Membership Services

Re: 3 holes - position - datum

[ Home ][ Forum Archive ] [ Active Engineering Forum ] [ Design & Engineering Data ]

Posted by John-Paul Belanger (205.188.209.103) on January 12, 2003 at 21:32:59:

In Reply to: 3 holes - position - datum posted by Fabrice Galasse on January 12, 2003 at 05:50:47:

Yes, I would say that the perpendicularity tolerance on the second hole is not enough. Perpendicularity only controls orientation (angle); it says nothing about the location of the hole. So I would keep the first hole with the perpendicularity, and change the second hole's tolerance to position (relative to both A and B). This will lock in the position, and also control perpendicularity. Also -- there is another alternative (although this one may be confusing). If all three holes are of equal importance, and they are the same size, they could be grouped together with one callout of position, at MMC, relative to datum A. I could explain that one more if needed.

Follow Ups:

Re: Re: 3 holes - position - datum Fabrice 05:03:21 01/13/03 (0)

Post a Followup

Subject: Re: Re: 3 holes - position - datum

Comments:
: Yes, I would say that the perpendicularity tolerance on the second hole is not enough. Perpendicularity only controls orientation (angle); it says nothing about the location of the hole. So I would keep the first hole with the perpendicularity, and change the second hole's tolerance to position (relative to both A and B). This will lock in the position, and also control perpendicularity. Also -- there is another alternative (although this one may be confusing). If all three holes are of equal importance, and they are the same size, they could be grouped together with one callout of position, at MMC, relative to datum A. I could explain that one more if needed.

[ Home ][ Forum Archive ] [ Active Engineering Forum ]