hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 221 subscribers
  • Views 146 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Another ASME profile question Ugh!

markoor99
I know this gives people brain aneurisms as it does for me, so I'm just asking for opinions. I've looked at numerous threads on this to the point my head is going to explode. I have a blueprint that says, "Blueprint interpretation, ASME Y14.100" in the notes. Underneath that it says, "Dimensioning and tolerancing: ASME Y14.5".

I thought in ISO you doubled the worst points deviation. But my AMSE 14.5 is doubling it in GEOTOL. What is correct these days? Double it or just min-max? By the way I
'm running 2020 R2. Was this changed in later version?

{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-tempid":"temp_24108_1675262483842_777","title":"image.png"}​
Parents
  • In PC-DMIS 2018, using FCF dimensions, ASME. (Just an exaggerated example here) if deviations range from plus 11.001mm to plus 11.010mm, PC DMIS reports the profile as 11.010, rather than 22.020. That's wrong, and always was wrong.

    In the case of that particular software version, switching to ISO, reported values are now 22.020. That's right, and always was right. (edited for typos)

    Attached Files
Reply
  • In PC-DMIS 2018, using FCF dimensions, ASME. (Just an exaggerated example here) if deviations range from plus 11.001mm to plus 11.010mm, PC DMIS reports the profile as 11.010, rather than 22.020. That's wrong, and always was wrong.

    In the case of that particular software version, switching to ISO, reported values are now 22.020. That's right, and always was right. (edited for typos)

    Attached Files
Children
  • in reply to Kai Kendall
    Isn't the Y14.5 MEAS value reporting as 11.010 in your photo? Like Neil said, with pre-2020 R2 you must report min and max as Y14.5.1-1994 defines the actual value for profile. The rules for the MEAS value calculation pre-2020 R2 were rules established by Hexagon, and maybe that's where you're caught up, but min and max paint the whole picture. Post-2020 R2, the MEAS value calculation essentially matches that defined by ISO.
  • in reply to Kai Kendall
    , it does, with this particular version, turn red or green appropriately, but that does put the user in a position of perpetually explaining why you reject parts with seemingly acceptable "Meas" fields. The other issue is that this changed in version 2021 or so. It PC-DMIS was right between the years 2009 and 2021 why the sudden software change?
  • in reply to Kai Kendall
    To anybody who understands a bilateral profile tolerance zone, the explanation should be quite simple. The software change was primarily to support an updated GD&T library that focuses heavily on compliance to the governing standard. PC-DMIS was correct to the initial version of Y14.5.1 by reporting the min and max profile deviation. When that standard was updated in 2019 to provide a single actual value definition for profile of a surface (and eliminate many ambiguities), the software was updated to support it. Also, the GD&T library was overhauled to replace XactMeasure, which was initially designed for relatively simple applications of GD&T. Once faced with more complex designs, XactMeasure didn't always hold it's end of the bargain.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement