-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support for a pattern/datum bonus value #14
Comments
@bobstoneorigin thoughts on this? |
The use of a material modifier on datum can give a datum mobility in the context of a datum reference frame. Depending on the datum feature type the shape of the effective tolerance zone around the datum feature can be defined by a circle/cylinder/sphere/parallel planes. The size of this effective tolerance zone can be expressed as a simple number. The natural home for reporting such a number would be on a measured/actual datum or DRF with a name like or perhaps . The difficulty is that whatever this number is called, it can't be simply added to the value of a feature/pattern tolerance zone in the same way as the bonus from the feature's own material condition modifier can be. While datum mobility increases the effective size of a tolerance zone at the feature, it can also change its shape depending on the relative location of the feature to mobile datums. The shape of the effective feature tolerance zone could remain roundish, or it could become bean-shaped. Furthermore, features nearer the mobile datums will have the effective size of their tolerance zones increased by a lesser amount than features farther away from the mobile datums. So boiling down datum mobility's effect on a feature's/pattern's tolerance zone is impossible to reduce to a simple number. That said, QIF is just a data model, a set of data elements which is a union of the data elements necessary to capture the requirements and capabilities of several national and international standards, in house and public specifications, CAD systems, and varied measurement systems. So, if a number called "datum bonus" typically appears in a measurement report, we should make available a data element for its storage. For example: |
Dave, what do you mean by pattern bonus? The way I'm thinking about it now, a feature being part of a pattern adds contraints to the fit, but I don't think I understand your meaning |
Hi Daniel, Bob, I will have to ask the person who requested this change. I have been struggling to understand what this means myself. I will get back to you. |
Chiming in support of Bob Stone's comments. ASME Y14.5-2018 7.11.11 could be used for support of "Datum Feature Shift/Displacement", or datum refrence frame mobility, I have also heard people refer to this as the part ratteling around in the gage. -2018 7.11.11 Datum Feature Shift/Displacement Additional comment: -2018 7.11.3 Effect of Specified Material Boundary on Datum Feature References There is not an additional (or bonus) tolerance applied to features or pattern of features where MMB or LMB modifiers are applied. I suggest: I hope the references to ASME Y14.5-2018 is useful for this discussion. |
Hi all, many thanks for your support with this issue. Having discussed this in a lot more detail with the individual who originally stated the reason for having a custom attribute describing what appears to be a second bonus value, the need for that attribute is now in doubt. I am happy to close this issue. |
At the very least, it is good discussion. I think it is worth keeping open. |
👍
…On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:15 AM Daniel Campbell ***@***.***> wrote:
At the very least, it is good discussion. I think it is worth keeping open.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#14 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARJMDVAASATEKMZ6TZ5DQGLVLTJARANCNFSM5WBH7L2A>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***
com>
|
Hi again, so with this issue having been left open I can now say with a lot more confidence what we were trying to achieve. The tolerance in question was a composite position tolerance (applied to a pattern of holes). What we would like to report is both a feature bonus and a pattern bonus. We would like to report these values separately understanding that one does not affect the other even though the values can often be the same. I note that Daniel asked what a 'pattern bonus' was. I have been advised that it would be the smallest bonus available within the collection of features that make up the pattern. |
There has been a requirement for a second bonus value to be applied to a position characteristic. Note that this is different to the bonus value that is currently supported.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: