practices, so please stay tuned.

LinkedIn

Entrar
Cadastre-se
Main content starts below.


Robert Bledsaw III

ASME Y14.5 TipGD&T and

Slots
Publicado em 16 de setembro de 2015
GosteiASME Y14. 5 Tip GD&T and Slots
 10

Comentar

CompartilharCompartilhar A SME Y1 4.5 Tip GD&T and Slots

Robert Bledsaw III

SeguirRobert Bledsaw III
Senior Engineer at Caresoft Global Inc

One of the most common mistakes I see almost daily is when

an engineer is trying to properly GTOL a rounded slot. They often times
will stick a diametrical position tolerance on the feature with respect to
the global datum frame of reference.

There are two ways to properly GTOL a rounded slot, and that is not one
of them! Another problem is that MMC Modifiers on on Datums B and C
in the Feature Control Frame. This modifier can only be used when the
Datum Feature is a Feature of Size.

The easiest method for engineers to grasp is to unidirectionally position

tolerance each of the slots features of sizethis is the non-preferred
method (shown below). It is non-preferred because it leaves a lot of room
for weirdness with the radii.
Non-preferred method

The second way is to use a Profile of Surface to control the slot size in
combination with the Position tolerance to control location.
Preferred method

Hope this is a help!

GD&T Tolerance those Slots Right

UNCATEGORIZED BY GLADYS ON 2 JUNE 2008 AT 10:23 AM
https://youtu.be/ktWr0U9Z20o

In the majority of cases, the fastening of parts on checking fixture is made as follows: the supporting of the part is made
with a support block and a clamp, the centring with a conic centring pin in a circular hole, and the anti-rotation with a
diamond-shaped pin in a slot. Yet, to do this fastening correctly, one of the most important information we need is the
tolerance of the circular hole, and most of all, of the slot. Tolerancing a slot, however, is not always that easy.
Fortunately, Tec Ease has prepared a video of GD&T explaining how to tolerance correctly a slot, providing us once
more with useful information for the designing of parts and checking fixtures.
Here is what this video says:
Controlling slots and other irregular shapes has always been a challenge. The standard uses two ways to tolerance
slots. The first one works for slots only. The length and width of the slot are toleranced as two features of size. The
position tolerance, with the word boundary, is applied to each position tolerance.
The size limits are controlling the size and the form of the slot, although what is actually allowed on the radia is a little
fuzzy.
The position tolerance controls the location and the orientation of the slots to the datum reference frame.
The other method would work for any internal and external shape, including slots.
A profile tolerance controls the size and form of the slot all around. One position tolerance controls the location and
orientation of the slot to the datum reference frame.
In this case, there is an inner boundary that the slot may not violate. The slot can move left, right, up or down, and even
tip, as long as it does not come inside this boundary, which is probably the space needed by the mating part.
I like the approach that works for all your regular shapes.
Tolerances Modified at LMC and MMC Are a Single Limit
(In accordance with Y14.5M-1994 standard)

A geometric tolerance modified at MMC or LMC becomes a single limit control. This single limit is known as the virtual condition. Features

toleranced in this manner need only be inspected for size and to assure that none of the surface of the feature has violated the virtual

condition. This is important to realize when calculating Cpk for a manufacturing process. The boundary may be considered a single limit

control. By probing the feature and recording the point on the feature that is nearest the boundary being controlled, a Cpk value may be

determined.

For this example, once size has been checked, the hole may be probed to determine how close the surface is to the virtual condition of
59.5mm. By recording these values over time, an average and standard deviation of the values may be determined. Calculating the difference
between the average of these values and the virtual condition boundary, then dividing that difference by 3 standard deviations will yield a Cpk.
Question about controlling an elliptical feature of size
Published in February 3rd, 2011

Question
What is the correct way to document and control an elliptical feature of size (or other
mathematically defined shape that isnt covered by the ASME Y14.5 examples)?

In the past, Ive used basic dimensions for the major and minor axis, a profile control,
and a note that says, TRUE ELLIPSE, but some metrology labs dont have the
capability to measure ellipses with their CMM.

Answer
Generally speaking, an ellipse is not a true feature of size because it does not have one
size dimension that can apply to all opposed surface elements, like a pin, hole, or plate
thickness.

You can have two different size dimensions for the major and minor axis, but these size
dimensions will not control the surface elements between the major and minor axes.
Basic dimensions applied to the opposed surface elements at the two axes and basic
radii are best, because then you can specify a profile of surface tolerance applied all
around to control the overall size and shape of the ellipse. Datum references can be
added to the feature control frame to also control the location and orientation of the
ellipse.

Most CMMs are capable of measuring profile. You can reference the 3D CAD model in
lieu of the 2D basic dimensions if the CMM has the capability to measure relative to the
3D model. If a metrology lab is telling you that they dont have the capability to measure
a profile tolerance, then they may be using an older CMM with outdated software or the
CMM operator may not have been properly trained on how to correctly measure
geometric tolerances.

Roy Cross
ASME GDTP Senior Level S-0488
Dimensional Engineering Mentor
Share this:

Share

6 users responded in " Question about controlling an elliptical feature of size "
Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

John said,in February 17th, 2011 at 8:49 am

Its surprising to find out that an ellipse is not considered a FOS. What is the correct term?
Does it change things if its an extruded ellipse (so that there are multiple opposed surface
elements defined by a single dimension)?

Makes sense that basic dimensions at the axis wont themselves control the points in
between, so there needs to be some further definition, which is what I thought TRUE
ELLIPSE was. Not sure how basic radii would work, though; an ellipse has a continually-
varying radius.

If there isnt a standard way of defining conic sections (or other mathematically-defined
shapes), it seems like a major hole. I wonder if ISO standards cover something like this.

Chris Riordan said,in April 18th, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Hmm. I wonder if you dimension the elipse according the the equation that controls its size
and form if youd have a different conclusion. You dont actually use two centers as you do
with a slot. The equation is x^^2/a^^2 + y^^2/b^^2 = 1, where a may be assumed to be
the horizontal axis length at y = 0 and and b may be assumed to be the vertical axis length
when x=0. a and b may represent the length of the major and minor axes. There may be
found a single center. Additionally an ellipse meets the symmetry requirements of a feature
of size.

I wonder also if 2009 definitions also allow for an ellipse to be considered a feature of size,
either regular or irregular.

A question I have is whether there is a standard accepted way to dimension and tolerance an
elliptical hole or boss, such that everyone agrees as to the tolerance zone shape. I believe if
one correctly uses the proper dimensions, a and b, instead of trying to dimension like a slot,
and also providing the note, TRUE ELLIPSE, there is no ambiguity as to the size AND shape
controls, nor is there ambiguity as to the center. I understand then that a position tool with a
diameter symbol in the FCF just before the tolerance value would define a cylindrical
tolerance zone around the bounded axis of the elliptical feature. Id like to know if that is the
consensus of the standards keepers.

Roy Cross said,in April 18th, 2013 at 9:14 pm

Hi Guys, I guess I miss interpreted your question. An ellipse is not a regular feature of size
according to Y14.5 1994 and 2009 but it is an irregular feature of size type B per 2009, if its
size and form is controlled by a profile of surface tolerance. A regular feature of size must be
a cylinder, sphere, or opposed parallel surfaces or opposed elements associated with a
directly tolerance size dimension. Yes, the ellipse can be defined by a formula or a 3D CAD
model. A profile of surface tolerance without datum references can be used to control its size
and form and a second larger profile of surface tolerance with datum references can be used
to control its location and orientation. A position tolerance with a BOUNDARY note (required
per Y14.5M-1994)(note optional in 2009) can also be used to control its location within a VC
boundary.

Roy Cross said,in April 18th, 2013 at 9:17 pm

If the measurement lab has the capability to measure a part from a 3D CAD model then it
can measure an ellipse or any mathematically defined contour.

Chris Riordan said,in April 19th, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Yes, Another way I learned it from a member of the math committee, Bill Tandler of Multi
Metrics is FOS require a symmetry component. An ellipse has two. Its just disappointing that
no one on the committee would have contemplated that an elliptical extrusion might require
controls similar to a cylinder.

I understand more missionary work is being done to eliminate the concern if a more robust
method of applying a boundary with additional tolerance allowance as the feature, ( FOS or
not ) departs from its maximum material condition.

Gabriel Patterson said,in February 15th, 2015 at 3:26 pm

Gabriel Patterson

Question about controlling an elliptical feature of size | Effective Training GD&T Blog

Pergunta sobre o controle de uma caracterstica

elptica de tamanho
Publicado em 3 de fevereiro de 2011

Pergunta
Qual a maneira correta de documentar e controlar uma caracterstica elptica de
tamanho (ou outra forma matematicamente definida que no coberta pelos exemplos
ASME Y14.5)?

No passado, usei dimenses bsicas para o eixo principal e menor, um controle de perfil
e uma nota que diz: "TRUE ELLIPSE", mas alguns laboratrios de metrologia no tm a
capacidade de medir elipses com o CMM.

Resposta
Geralmente falando, uma elipse no uma caracterstica verdadeira do tamanho porque
no possui uma dimenso de tamanho que possa ser aplicada a todos os elementos de
superfcie opostos, como um pino, furo ou espessura da placa.

Voc pode ter duas dimenses de tamanho diferentes para o eixo maior e menor, mas
essas dimenses de tamanho no controlaro os elementos de superfcie entre os eixos
maior e menor. As dimenses bsicas aplicadas aos elementos de superfcie opostos
nos dois eixos e os raios bsicos so melhores porque, em seguida, voc pode
especificar um perfil de tolerncia de superfcie aplicado ao redor para controlar o
tamanho e a forma geral da elipse. As referncias de datas podem ser adicionadas ao
quadro de controle de recursos para tambm controlar a localizao e a orientao da
elipse.

A maioria dos CMMs so capazes de medir o perfil. Voc pode fazer referncia ao
modelo CAD 3D em vez das dimenses bsicas 2D se o CMM tiver capacidade de
medir em relao ao modelo 3D. Se um laboratrio de metrologia est dizendo que eles
no tm a capacidade de medir uma tolerncia ao perfil, eles podem estar usando um
CMM mais antigo com o software desatualizado ou o operador CMM pode no ter sido
devidamente treinado sobre como medir corretamente as tolerncias geomtricas.

Roy Cross
ASME GDTP Senior Level S-0488
Dimensional Engineering Mentor
Compartilhar isso:

Compartilhar

6 usurios responderam na "Pergunta sobre o controle de uma caracterstica elptica do

tamanho"
Inscreva-se para este rss ou rss trackback url

John disse,em 17 de fevereiro de 2011 s 8:49 da manh

surpreendente descobrir que uma elipse no considerada uma FOS. Qual o termo
correto? Isso muda as coisas se for uma elipse extrudada (de modo que existam mltiplos
elementos de superfcie opostos definidos por uma nica dimenso)?

Tens a sensao de que as dimenses bsicas no eixo no controlam os pontos no meio,

ento preciso que haja mais uma definio, o que eu pensei que era "TRUE ELLIPSE". No
tenho certeza de como os raios bsicos funcionariam, no entanto; Uma elipse tem um raio
continuamente varivel.

Se no existe uma maneira padro de definir sees cnicas (ou outras formas definidas
matematicamente), parece ser um grande furo. Pergunto-me se os padres ISO cobrem algo
assim.

Chris Riordan disse,em 18 de abril de 2013 s 13:12.

Hmm. Eu me pergunto se voc dimensiona o elipse de acordo com a equao que controla
seu tamanho e forma se voc tiver uma concluso diferente. Na verdade voc no usa dois
centros como voc faz com um slot. A equao x ^^ 2 / a ^^ 2 + y ^^ 2 / b ^^ 2 = 1,
onde se pode assumir que o comprimento do eixo horizontal em y = 0 e e b pode ser
assumido como vertical Comprimento do eixo quando x = 0. A e b podem representar o
comprimento dos eixos principais e menores. Pode encontrar um nico centro. Alm disso,
uma elipse atende aos requisitos de simetria de uma caracterstica de tamanho.

Pergunto-me tambm se as definies de 2009 tambm permitem que uma elipse seja
considerada uma caracterstica do tamanho, regular ou irregular.

Uma questo que tenho se existe uma maneira padro aceita de dimensionar e tolerar um
buraco elptico ou chefe, de modo que todos concordem quanto forma da zona de
tolerncia. Eu acredito que se um corretamente usa as dimenses apropriadas, a e b, em vez
de tentar dimensionar como um slot, e tambm fornecendo a nota, TRUE ELLIPSE, no h
ambigidade quanto ao tamanho e controles de forma, nem h ambigidade quanto a o
Centro. Entendo, ento, que uma ferramenta de posio com um smbolo de dimetro no FCF
logo antes do valor de tolerncia definir uma zona de tolerncia cilndrica em torno do eixo
limitado da caracterstica elptica. Gostaria de saber se esse o consenso dos detentores de
padres.

Roy Cross disse,em 18 de abril de 2013 s 9:14 da tarde

Oi pessoal, acho que sinto falta de interpretar sua pergunta. Uma elipse no uma
caracterstica regular do tamanho de acordo com Y14.5 1994 e 2009, mas uma
caracterstica irregular do tamanho tipo B por 2009, se seu tamanho e forma for controlada
por um perfil de tolerncia superficial. Uma caracterstica regular do tamanho deve ser um
cilindro, esfera ou superfcies paralelas opostas ou elementos opostos associados a uma
dimenso de tamanho de tolerncia direta. Sim, a elipse pode ser definida por uma frmula
ou um modelo CAD 3D. Um perfil de tolerncia de superfcie sem referncias de referncia
pode ser usado para controlar seu tamanho e forma e um segundo perfil maior de tolerncia
de superfcie com referncias de referncia pode ser usado para controlar sua localizao e
orientao. Uma tolerncia de posio com uma nota "BOUNDARY" (requerida por Y14.5M-
1994) (nota opcional em 2009) tambm pode ser usada para controlar sua localizao dentro
de um limite de VC.

Roy Cross disse,em 18 de abril de 2013 s 21h17.

Se o laboratrio de medio tiver a capacidade de medir uma parte de um modelo 3D CAD,

ele pode medir uma elipse ou qualquer contorno matematicamente definido.

Chris Riordan disse,em 19 de abril de 2013 s 14:56

Sim. Outra maneira que eu aprendi de um membro do comit de matemtica, Bill Tandler da
Multi Metrics que o FOS requer um componente de simetria. Uma elipse tem dois.
decepcionante que ningum no comit tenha pensado que uma extruso elptica pode exigir
controles similares a um cilindro.

Eu entendo que mais trabalho missionrio est sendo feito para eliminar a preocupao se
um mtodo mais robusto de aplicar um limite com tolerncia de tolerncia adicional medida
que a caracterstica (FOS ou no) se afasta de sua condio mxima de material.

Gabriel Patterson disse,em 15 defevereiro de2015, s 15h26.

Gabriel Patterson

Pergunta sobre o controle de uma caracterstica elptica de tamanho | Treinamento efetivo

GD & T Blog

Positional:
Positional tolerance is a three-dimensional geometric tolerance that controls how much the location of a
feature can deviate from its true position. Positional tolerances are probably used more than any other
geometric control. Positional tolerances is used to locate features of size from datum planes such as a hole
or keyway and used to locate features coaxial to a datum axis. A position tolerance is the total permissible
variation in the location of a feature about its exact true position. Positional tolerances for cylindrical
features, the position tolerance zone is typically a cylinder within which the axis of the feature must lie.
Positional tolerances for other features, the center plane of the feature must fit in the space between two
parallel planes. The tolerance defines a zone that the axis or center plane of a feature of size may vary
from. The concept is there is an exact or true position that the feature would be if it was made perfect
however since nothing is made perfect a tolerance zone allows deviation from perfection. The exact
position of the feature is located with basic dimensions. Datums are required. The true/exact location of a
feature of size is defined by basic dimensions which is shown in a box and are established from datum
planes or axes. When a material condition modifier is specified a boundary named virtual condition is
established. It is located at the true position and it may not be violated by the surface or surfaces of the
considered feature. Its size is determined by adding or subtracting depending on whether the feature is an
external or an internal feature and whether the material condition specified. LMC or MMC can apply to
feature of size apply to feature of size.

How to Calculate a True Position on a Square Slot - GD&T

To follow up, ASME Y14.5M - 1994, Page 139 (on my copy):

5.10 Noncircular Features

The fundamental principles of true position dimension and positional tolerancing for circular
features, such as holes and bosses, apply also to non-circular features, such as open-end
slots, tabs, and elongated holes. For such features of size, a positional tolerance is used to
locate the center plane established by parallel surfaces of the feature. The tolerance value
represents a distance between two parallel planes.

Perhaps if you included a scan of the drawing I could help further.

GD & T Question
07-03-2008, 01:06 PM
Verificando peas com slots alongados (redondos ou quadrados), a impresso geralmente tem uma dimenso como um dado, e a
outra verificou a posio verdadeira para esse (e outro) datum.

A imagem em anexo mostra a largura como -C-datum, eo comprimento verificou a posio verdadeira para os datums
ABC. Algum j teve esse mesmo cheque, e como voc lidou com isso? Eu tentei os dois pontos laterais, e o comprimento era
distncia ponto-a-ponto, mas voc no pode usar MMC em uma linha ou ponto (ponto mdio da linha). Eu at acertei o slot duas
vezes, duas medidas diferentes no mesmo local, uma chamada "DATUM-C" e a outra "DATC-SLOT", ento conseguiu medir a
posio verdadeira de "DATC-SLOT" com MMC para DATUM -C. Isso soa como uma prtica aceitvel?

Alm disso, o que significa "LIMITADO"? Eu deveria saber disso, mas no tenho certeza!
Arquivos anexados

o
Tags: Nenhum

Matthew D. Hoedeman
Recebeu a conscincia total de PC-DMIS
o Data de entrada: fevereiro de 2006
o Posts: 12520
o
#2
07-03-2008, 01:11 PM
Postado originalmente por FutureMan View Post
Verificando peas com slots alongados (redondos ou quadrados), a impresso geralmente tem uma dimenso como um dado, e a
outra verificou a posio verdadeira para esse (e outro) datum.

A imagem em anexo mostra a largura como -C-datum, eo comprimento verificou a posio verdadeira para os datums
ABC. Algum j teve esse mesmo cheque, e como voc lidou com isso? Eu tentei os dois pontos laterais, e o comprimento era
distncia ponto-a-ponto, mas voc no pode usar MMC em uma linha ou ponto (ponto mdio da linha). Eu at acertei o slot duas
vezes, duas medidas diferentes no mesmo local, uma chamada "DATUM-C" e a outra "DATC-SLOT", ento conseguiu medir a
posio verdadeira de "DATC-SLOT" com MMC para DATUM -C. Isso soa como uma prtica aceitvel?

Alm disso, o que significa "LIMITADO"? Eu deveria saber disso, mas no tenho certeza!

Bem, quando Datum C dimensionado para o ABC, o que voc basicamente precisa a distncia entre B e C. Isso o que
realmente se resume, com a tolerncia TP sendo dividida por 2 e usada como +/- pela distncia. No entanto, voc pode
simplesmente relatar o TP do Datum C, no entanto, voc VER apenas uma devida em um nico eixo (o eixo que NO o eixo da
localizao).

Se o Pcdmis NO permite que voc use os datums ao fazer o TP deste, DEIXE-OS PARA FORA da dimenso, se voc j est
alinhado com o ABC, ento NO precisa incluir dados no TP. Se voc estiver usando o V4 +, use as dimenses LEGACY.
Sigpic
Originalmente publicado por AndersI
Eu tenho um de setembro de 2006 (ticket de inspeo), que finalmente foi corrigido em 2013.

Malevolentmetal
Membro
o Data de entrada: fev 2008
o Posts: 46
o
#3
07-03-2008, 01:13 PM
Quando eu verificar um slot com limite, alinhei o slot e, em seguida, pegue as dimenses usando metade da largura dos slots e
metade do seu comprimento. Boundry significa que o slot pode estar to longe fora dessa largura / comprimento, mas no pode
estar nele.

Ento, diga que est alinhado ao slot e o primeiro ponto que voc toma em -7.12, ento voc dimensionaria a localizao desse +
0.0 e menos -999.999.

Espero que esse tipo de explica alguma coisa, tenho certeza de que o outro cara ir elaborar sobre isso.
Sigpic

"Eu tenho uma teoria de que a verdade nunca contada durante as nove a cinco horas." - Hunter S. Thompson

Paul Sarrach
Guru do PC-DMIS
o Data de entrada: fevereiro de 2006
o Mensagens: 2709
o
#4
07-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Wms

SigpicSummer Time. Tem que amar isto!

Vpt.se
Guru do PC-DMIS
o Data de entrada: fevereiro de 2007
o Posts: 4654
o
#5
07-03-2008, 02:38 PM
Verificando peas com slots alongados (redondos ou quadrados), a impresso geralmente tem uma dimenso como um dado, e a
outra verificou a posio verdadeira para esse (e outro) datum.

Esse tipo de caligrafia um "padro" comum ou prtica em ANSI / ASME? Eu no teria dimensionado assim, em vez disso, eu
teria alinhado com o ponto central da largura dos slots e do ponto de referncia -B- e depois verifique o TP para o ponto central do
comprimento do slot.

O que datum -A-? Um avio?

PC-DMIS CAD ++ 2o17 R1 SP2

FutureMan
Membro Snior
o Data de entrada: junho de 2008
o Posts: 192
o
#6
07-03-2008, 03:21 PM
Originalmente postado por vpt.se Ver Mensagem
Esse tipo de caligrafia um "padro" comum ou prtica em ANSI / ASME? Eu no teria dimensionado assim, em vez disso, eu
teria alinhado com o ponto central da largura dos slots e do ponto de referncia -B- e depois verifique o TP para o ponto central
do comprimento do slot.

O que datum -A-? Um avio?

Sim ...- A- o plano inferior, igual a Z = 0. PC-DMIS constri o TP para voc por meio de entrada de recursos e datums. Minha
pergunta o que deve ser a caracterstica -C-datum? Linha? Ponto? Encaixe? O centro da largura do slot est sendo chamado -C-,
mas qual o recurso geomtrico, pelo bem do PC-DMIS?

Paul Sarrach
Guru do PC-DMIS
o Data de entrada: fevereiro de 2006
o Mensagens: 2709
o
#7
07-03-2008, 03:25 PM
Algum tem alguma documentao sobre o Def de "Boundry" para isso?

No MaleV Eu no fao o seu caminho, mas na verdade eu no consigo muitas Cales Boundry. Dependendo de se eu estou em
posio de carro ou Datum Scheme Position como eu fao o meu, se estiver na Posio do carro, eu farei uma Distncia se for na
posio da Parte, vou apenas mostrar a Localizao do eixo. Eu sinto que o que eles realmente querem, mas posso estar
errado. Gostaria de ver algo por escrito.

SigpicSummer Time. Tem que amar isto!

Vpt.se
Guru do PC-DMIS
o Data de entrada: fevereiro de 2007
o Posts: 4654
o
#8
07-04-2008, 04:18 AM
Postado originalmente por FutureMan View Post
Sim ...- A- o plano inferior, igual a Z = 0. PC-DMIS constri o TP para voc por meio de entrada de recursos e datums. Minha
pergunta o que deve ser a caracterstica -C-datum? Linha? Ponto? Encaixe? O centro da largura do slot est sendo chamado -
C-, mas qual o recurso geomtrico, pelo bem do PC-DMIS?

Eu iria com o ponto C como um crculo (genrico) e entraria os valores (medidos) do slot para utilizar o MMC.
PC-DMIS CAD ++ 2o17 R1 SP2

Jr6300
Membro Junior
o Data de entrada: maro de 2007
o Posts: 18
o
#9
07-04-2008, 04:54 AM
Do CMMTalk

A seo 5.10.1 c) de Y14.5M-1994 descreve o uso da palavra

BOUNDARY com tolerncias de posio. A inteno controlar os limites de caractersticas alongadas
(por exemplo, slots de extremidade redonda) com mais tolerncia em uma direo do que a outra.
um conceito um pouco estranho, mas est no padro. Confira as pginas 141-143 do
padro. No h tempo para elaborar, espero que isso ajude.
ASME Y14.5 1994 estabelece a definio de limite conforme definido na Seo 1.3.1 da norma.

"Lmite, Inner. Um limite de pior caso (isto , locus) gerado pela menor caracterstica MMC para identificao, LMC para OD)
menos a tolerncia geomtrica declarada e qualquer tolerncia geomtrica adicional a partir da sada da caracterstica de sua
condio de material especificada".

"Lmite, Exterior. Um limite de pior caso (isto , locus) gerado pela maior caracterstica MMC para OD, LMC para identificao)
menos a tolerncia geomtrica indicada e qualquer tolerncia geomtrica adicional a partir da partida da caracterstica da
condio de material especificada.

Sigpic

Showtime!

Jan d.
DM-DMIS demi-Guru
o Data de entrada: abril de 2006
o Posts: 1003
o
# 10
07-05-2008, 01:31 PM
Ok, eu sei que isso no est certo, mas aqui como eu fao isso em 4.2. Eu tambm tenho essas chamadas em minhas impresses.

Medir o plano A e fazer um DATDEF.

Medir o ponto B como 3 crculos e construir um cilindro atravs dos 3 crculos. DATDEF para o cilindro construdo como ponto de
referncia B.

Medir datum C:
4. Eu envio a mquina para o meio do slot.
5. Medir 1 conjunto de 2 pontos em 1 nvel Z (estes pontos esto todos na parte plana do
slot).
6. Mea um segundo conjunto em outro nvel Z.
7. Um terceiro conjunto em um nvel ainda mais baixo. Ento, agora voc tem 6 pontos.
8. Em seguida, calcule a distncia entre os pontos para obter a largura do seu slot (compare
com a largura de chamada).
9. Em seguida, construa 3 pontos mdios, exatamente entre os pares de pontos. Agora
voc tem 3 slots construdos.
10. Agora, calcule uma linha atravs dos 3 pontos. Faa este ponto de referncia C. Faa um
DATDEF como ponto de referncia C.

Use esta linha construda em seu FCF como ponto de referncia C. Agora uma caracterstica 3D e tudo ir analisar corretamente,
mesmo no XactMeasure GD & T.

Para todos os seus puristas, eu sei que isso no est certo, mas estou certo de que estou obtendo uma estimativa fcil e rpida. Eu
tenho feito isso h 2 anos e nunca ouvi nenhuma reclamao.

Jan.
***************************
PC-DMIS / NC 2010MR3; 15 de dezembro de 2010; Executando em 18 mquinas-ferramentas.
Romer Infinite; PC-DMIS 2010 MR3; 15 de dezembro de 2010.

Roberto
DM-DMIS demi-Guru
o Data de entrada: maro de 2006
o Posts: 2455
o
# 11
07-07-2008, 07:33 AM
Ei Jan,

pode ser difcil medir diferentes nveis em uma pea de chapa metlica (material fino) certo?
Sigpic tempo de corona!
737 Xcel Cad ++ v2009MR1 .... SE HABLA ESPAOL

Jan d.
DM-DMIS demi-Guru
o Data de entrada: abril de 2006
o Posts: 1003
o
# 12
07-07-2008, 07:46 AM
Originalmente postado por Roberto Ver Mensagem
Ei Jan,

pode ser difcil medir diferentes nveis em uma pea de chapa metlica (material fino) certo?

Sim, verdade.

Eu uso esse mtodo descrito anteriormente em partes que so pelo menos 0.120 "de espessura. Acho que posso obter uma definio
decente se eu conseguir colocar os pontos extremos / crculos pelo menos 0,100" de distncia. Isso tambm no funciona muito
bem com buracos perfurados.

Jan.