hexagon logo

Profile using a datum from a different part

I've just encountered a profile feature data frame on the part i'm checking where the primary datum is on a completely different part.
It's my opinion this is wrong and that all datums should exist on the part itself. However, i'm not 100% sure about this.
  • do the components get assembled together? can you use the assembly contact surfaces as datums? can you offset your alignment to simulate the primary datum from the other part?
  • Seems like you are dealing with an assembly and your engineer just did copy/paste for the callout on one component.
    I'd reach out to the engineer and request datum structure for the component.
  • Also very possible that what matters is the profile of the surface ON the assembly.

    That should have been worked out during quoting (if you are not design), or during PFMEA if you are design. If you are in an industry that doesn't do that, basically, when desigining something like that, someone must make allowance for how things are going to be made to achieve the necessary dimensions on every assembly made. Like, machine that profile AFTER assembly, or slice the tolerances so summation of tolerance doesn't kill you on assembly, or have some tooling that simulates the assembly during manufacture and inspection. Something.

    Assemblies with dimensions and GD&T aren't uncommon, working the solution on how to make the components for assembly success is just something that needs to be done.

    So, maybe this is "OK." If they have a .010 profile callout during assembly and it would require calling a profile of .002 on each part in the assembly to net a good assembly, it might be better to call things to an assembly datum structure.
  • Yes, they do it's an assembly.
    They did not use the contack surfaces as datums.
    I cannot offset my alignment.
  • well then, unless you know where the location of that datum surface is, then you can't check that feature to it.
    1. notify coc
    2. put n/a in the results column with a note explaining why the feature can't be evaluated.

    good luck man