Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is it acceptable to tolerance the same diameter feature with two tolerances?

  1. #1
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5

    Is it acceptable to tolerance the same diameter feature with two tolerances?

    I'm being asked to attempt to tolerance the right side of a cylindrical dia. with a +- tolerance of .003 and the left half of the cylindrical feature with a tolerance of -.002 smaller than the right diameter measures.

    The reason I was given was based on manufacturing processes & part functional needs where a lathe tool is known to cut from center of the cylindrical length in both directions BUT the part if it has a seam from the tool must be equal to or smaller on the left half as compared to the right.

    --Matt

  2. #2
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    2,237
    Welcome to EE!

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.schroeder View Post
    I'm being asked to attempt to tolerance the right side of a cylindrical dia. with a +- tolerance of .003 and the left half of the cylindrical feature with a tolerance of -.002 smaller than the right diameter measures.
    Yes, you can... If the design or manufacturing requirement of the end-item is a tapered tolerance boundary - then specify it...

  3. #3
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelly Bramble View Post
    Welcome to EE!



    Yes, you can... If the design or manufacturing requirement of the end-item is a tapered tolerance boundary - then specify it...
    That is an application I've never seen, might anyone have an example?
    Would it use geotols if so, which?

    Thanks

    --Matt

  4. #4
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    2,237
    Locationt-b.png

    You might include a note (Delta or Flag) indicating that the tolerance transitions linear over the length of the hole feature.

  5. #5
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5
    Thank you Kelly.

    Much appreciated. Not far off what I was recommending to the engineer--flagging with a drawing note and explanation.

    --Matt

  6. #6
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5

    Rethinking...

    Here's what the engineer really wants.

    X is being used as a variable for our discussion purposes, we're not intending to dimension anything this way on a print.


    --Matt

    twotolcylinder.jpg

  7. #7
    Administrator Kelly Bramble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Bold Springs, GA
    Posts
    2,237
    Your attached drawing doesn't make sense to me... I think you might need to use the between symbol labeling locations unique (x, y, x, etc.) then indicate the size requirements as needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.schroeder View Post
    we're not intending to dimension anything this way on a print.
    Then what are you doing?

  8. #8
    Associate Engineer
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5
    To explain the illustration--don't think of this as my drawing in it's proper dimensioned state, it is for this discussion.

    I've assigned the variable "X" to the right side of the part diameter dimensions .265 +- .003

    The engineer wants the left side to be a mathematical < (less than) situation using the actual measured value of the right side diameter for a nominal with a -.002 allowed tolerance.

    So if the part were to measure .265 exactly on the right, he'd want the left to be .265 -.002

    If it were to measure .262 on the right he'd want the left to measure .262 -.002 and so on.

    The functionality of the diameters has a sleeve being crimped to the diameter on the right. After crimping the parts must still slide for the full length The diameter on the left cannot grow larger than where the part was crimped or the parts will not slide the full length. If there is a transition in diameters from right to left it has to be smaller on the left.

    Like I first mentioned I don't know of a scheme that would allow for this situation, nor do I think it's possible because it's not defining the nominal on the left until a quality inspection is performed on the right.

    One possibility the engineer posed was using a -.002 in the geotol block and making the right side diameter a datum. I'm all but 100% certain that's not proper use.

    But others may know better than I. Thank you for your continued input, I really appreciate it.

    --Matt
    Last edited by matt.schroeder; 11-18-2013 at 06:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •