GD&T- Positional tolerance question

  • Thread starter Thread starter mhrob24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tolerance
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on controlling positional tolerances for a two-hole pattern in GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing). The consensus is that to ensure each hole is controlled individually, separate feature control frames should be used for each hole, even if they share the same diameter. Omitting dimensions for the lower hole can lead to confusion for machinists, as they may not be aware of the symmetrical relationship between the holes. Including all relevant dimensions and tolerances is essential for clear communication and to prevent errors during machining.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of GD&T principles and terminology
  • Familiarity with feature control frames
  • Knowledge of positional tolerances and their implications
  • Basic machining concepts and practices
NEXT STEPS
  • Research how to create effective feature control frames in GD&T
  • Learn about the implications of symmetrical designs in machining
  • Study best practices for dimensioning and tolerancing in engineering drawings
  • Explore common pitfalls in GD&T and how to avoid them
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, CAD designers, and machinists who require a deeper understanding of GD&T principles and their application in manufacturing processes.

mhrob24
Messages
53
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
Positional tolerance for hole pattern
I have a 2 hole pattern that I’d like to control individually (meaning I don’t want them to move as a unit….I want the tolerance to be applied separately for each hole position). However, they are the same DIA, so can I just do something like this (see below)? Like, by leaving out the distance between the two holes and putting “2x” next to the tolerance box, I believe this is implying that the tolerance is separately applied to the basic dimensions constraining the holes to datum B and C. Whereas if I added the dimension for the spacing, it would imply that the holes are to be positioned as a unit (both holes can move simultaneously within the 0.25 mm tolerance zone, and the spacing would also be constrained to a 0.25mm deviation)

Is this correct? Or would I need to have a separate feature control frame for each hole?

1641155555649.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
As it is now, there is no reference or dimension for the location of the lower hole.
I would add those two dimensions (from C or the lower surface, rather than from the center of the upper hole), plus the tolerance for that one.
 
Lnewqban said:
As it is now, there is no reference or dimension for the location of the lower hole.
I would add those two dimensions (from C or the lower surface, rather than from the center of the upper hole), plus the tolerance for that one.
Ok see that’s what I was wondering as well….the reason I left the bottom hole dimensions off is because the geometry is symmetrical around both holes (meaning that the basic dimensions locating the top hole are exactly the same as the bottom)….so I still need to add those dimensions to the bottom hole as well?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
I would say yes.
Omitting those dimensions may create confusion in a machinist, who may be not familiar with that part and the mentioned symmetry.

As a vertical symmetry exists, and the center of the lower hole is to be measured from the lower surface, the total distance between reference C and the lower surface should be included, with tolerance perhaps.

It is always good practice to imaging that the person(s) performing the machining knows nothing about the requirements that the designer has in mind.
Unless it is incorrect or contradictory, the more information, the better (especially when a high number of parts are to be fabricated).

For example, total exterior dimensions tell a machinist what size of metal he needs to initially cut, rather than leaving the math of adding up partial dimensions to him, with the potential of error and wasted material and effort.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
30K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K