GD&T Rule 1: Gage size for form check at MMC (maximum material condition)?

S

Salman

#1
According to GD&T Rule 1, "size controls form".

If we have a cylindrical pin with dimension range 17.490 mm to 17.495 mm then according to tec-ease.com, following is the way we should inspect it.

1. We will need the pin to pass through a full form gage of size 17.495 mm (that is, at MMC),
2. and a mic to inspect the 17.490 mm (LMC) dimension.

(ww.tec-ease.com/tips/june-02.htm)

We use a mic to inspect size of such pin at both MMC and LMC, which is wrong as per Rule 1.
When I asked our Receiving Inspection guy to start using ring gage of size 17.495 mm to inspect for size at MMC, he told me that it is unlikely that a ring gage at 17.495 mm will allow a pin of the same size to pass through. In other words, the ring gage should be a bit oversize.

Now tec-ease.com did not say anything about using somewhat oversize ring gage, and yet what our Receiving guy is saying also makes sense to me.

Can anyone please explain if the gage should be oversize? If yes, then how much?

Thanks.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

David DeLong

#2
Re: GD&T Rule 1: Gage size for form check at MMC?

The ring gage should be made to a nomimal ID dimension of 17.495 which is the MMC size. The tolerance is usually 10% of the part tolerance and it is up to you how you would apply it. Do you want to use the tolerance as a range of a bi-lateral tolerance or unilateral? I would always (in automotive for sure) apply tolerances 1 way to be safe and the gage would reject a part made at MMC. It is better to be safe than sorry.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#3
According to GD&T Rule 1, "size controls form".

If we have a cylindrical pin with dimension range 17.490 mm to 17.495 mm then according to tec-ease.com, following is the way we should inspect it.

1. We will need the pin to pass through a full form gage of size 17.495 mm (that is, at MMC),
2. and a mic to inspect the 17.490 mm (LMC) dimension.

(ww.tec-ease.com/tips/june-02.htm)

We use a mic to inspect size of such pin at both MMC and LMC, which is wrong as per Rule 1.
When I asked our Receiving Inspection guy to start using ring gage of size 17.495 mm to inspect for size at MMC, he told me that it is unlikely that a ring gage at 17.495 mm will allow a pin of the same size to pass through. In other words, the ring gage should be a bit oversize.

Now tec-ease.com did not say anything about using somewhat oversize ring gage, and yet what our Receiving guy is saying also makes sense to me.

Can anyone please explain if the gage should be oversize? If yes, then how much?

Thanks.
Hello Salman,

David provides excellent points. Allow me to add a few.

Your Receiving guy is correct because "metal to metal" does not fit.
So in order for that ring gage to verify that the boundary at MMC has not been violated, the actual gage size must be a "little larger."
This is called "gage clearance."

The actual values depend on the desired "precision" of the gage.

There are a few resources you can look at:
Stijloor.
 
D

David DeLong

#5
Your Receiving guy is correct because "metal to metal" does not fit.
So in order for that ring gage to verify that the boundary at MMC has not been violated, the actual gage size must be a "little larger."
This is called "gage clearance."
Stijloor:

I think that the ring gauge should have the tolerance applied to the minus size from the nominal gauge size to make sure that the boundary at MMC has not been violated rather than the plus size.

This gauge will reject a good part made at MMC but it is safe.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#6
Stijloor:

I think that the ring gauge should have the tolerance applied to the minus size from the nominal gauge size to make sure that the boundary at MMC has not been violated rather than the plus size.

This gauge will reject a good part made at MMC but it is safe.
David,

This may be "safe", but does it make economic sense?
But then again, what percentage of parts will be at their MMC size?
A smart process engineer will likely target the process so that these "extremes" will be avoided.

My take? Use Y14.43. That's what it's for....

Stijloor.
 
D

David DeLong

#7
David,

This may be "safe", but does it make economic sense?
But then again, what percentage of parts will be at their MMC size?
A smart process engineer will likely target the process so that these "extremes" will be avoided.

My take? Use Y14.43. That's what it's for....

Stijloor.
I do agree with you on that one. I just purchased the particular standard and they do have 3 levels of risk. I would still suggest that automotive suppliers still use what the standard calls "Absolute Tolerancing Gage" which would never accept a nonconforming product.

Just a note - A lot of gauge maker companies do not know GD&T that well. Make sure that you agree with the nominals and tolerances on the gage drawing. It is a weak area in today's quality system.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
I do agree with you on that one. I just purchased the particular standard and they do have 3 levels of risk. I would still suggest that automotive suppliers still use what the standard calls "Absolute Tolerancing Gage" which would never accept a nonconforming product.

Just a note - A lot of gauge maker companies do not know GD&T that well. Make sure that you agree with the nominals and tolerances on the gage drawing. It is a weak area in today's quality system.
Absolutely! Great points David. Thank you very much.

A lot of gauge maker companies do not know GD&T that well.
I guess that's where you and I come in to help them understand.....:D

Stijloor.
 

Wayne

Gage Crib Worldwide
#10
I deal almost exclusively with cylindrical and threaded gages and this is a topic that I deal with on a daily basis. One of Taylor's Principals is used in measuring both cylindrical and threaded products: The GO gage needs measure all features simultaneously; the NOGO gages need to measure individual features. Putting this to practice on cylindrical parts is simpler than more complex parts, like threads, because there is only one surface to be evaluated: the diameter. Measuring all features of the diameter is easily checked with one tool: a GO Ring Gage. The GO ring gage is made to the maximum material condition of the product to be tested. The NOGO condition may be evaluated with any number of tools, but a NOGO ring gage is still the simplest.

The standard and accepted practice in the USA is to use the products limits as the gage sizes.

The method of choice in the USA for determining the gage tolerance is the 10% Tolerance Rule. There are several methodologies for figuring gage tolerance, but the 10% Product Tolerance Rule, discussed in ASME B89.1.5:1998 p 4.1, is one of the simplest. Once the amount of tolerance is determined, it is divided between the GO and NOGO gages, converted into standard Gagemaker’s Tolerance, and applied using "Absolute Tolerancing" so that all tolerance falls with in the product limits and thus would never accept a nonconforming product.

There will be parts rejected that technically are good parts, but the intension here is that no bad part ever passes inspection. For a primer on gage design: click here . This methodology is so well imbedded into the USA gage industry that if you wish to deviate from the normal method you will be questioned to be sure that you are aware that you are not using the common methodology. Even if you are allowed to purchase with tolerances that deviate from the norm, the gage maker must be carefully watched so that they make what you desire.

The Absolute Tolerancing works this way:
GO Ring Gage is made to maximum product size with a negative tolerance.
The NOGO Ring Gage is made to the minimum product size with a positive tolerance.
The GO Plug Gage is made to the minimum product size with a positive tolerance.
NOGO Plug Gage is made to maximum product size with a negative tolerance.

Summary:
Given the product size as an example: 17.495/17.490mm external diameter
Using the Tolerance Calculator to figure the 10% tolerance: XXX (0.00025mm)
This makes the GO Ring Gage: 17.495mm+0.0/-0.00025mm
This makes the NOGO Ring Gage: 17.490mm+0.00025/-0.0mm

One final note: When the gage maker’s tolerance gets to the point of XXX tolerance for GO and NOGO gages it is a good time to begin exploring air gauging to make the measurements.

I hope that this helps you achieve your quality goal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Gage R&R 10:1 Tolerance to Gage Discrimination Rule Explanation Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 9
P Gage R&R - Sampling rule and process range Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
R Nanomaterials used as coating on class I MD - rule 19 EU Medical Device Regulations 4
P MDR Rule 10 interpretation - Active Device EU Medical Device Regulations 6
N Medical Device Classification under MDR - Rule 21 EU Medical Device Regulations 11
K EU MDR Rule 11 - Does the 'Risk logic' used in Rule 11 conflict with that used in the other rules? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Informational From Medtech Insight – QSR/ISO 13485 Harmonization Update: FDA Enforcement Discretion Likely When New Rule Stands Up; Draft Reg Coming By Year’s End; Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational EU MDR Classification Rule 11 – what??? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 9
A Please explain MDR Rule 11 to me EU Medical Device Regulations 67
Ed Panek Rule 11 Question - CE approvals for software as well as the medical device EU Medical Device Regulations 7
J MDR Annex VIII, Rule 6 Classification - Implication for lower risk CV products? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
Watchcat Informational Proposed Rule - De novos - 2019 Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
Q IATF rule for single site - Ingots from scrap metal recycling company IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
R MDR Software Rule 11 Formal Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 7
M Informational US FDA – Requests for Supervisory Review of Certain Decisions Made by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health – Final Rule Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational USFDA Final Rule – Human Subject Protection; Acceptance of Data From Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G EU MDR 2017/745 Rule 11 interpretation - Re-classification of a Software as Medical Device Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
S AQL Inspector's Rule - bring into CQE Exam? Professional Certifications and Degrees 5
M FDA News USFDA Final Rule – Medical Device Classification Procedures: Incorporating Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act Procedures Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M FDA News The FDA Issues Final Rule on Medical Device Classification Procedures Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
P The suspension rule and de-registration rule for a certified organization Registrars and Notified Bodies 0
bio_subbu India’s CDSCO Issues FAQ's on Medical Device Rule, 2017 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
C Substance based Medical Device Classification under MDR - Rule 21 EU Medical Device Regulations 9
B Reclassification of Spinal Implants via Rule 8 (EU 2017/745) EU Medical Device Regulations 0
S Indian Medical Device Rule - January 29th, 2017 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 51
R Technical Files Sampling Rule defined in NBOG 2009-4 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
Q Rule 5.2h - Site Separation - Audit Manday Calculation (IATF 16949) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 17
M Final rule on use of symbols on labeling - Symbols without text under some conditions Other US Medical Device Regulations 12
P Is it a rule to fill in all the 5 why in order to get the actual root cause? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 5
M Again ... about this IATF site extension rule... IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
C Meaning of "direct diagnosis" (Annex IX, Rule 10) EU Medical Device Regulations 6
bobdoering Who says you can't calibrate a steel rule! Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 14
sagai Unified Device Identification Final Rule is out - September 2013 Other US Medical Device Regulations 13
S New FDA cGMP rule for Combinational Products Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
X FDA UDI (Unique Identification) amendment on 19 Nov 2012 - Date of 'final rule'? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
Ronen E New Establishment Registration and Device Listing Rule - August 2012 Other US Medical Device Regulations 32
K Are you wondering about FDA's UDI rule? Here's a non-exhaustive summary: Other US Medical Device Regulations 12
S US FDA Unique Device Identification (UDI) Proposed Rule 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 18
R Where does 20% Lot Qualification Rule Come from? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
Q Rule for ISO/TS16949 Triennial Audit of Multiple Sites (Remote Locations) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
Q Non Conformity in Audit: Missing Deputy Rule ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
P Employee Rule Book for a US based Packaging Company - Example wanted Career and Occupation Discussions 2
optomist1 GD&T Flatness Automatic Indirect Control Rule #1 Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 20
A Rule for Complaint Definition - 21 CFR Part 820.3(b) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 9
G Explanation of Rule of Thumb (10:1) - Tolerance Zone or Digits Number Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
W MDDS Final Rule Published - February 15, 2011 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
H How the 50 Second Rule for an Operation was Derived Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 4
D FDA Proposes Rule Reclassifying Some Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
A P & F value in Minitab Statistical Studies (SPC) and the 8 points rule Using Minitab Software 7
C Calibration Accuracy - Can you apply the 10:1 rule in this case? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 15

Similar threads

Top Bottom