hexagon logo

Error: Compound or pattern datum must be perpendicular to datum plane.

I recently was tasked with measuring a part bent at an angle with a pattern of holes on both surfaces of the bend. The bottom plane is Datum A, the bottom pattern of holes is Datum B. There is a profile locating all of the edges on the bottom plane to Datums A|B. The top bent plane is Datum C and this angled bend is controlled with flatness and Profile to Datums A|B. Finally, on the Datum C plane, there is a set of two holes, Datum D. These 2 holes have a position callout to Datums C|B as well as just to Datum C. Everything works fine in PC-DMIS until I try and find the position of these top 2 holes. Finding their position to Datum C works just fine (as it's controlling their relation to each other and perpendicularity to the plane they're on), but when trying to calculate their position to Datums C|B I get the following error: "Compound or pattern datum must be perpendicular to datum plane."

Attached is a rough sketch of the print (everything, but hole positions and Basic dimensions were removed). I certainly get the design intention, and the GD&T kind of makes sense as well. The design intends for the top holes on Datum C to be within XXX position of the Datum B hole pattern (located on Datum A)

Am I doing something wrong? Is the GD&T wrong? If it is wrong, why is it wrong and how can it be corrected? I talked with the design engineer behind this part and they think that they GD&T is correct, so I'd definitely need a strong argument to make any sort of print change.

Sorry for the rambling, I hope it all makes sense!
Parents
  • Thank you all for your input! I think NinjaBadger put it best when he said "I get the design intent, but I also see why the software has an issue with it."

    I don't think this GD&T callout is invalid, but it's certainly pretty odd and difficult for my older version of PC DMIS to calculate. I will pass along your comments to those who need to hear them and hopefully we can get something figured out.
Reply
  • Thank you all for your input! I think NinjaBadger put it best when he said "I get the design intent, but I also see why the software has an issue with it."

    I don't think this GD&T callout is invalid, but it's certainly pretty odd and difficult for my older version of PC DMIS to calculate. I will pass along your comments to those who need to hear them and hopefully we can get something figured out.
Children
No Data