The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums Using 3 Basics to find Position - Customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics
 Forum User Name Keep Me Logged In Password
 Register Photo Albums Blogs FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s) It is the start of the Memorial Day holiday weekend in the US so activity in the forum will be slow through the weekend. Since Memorial Day is observed on Monday I expect activity here to be slow through the weekend and on Memorial Day.

# Using 3 Basics to find Position - Customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics

 Elsmar XML RSS Feed Monitor the Elsmar Forum Sponsor Links Courtesy Quick Links Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge: International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information Quality Digest
Post Number #1
21st September 2009, 08:16 AM
 jager Total Posts: 94
Using 3 Basics to find Position - Customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics

Have you ever had to use 3 Basics to calculate Position? Our customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics. I think one of the Basics should be Profile of a Surface instead. What formula would you use to calculate using 3? Any ideas? Thank you!

Post Number #2
21st September 2009, 08:33 AM
 Stijloor Total Posts: 15,186
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

Quote:
 In Reply to Parent Post by jager Have you ever had to use 3 Basics to calculate Position? Our customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics. I think one of the Basics should be Profile of a Surface instead. What formula would you use to calculate using 3? Any ideas? Thank you!
Before we get too carried away with GD&T/Inspection guesswork..can you attach a drawing? Just the pertinent info is helpful.

Stijloor.
 Thank You to Stijloor for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Post Number #3
21st September 2009, 08:57 AM
 jager Total Posts: 94
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

I'll sketch something up. It is position of a hole, which is at an angle. The point in the center of the hole has 3 Basics going to it. The print is very large so I'll just have to wing it with a little sketch.
I will need to figure out how to post a picture....

Last edited by jager; 21st September 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason: extra info
Post Number #4
21st September 2009, 11:57 AM
 Paul F. Jackson Total Posts: 172
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

I think I know what you are asking…. You have a hole that is not square to the datum features that… its position control references for location… but the basic dimensions are specified “square” to that datum reference. Is that correct?

The designer has chosen a reference point along the hole’s axis (probably where it intersects another feature surface a one end) to detail its location. Is that correct?

The customer wants you to figure the hole’s position deviation at that point using all three deviations from basic using the formula 2*(Xdev^2+Ydev^2+Zdev^2)^0.5. Is that correct?

If those assumptions are correct and there is a position control applied to the hole’s size tolerance… then the position control applies for the entire hole’s axis, not just one point at its end where it intersects another feature. To inspect the hole for its position to the datum features the inspector or inspection programmer has to orient and displace a measurement reference normal to the hole’s specified axis location from the datum features. To do that he must first translate the basics specified into equivalent basics that are normal to the specified hole’s axis. When that orientation and reference move is completed he can probe or inspect the hole’s surface for its position location along its axis.

Here is the problem!

The designer, who has never inspected a part, arbitrarily chose to specify basics square to the datum reference frame not realizing the additional work that his choice will cause the inspector and he will argue if pressed to change his specification that “Basics describe the theoretical exact size form orientation and location” and may be correctly specified equivalently in many different ways.

The quality reviewer, who must comply with ISO requirements, has circled the basic as quality requirement and wants a measured result compared to its tolerance value to discern whether the measured basic is within its limits and the probability of a defect is sufficiently remote. He cannot excuse the basic from having individual limits and from being transformed by the inspector… it is all too confusing for him so he will just declare a non-conformance.

The inspector who has diligently transformed the basics into equivalent basic displacements and orientation from the datum reference and discovered the size of the cylindrical tolerance zone required to contain the measured axis deviation throughout the hole’s depth is being asked to report the equivalent X, Y, and Z measured displacements of the axis at the intersection of the hole’s axis and the surface so that the inspection report will match what has been circled for quality scrutiny.

In a perfect world the designer would specify the basics normal to the feature being controlled just like the inspector has to check them and the quality reviewer would not circle basics but rather just the position control.

Paul
 Thank You to Paul F. Jackson for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
Post Number #5
21st September 2009, 12:04 PM
 Jim Wynne Total Posts: 14,159
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

Quote:
 In Reply to Parent Post by Paul F. Jackson Here is the problem! The designer, who has never inspected a part, arbitrarily chose to specify...
That is indeed the problem, I'm sure. Practically everyone who's had to inspect a part against GD&T requirements could complete that sentence with some sort of horror story.
Post Number #6
21st September 2009, 12:14 PM
 bobdoering Total Posts: 4,031
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

Any MMC called out?
Post Number #7
21st September 2009, 12:15 PM
 Stijloor Total Posts: 15,186
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position

Quote:
 In Reply to Parent Post by bobdoering Any MMC called out?
I am anxiously awaiting to see what the OP has in store for us.

Stijloor.
Post Number #8
21st September 2009, 01:50 PM
 jager Total Posts: 94
Re: Using 3 Basics to find Position - Customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics

I believe Paul has it right the way he described it. No, there is no MMC! From what I have heard, the customer had an outside programmer program their cmm for this and whatever result the operator gets is what they go with. They tell us that all three Basic dimensions are involved in the result.

 The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums Using 3 Basics to find Position - Customer says to use the X, Y and Z Basics

 Bookmarks

 Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)

 Forum Posting Settings You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Emoticons are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

 Similar Discussion Threads Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote kumaresanr Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2 5th May 2014 09:30 AM aliasJohnQ Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 7 26th September 2011 01:37 PM ashram Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3 30th July 2009 06:45 AM tornilleriadeba IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3 3rd October 2008 07:26 AM favqty IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1 22nd July 2006 03:56 PM

The time now is 04:25 PM. All times are GMT -4.