Hi All,

I had a question about the following angularity callout on a recent print (see attached). My question is if this is the correct way to describe this tolerance zone with an angularity fcf or should it be a composite profile fcf. im leaning toward the composite profile but would like some feedback from the guru's.

Thannks for any help you could offer.

Jim

The customers intent for the profile / angularity call out is as follows ,

Profile:
The intention of the profile tolerance is to locate the interfacing surface of the marmon flange. This surface can move +/-0.25mm perpendicularly to the 20 degree plane starting from a point defined as 35mm from the axis of Datum B and 4.58mm from Datum A. Utilizing triginometry, we find that this corresponds to a "horizontal" movement of +/- 0.235mm. When transposing an angle of 20 degrees on detail Y at a distance of 4.345mm and 4.815mm from Datum A, the surface should not break this plane to satisfy the profile dimension.

Angularity:
The intention of the angularity dimensions is further specify the limits of the surface as a 20 degree angle with respect to Datum A. This angularity tolerance can be summarized as a tighter profile tolerance of +/-0.075 that must fall within the wider profile tolerance specified previously. This tolerance zone is also perpendicular to the surface and corresponds to a total allowable "horizontal" movement of 0.141mm.

It depends on the customer's intent.

Profile plus angularity as shown will control the angularity tightly, but allow for more variation in location.

A composite profile as you suggest will definitely control the angularity, but will also control the location.

So the the answer to which is best depends on the customer's intent. Does the customer want to tightly control location as well?

Friends,

Obviously, we have no knowledge of the design intent, plus we're only looking at a portion of the print.

An angularity callout is typically placed in a view where it makes most sense.

In my view, a more appropriate callout in the lower feature control frame would be profile of a line as the refining control. Also keep in mind that when observed in a section view, this profile control only applies from tangent point to tangent point. The radii are not included in the profile control.

Just some observations...

Stijloor.

Thanks for the replies!!

Their intent is that the location is not as important as the shape. therefore the .5mm profile and the .15 angularity. According to the customer the intent is that the angularity will be a sort of flatness for the conical shape, controling it to .15mm (to datum A?). And then that .15mm shape must fall within the .5mm profile tolerance zone.

So I think Im clear with their intention and can have it measured accordingly to make sure they are getting what they need/want. Im just not that familiar with seeing angularity used on the prints I come in contact with so Im not sure if its used properly.

Also yes this is a cross section of the connecting ends of a cylindrical part, so the surface in question is actually conical.

Firstly, this drawing is not to ASME Y14.5M-94 and I think that it is of European origin.

One could have any component of a profile of a surface in the lower section of the composite feature control frame. It could be profile of a line (includes location, angle and straightness on the edge) , angularity (includes angle and straightness) or straightness (to itself) depending on its function and relationship. If some sort of flatness was desired, then the correct call out would be straightness but it depends up the design intent.