opinions needed!

[columicious]

When a hole is on a round surface, and they share the centerline, there
is no dimension to locate it from side to side (the .000 dim). How is a
tolerance applied to the location of such a hole (without using a gd&t
position callout)?






This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[dgschaefer]

No idea if this follows any sort of standard, but what about a note
saying "HOLE C/L MUST BE WITHIN +/-0.005" OF SHAFT C/L" or something
like that?

Doug Schaefer

[schelld]

1. Remove the .000 dimension.

2. If you want the hole dimensioned with a tolerance, then, add a
dimension from the outside surface to the hole.

[joepaul88]

I have raised this question before internally also, there does not seem to be any experience with this from anybody I talk with. Personally I feel that like 90° angles, this sort of feature is "understood" to require the tightest standard "sheet" tolerance, i.e. .xx=±.03 / .xxx=±.015, the location would be ±.015.

Otherwise, if you need to control it beyond that, GTOLs would be the way to go as they are understood (sort of) by most everybody who would need to read the print.

[JOES]

Assuming the tolerance is +/-.005 for both the .333 dim & the diameter of
the shaft, the center of this hole is in a .010 square tolerance zone.  .005
all four ways.

Regards,
Joe S.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Doug Schaefer <
> wrote:

>  No idea if this follows any sort of standard, but what about a note
> saying "HOLE C/L MUST BE WITHIN +/-0.005" OF SHAFT C/L" or something like
> that?
>
> *Doug Schaefer*
>
>
>

[dgschaefer]

That puts 2 dims in the tolerance stack, the shaft dia. tolerance and
the positional tolerance of the hole to the edge.

Doug Schaefer

[columicious]

Thank you for all your opinions!



I think, to avoid any possible confusion, the tolerance has to be on the
.000 dimension. (or of course to just use GD&T)



I do agree that the untoleranced, undimensioned feature could by default
go to the sheet tolerance, but think it would still be unclear whether
it be the tightest or loosest sheet tolerance.

[pgress]

I don't understand, why don't you just add a true position tolerance to
the hole diameter callout? Whenever a feature is placed on a centerline
it's referenced from there.

Paul

[jnanesh.sajjan]

To be honest I have not come across such requirement so far. I feel
without giving GD&T, it is difficult to control.



I am not sure whether I am correct but my idea would be to give a
position tolerance for the lateral hole. See attached image. I think we
may have to add another tolerance to the hole - a runout with respect
axis of hole.



Thanks,

Jnanesha KS

[sl2741]

write "through center / dead nuts" than add the following note

"notes: Any deviation will be considered a complete failure, don't expect any sympathy from the designer."

[BenLoosli]

Scott,

You are jumping the gun on Friday!

Thank you,

Ben H. Loosli

[jnanesh.sajjan]

Scott, I liked the second line (notes) !! Reminds me "Monday Blues"

[MikeFoster]

Much safer to just show the zero dimension with the tolerance since ASME Y14.5 says nothing about the existence of an implied tolerance for zero distances like it does for implied 90° angles.

Mike Foster
ATK

[cid:image001.gif@01CB4A8F.C4E2D590]