久久久国产一区二区_国产精品av电影_日韩精品中文字幕一区二区三区_精品一区二区三区免费毛片爱

機械社區

標題: [2C] 一個老美的貼子：關于垂直度 [打印本頁]
作者: 十年一夢    時間: 2012-3-10 00:29
標題: [2C] 一個老美的貼子：關于垂直度
這是一個美國機械論壇關于垂直度的貼子，地址：http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=317827$ G) q0 ^8 F/ H  F* }
( q4 s+ ]/ S+ y
很不錯的一個論壇，大家可以注冊一個網名，參與討論。" N8 Y4 `! u  W; j$ o

& Y3 V& W1 {" a2 J  D
' N7 C- C1 T- c# {9 }5 ]% F  z% K3 @: q% q
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 12:53 & s! M3 F7 P2 k9 l4 Y" p# B6 l  `4 _5 C7 i

5 \; B6 M( ]# k, k, m( {
Can anyone please clarify if a perpendicularity call out is controlled by a basic dimension or not?  In other words is the tolerance zone centered on a basic dimension?
; p" t  G& a/ T" B7 G# s

7 X; \# _6 r, _) M; u+ |
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:03 ! ?- {# Y* k5 v' Y7 |1 M
No, it is sufficient by itself.
7 b6 C3 _% g5 m1 d* u4 y
$ V5 }4 ?4 ], I1 Z6 TIt MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.& G8 q) W: j0 |+ l
2 m* b, E& P& H5 P* P) B
. P# x& x2 \# J' ?+ E  Y

8 \( `1 j) e; o% H
powerhound (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:42 1 l- N" R6 r& C0 u- |
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled.
Powerhound, GDTP T-04197 q5 R2 y. _! ?' t/ e) j  E
Engineering Technician3 `, K/ H8 O  s; G
Inventor 2010
+ S) Z; P9 [4 x5 |3 EMastercam X5% m/ X) Z7 O6 [, o6 q+ v- z: P
Smartcam 11.1
3 L  L+ u9 ?$ GSSG, U.S. Army
- Z( Q, K) u% C; A/ m" |0 x2 P' UTaji, Iraq OIF II
1 N3 x& v6 f* X* u
/ @: B. }+ V$ f" ], s$ F+ R; G

5 f5 r. y) [- x/ m* Z' Q' N
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 13:56
. k1 q9 `( Z9 S+ A2 D
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic? / L% l) [$ {7 `- n7 ]
5 ~) ^) G* a5 X! b. r
5 B9 t0 O# _$ t7 t! W  B
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 14:17
# F! P: N0 x- R2 w" u7 |* p
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism.: ^9 }6 A* u! n8 e# F
Even in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance.
: c+ P/ }# d8 fIf I don't understand something, please provide a picture.2 X* r7 D; @2 ^+ l4 f

8 H( U/ G: d/ n: R4 A; y

8 C) I, Q: v5 p) Q1 b$ \  u9 T' [$ a
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:35
( n2 A1 o$ Q( ~0 h
First, there is an implied basic dim with perpendicuarity. It is the 90 degree relationship to the datum. That's not the kind you were thinking of, but I feel obligated to mention it.
7 l+ ]( Z; l0 o! A7 j( w, D8 u$ g4 u: ^9 i5 c/ {  b5 w
You ask about locating the perp tolerance zone. That should never happen with basic dims. The perp tolerance zone can float freely within whatever other constraints there might be.# A' P4 R: `2 R0 t2 U' |! B
% q* ]: |8 T& a- \
IOW, the per tolerance never controls the distance from the parallel surface. There should be something else to do that, such as plus/minus. The perp doesn't get added to that; it must operate within it.
John-Paul Belanger
9 K9 V- m" g0 q, m0 S4 L4 }/ }7 D% k/ D2 ECertified Sr. GD&T Professional
9 u+ G1 |- y% \, a$ a9 OGeometric Learning Systems
  j) H* m% z" [! A0 |http://www.gdtseminars.com

: C; P& F  m+ I! O" S6 m. o* Z

: C0 l/ \/ J: @1 Z" f0 _: o) z7 `: d. A
dgallup (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:38
8 X8 K$ A3 C4 v5 ~$ O" o
The surface can be dimensioned from a parallel surface and still have a perpendicularity to a datum that is normal to both surfaces.  The dimension will control location and to the extent that the envelope principal applies, form.  The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less.
----------------------------------------
2 W, O! i# |# k% N) s/ Z
  t5 e# s# }$ j& Z  dThe Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.; i) Y* Z8 \, J
4 W) i& j: F: q  W

$ [: @' f2 j& A8 y
( p- z7 I* O' Y+ ]0 r  X, E
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 15:09 + x; B! E7 I( y
metaldork,
, Q* ]4 x. m) u- A
1 O; b7 M$ C8 H* ?0 zThe way I like to look at it is that the Perpendicularity zone can always freely translate - its location is never controlled relative to anything.  So the Perpendicularity zone is always completely independent of any linear dimensions (basic or directly toleranced) connected to the considered feature.
  O8 Q: D5 [4 \( H$ B
" p; `; J) y4 _! e2 c9 s+ L% Mdgallup,
1 z9 _& m/ z$ N* T, a% y& Z' s
- E- e; ]; {$ L' gIn the scenario you described, the Perpendicularity doesn't have to be a refinement of anything.  The directly toleranced dimension doesn't control the squareness, so the Perpendicularity tolerance doesn't need to refine it.
Evan Janeshewski: f* Y3 Z9 N3 `( t( Z

! `+ y7 S  \1 |  j7 OAxymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
/ z2 m9 f2 B8 H( n7 O3 O2 ]www.axymetrix.ca

& o# `0 l& D7 E7 O6 s  X
0 N" k) [1 {5 q+ O! W2 N
5 Y0 {9 Z3 b) n6 y
pmarc (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:13 3 b& O0 m! M& ^( V, x
I am with J-P on this, the only basic dimension that applies for perpendicularity is basic 90 degrees to the datum and it is usually not shown on a print due to implied basic 90 deg dimension rule.
7 `0 k8 q* E$ P8 |% g8 Y* ?
3 h. ?7 J* L4 z% ]dgallup,$ Z$ E  g' r4 T+ A* V
You said: "The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."
5 s2 {2 o1 u# rI would be careful with that. If perpendicularity callout is applied only to one "side" of a dimension, its value can be whatever one can imagine (assuming there is no general angular tolerance shown on the print that would control a relationship of the other "side" of the dimension relative to the datum).
, [0 g# G+ E2 W* k/ C7 Y! \; UThe other story is when there are two perpendicularity callouts applied to both "sides" of the dimension. In that case, my vote is their values can be as big as the dimension tolerance (and not half of it).   
' ]) \" p& B# a, q

9 ?+ `1 c9 \1 P5 F6 e, T
/ ~+ g% o' B" o- l$ b
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:57
. y& b5 O; W* s5 i, Y
Evan,
. A5 u( `  |# g/ i, aCould you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?
+ t. B% V6 k1 t+ H! ?8 C % L; q- Z9 R& b# U

/ @; a9 Z# O: l/ r. o  ^
3 D3 b/ i( k/ _/ U
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 16:39 . A% q- L, x% k- w% Q; t
CH, picture a U-shaped bracket -- sort of like field-goal posts.  Now take both vertical posts and bend them 20 degrees to the left.  Are they within the size (width) tolerance?  Yes.  Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground?  No.6 ]! u% h2 E  F5 ~2 @  t" F* ]

1 G0 U# ?" A8 r5 }" i. eSo there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.6 t% Q8 i1 U' Q0 {5 o$ k1 m
& E3 ]. O4 n; {: L2 Q- o: [( }
Sorry for jumping in, Evan.  Feel free to modify my explanation  
John-Paul Belanger! ?6 D4 J  I& }- P
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
) b! Y3 L0 j* e  Q8 J- S8 XGeometric Learning Systems
; q3 C. I) i3 f: N1 K( X; shttp://www.gdtseminars.com
; L6 t- ?4 Y. C% k) }* ?

- ~' |0 d4 F7 H; D: V1 v" P3 P. Z8 E* S
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 17:54
( k. u$ T$ u, Z. J
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?"
6 x& e2 f# a- b" k
- \- Q7 A) n# B
CH,& v/ O3 m# p5 V/ T

! S2 L6 E% ^# ^* k, h/ fQuick answer, yes.  But of course there's more to it.# N( O! B  L( u. y  K$ {; H! ^; j
7 p4 x3 |8 c# d
If we think purely in terms of the tolerance zone mechanics, which I always try to do, then the Perpendicularity zone is allowed to translate outside of the linear dimension / Position tolerance zone.
/ l( k5 |. f: |- N: Z) T( Q' f% h$ X( Q( V6 e. N9 F5 ]
It is true that the feature might not conform to the Position tolerance if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate partly outside of the Position zone.  It definitely wouldn't conform if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate completely outside of the Position zone.  But that is a different consideration.% O2 l) I& m0 |' O

. N( [5 _; n8 ~6 PThe way I like to look at it is that the Position tolerance and the Perpendicularity tolerance are independent requirements, that can be evaluated independently of each other.  This is the only way that I am able to make sense of it all.  Some GD&T books state or imply that the orientation zone must float within the location zone, but to me this is an oversimplification.  It is possible for part of the orientation zone to extend outside of the location zone, and still have the feature conform to both tolerances.
Evan Janeshewski
' H1 {; x( a& y! `
1 r( a- A5 E% T$ L/ j; U7 V# jAxymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.3 A1 y5 \$ Q( q: a; K" O. u
www.axymetrix.ca

. i' v1 M/ r/ j+ x4 ~

$ W" R3 P5 w# G4 b& |
6 l9 I9 T% J* M8 I6 [% x
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 6:32 5 V) X7 P( S; O1 Z
Thank you Evan,
( ^% O' D1 [% t7 ?( D- i3 A; V" W- QAppreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays.
  w6 g, Q7 s1 d4 D1 l, F/ {# G" QUnfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation:* |6 w& B4 Y3 S9 m/ w4 g
You are using some sort of measuring machine. You find out that the axis of certain hole (or boss) is laying WITHIN perpendicularity tolerance, but OUTSIDE of position tolerance.) |1 W; A- e0 ?2 X# B7 Y
Would you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated)
9 o$ _" U7 {, dI personally believe that your position and perpendicularity zones should at least partially overlap. (It will create some interesting conditions that probably were never fully documented, but nevertheless).+ R, g$ u, M7 t  |& W

8 g1 o! J0 {/ j: [  [% e- g/ tJoan-Paul,# V+ z3 @, L" b
Your argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry)3 Q; M2 V7 y% [1 ~) U( A( c
You said it yourself: "Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No." So what you describe is "bad" part that should never be accepted in the first place. The purpose of GD&T is to describe the parts we will accept, right?
  C5 I( S6 w; C8 ?0 tAnother stretch: "tolerance number for the size across the posts". Most people would consider "fork" being two features of size, not one. Is space between two holes feature of size?* y0 y( f0 ?1 F: t$ ^0 i
So your argument basically is: "If we can make bad part from ambiguous drawing, then there is no relationship between the tolerances". Sorry, but I am not buying it.
9 ?* U$ x, [5 L ( B0 [- m% C' I' y$ s  m7 c) ?

; e0 O+ `5 Z: Q/ \1 ~: A0 R0 i+ D% E+ [' J! ]7 v, o) X0 U
Belanger (Automotive)9 Mar 12 7:03 0 o9 N/ M* f5 a8 }8 b
CH -- I don't quite understand your concern.  First, yes, the space bewteen the posts is a feature of size; so is the outside of the posts.  But my example was really meant to discuss surface perpendicularity (I just used the posts as a visual example.  Sorry for the confusion.)
% Q, i' a. ?# H% `6 j' ?, r) a& \: G) A  C& E
"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."6 h! D1 H( b9 R0 i' ~
/ w% X' m4 o9 h+ P& N" d4 {, h
The reason I wrote that is that many people think that a size dimension also controls orientation -- that's not true!  So I'll rephrase it differently:  Two vertical surfaces can lean in the same direction and still be within perpendicularity tolerance. They are also within the size tolerance.  But there is no connection between the tolerance values for the perpendicularity and the size.
John-Paul Belanger- N( h. J' H$ j$ X  u! L
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
; `5 b% p( k7 s: _Geometric Learning Systems
  m; Q: w4 m$ \5 s% B7 ?' Rhttp://www.gdtseminars.com
6 a3 p; t6 s  p8 c1 _2 v* `
7 k, l6 _4 J3 X1 J4 }1 v

8 O+ o% _# z! R+ b
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 7:54
3 K3 S: R& b& p  t2 u, q

. z+ [- p( M8 u
1 f: N6 i) x7 i9 KThank you JP, we are getting somewhere.# r& r5 p0 x" q/ Z9 f# `7 P( _
Let say, we have FOS with perpendicularity requirement added. The size tolerance is .001, the perp. .100. But they both affect VIRTUAL CONDITION, right? Now, what if we add position requirement to our virtual condition?' n& G8 ~1 B4 `, l  q) ]7 K
You see, I never said perpendicularity is a refinement of size. But I still insist on the following conditions: Perp. tolerance zone being outside of position tolerance zone makes no sense. Perp. tolerance zone being larger than position tolerance zone makes no sense. It may be legal though.
5 F% [8 ?3 y# w+ V2 v9 P( ]/ Q# @When you have 2 FCFs applied to same feature, their requirements have to be met together (I didn't say "simultaneously"). If perp. tolerance is .100 and position is .010 position requirement controls perp. indirectly and makes perp. requirement useless.
& E8 e" T- O9 k  S* `So, when used together with position requirement, perpendicularity only makes sense when perp. tolerance zone is smaller than position tolerance zone, and both tolerance zones overlap at least partially. To me it means "refinement".
; A0 c% s0 }& L) G: K * {: O; j& v0 |6 U/ i* @  m8 e

8 H) P* t: J  K5 P4 C
5 N4 n' }' m  p* A

- D6 V0 t0 H+ K
pmarc (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 8:57 . g) A- U* |. n, M/ k
Apologies for jumping into main topic.6 \1 k  a! A! i# D, {
Can you have a look at attached picture?/ N- b% m8 ?; j; h
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a7879b3a-d0d7-459f-b9ac-829eb08891da&file=surf_perpendicularity.JPG3 U, r6 `  w# o0 o" P( A$ F* G
How big can those perpendicularity tolerance values be, assuming they both have to be equal? Is there any limit or not? Thanks.
: g2 q. ^  I0 n

9 L- [0 t$ ?+ A7 H, c! B2 j+ C/ @( ~7 @2 s" E4 Y2 {& b, F' g
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 9:15
- w2 R) u4 @1 m, \
I believe it is acceptable to use a space between to pins say as a feature of size, right?
4 q+ a+ S$ x* _5 I$ o& [& wFrank
" k+ C" ^/ [1 r. z2 S( |( a7 [& t

6 e6 F9 w' L# w: C3 e' v
1 U$ |, e6 l' L: y- m' {/ T
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 9:29 $ v$ `: J+ s& u7 t" k8 _: J# l
Frank,
$ f' |* k! z6 ?Yes, but it will make them more ambiguous, than 2 FOS with position requirement, right?
3 S5 b' q( m8 M% Q, c! v! v# {, ]
. @. W/ C" K8 Ypmarc,0 B- X6 |$ S& I& _; Q
What do YOU think?
: K' E/ D5 E3 f& |! p3 m
  • http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=83017c19-26f6-45c9-8d71-705 A) e" U2 E! [8 y1 o1 t6 g
0 {, }% g# _: o
+ p$ ]( F4 @' l' |, V; }8 E

" r7 Y# C9 {. p; c
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:03 6 i: w* \- h) T0 Z: V$ g7 X
pmark,- Q, u. G( I5 g
You are a genius - I think this is exactly what OP was asking: do you use basic dimension to control perpendicularity of parallel elements.: R7 \# G# c( n! S$ F5 L/ }
I would use basic dimension with profile to control the whole contraption. That will also make it less ambiguous.6 a- H, V* b% P1 u
5 V& y# ^2 g: S. d
. m5 A4 f' z" z1 h: q

7 m0 X8 m8 [3 _6 Q1 H
pmarc (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:04
- v" `6 b$ P! V. H( m
CH,  t8 ?$ \4 g4 j* L* U  L7 U
You are asking what do I think about my sketch or about your modified version of my sketch? Or is your sketch showing only one of situations that may occur for my tolerancing scheme?  + p, t9 s- ]3 y. j; j+ R) c# a: |
; _* S0 _. E+ D. w8 ^
3 u# }3 F* }8 [! z* g; X0 s# P
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 10:20
! u0 O  l% t1 o  F" H9 n7 G
Sure ideally all should be controlled, that is right out of the book. Frank) z, x; w* I5 j9 q9 P
6 Q1 S8 q8 ]5 t% \2 J

  C6 W$ g( o% E* p6 x
" M( V: L. n9 j1 D- n
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:22 ) p& E; v! b9 {" ]
Actually both (or all three?).
% c, t, }- j& c6 `( d+ }I feel like using direct dimensioning may create ambiguity here. There is a reason ISO calls it "two-point dimension".+ O' J5 {; f0 U8 g7 m6 O3 F
(See my post about using Profile)
+ I; E  j0 x% s& L

/ K6 h6 D, H, g3 E9 |6 C, o' n2 ~( P( Q* s6 p
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:36
7 U: h( k9 U6 f
Frank,
' ^' y- k# u2 `- n* @Off-topic, but since you brought it up; have you ever seen round hole dimensioned to the edge rather than center?
  H3 X/ M4 W0 g# r9 N% F& ]I did, I was even forced to do it myself, I still don't like it. * ?9 q! f9 `' Q' N
& z' X8 ?0 ^8 }  p2 G+ \: ~( o3 x
8 N+ m" Q& I* n, ~* n
; E, x8 k& [) C0 R! K
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 10:55 ) W/ v: W& m3 Q$ H
CH,
5 h8 R4 o% Y3 D# D! h6 sAre you kidding? I cut my teeth on that. It is what I was looking to GD&T to help me escape from. ;)+ i* j; K  M2 U* O- ?& a
This thread has confused me a bit with the whole perpendicularity zone centered, center implies a location. Seems like at least part of the perpendicularity zone must be in the location tolerance zone or you would just move it.* o) ~5 ?" P: Y4 r8 l$ p' q. M: e# f$ c
Frank
) I; ~, @. ]( i: d& t# F5 ?* K1 g
) C/ L7 v! j' E: S9 f
  e, t# s+ g. G' j. O  `

: d/ A8 R0 s5 I( H$ Q" D+ O
- _' b+ X2 h3 }  @8 E& N$ N  ?
作者: wangqunfeng1979    時間: 2012-3-10 09:47
不錯的網站，值得學習，希望大家多去美國網站看看
作者: 老屈    時間: 2012-3-10 09:57
感謝樓主呀，之前我上的另一個論壇的，筆記本一換找不到了。
作者: 機械神話    時間: 2012-3-10 10:19
1樓是沙發，但他是明白人，2樓答對了一半，3樓是樓主的追加解釋，4樓答非所問，但畢竟是沙發，水平開始展現，5樓正解。至此，沙發主導了討論。我的疑問是，他們討論，怎么不用google查一下perpendicularity的定義？
; c! G- _- p9 Y* Y7 {% L+ [: F  ~- W9 C- p% ^, d% p
樓主繼續這樣的帖子。學習了。
作者: 蔣澄燦    時間: 2012-3-10 10:24
糾結，{:soso_e117:}，不怎么看的懂的啊6 x2 K8 y9 E1 ]
作者: datafield    時間: 2012-6-18 10:06
http://www.eng-tips.com/
) o2 |3 z1 N6 y這個網站，幾年前我有注冊過，可是現在老是“該網頁無法訪問”，別人有這樣的情況嗎？
作者: steven1977    時間: 2012-6-19 10:47
很有趣的帖子
作者: dong_huike    時間: 2012-11-18 14:46
感謝樓主提供這個網址；
作者: 夕陽書生    時間: 2012-12-24 17:34
糾結，，不怎么看的懂的啊
8 T! J4 a' \# Y% h, }5 U$ }
9 u8 x$ k1 c3 w; a- W2 Z
作者: 夢里尋花    時間: 2012-12-25 15:03
網站打不開，什么情況？？
作者: wsxm82    時間: 2012-12-25 16:54
打不開，樓主給個主頁網址吧，多謝！
作者: 一休哥一    時間: 2012-12-26 11:39
看不懂里面的內容{:soso_e135:}
作者: 小楊XG    時間: 2012-12-26 22:35
英語不好
作者: 王樹大    時間: 2012-12-27 09:56
強烈要求翻譯，不是電腦軟件翻譯的，最好是專業人員給翻譯一下、
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-4 00:14
本帖最后由 datafield 于 2013-2-4 00:40 編輯 : d% n& C* E+ V5 Y6 L' c6 H7 q1 w

2 L8 O, a* D' k( ]8 P& H6 w我先占座，有空再來一點一點翻譯。
+ s2 m/ ~3 k! `# `8 ^- Q5 k/ p（另外，這個網站我老是進不了。）- }/ X0 W, K( {1 I/ @/ P
. D; o/ h1 {, F" s$ U
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 12:53
6 g! f1 ~9 o0 J9 H( }( G* ~( F- \

3 O/ f$ a$ P. b$ i3 f
Can anyone please clarify if a perpendicularity call out is controlled by a basic dimension or not?  In other words is the tolerance zone centered on a basic dimension? / Q* ?  C3 q1 T- s3 v; E
哪位可以幫忙介紹一下，垂直度要求，是否須與理論尺寸相關聯？或者說，垂直度的公差帶，是否以理論尺寸為中心？8 `9 A$ h+ e3 g9 Q* c9 j* I" s4 B

4 I( F- e# A& N+ u/ ^! R
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:03
4 e3 U- R/ }( m
No, it is sufficient by itself.
" O  R& ^% ?( T# F4 w: {不，垂直度本身已經夠了。
* R! |% |2 N8 K3 _7 s2 |: {
  W! c2 ]: o. PIt MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.
( j! o! w4 [7 [3 E# g% P. y) C0 k4 p( u當然，在定義位置的情況下，也可以與理論尺寸聯合使用。. m- @& k1 I" V7 I0 n

2 h3 s! J% ]* G. K
2 J1 V" P" \! c. S
3 I" C, l1 X& @
powerhound (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:42 , p# s% n6 c8 N* }
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled. 不，公差帶隨著其控制的形體而移動。
) z) |$ E3 ]; ]/ \3 h( P  n& l+ A/ \$ ?& S
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419$ s: X' c# a5 h5 L
Engineering Technician
5 g" j! k7 v" i1 j$ S- rInventor 20108 _" Q, H3 Y, K  p  l7 j
Mastercam X5
% o7 f$ t8 R/ z2 X; `Smartcam 11.1  V1 x% o' x/ Z' o  V. z% K4 h
SSG, U.S. Army4 _8 z* S# G1 i3 ^9 q3 \
Taji, Iraq OIF II

4 f' S; H, R2 N4 G. L' g& r1 \3 @

8 D( J& F* T# f; a% O# e1 O8 s' q7 ?$ m7 k
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 13:56
) p7 P% [  ]4 I$ J) F: L2 u/ N) P& }
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic? 3 e% Y9 v# [( T7 g: U4 p% a
平面從互相平行的另一個面來定義尺寸……會要求用垂直度來控制尺寸嗎？若是，尺寸要為理論尺寸嗎？
7 K( X" K( L& W1 B: X+ m: y" c
) V4 p$ A4 k0 A9 ^( b
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 14:17
* t2 D. Q/ m7 ~5 Y8 H2 b
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism. 垂直度與平行度，是不一樣的。6 q$ W2 n  C7 r1 T
Even in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance. 就算是平行度，尺寸也可以標明公差；平行度將進一步限定公差。
4 Q5 q8 Y* v( A+ Y) ?If I don't understand something, please provide a picture. 如果不太明白，請給圖示意。9 z2 k$ u( n& p8 j. A9 [: H

$ i: q% @1 e' S9 n

# \6 V* G4 H% b7 n6 @4 e4 l. x8 s5 Z0 y& ^7 y
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:35 5 V: [1 {* }1 a1 o
First, there is an implied basic dim with perpendicuarity. It is the 90 degree relationship to the datum. That's not the kind you were thinking of, but I feel obligated to mention it. 首先，垂直度有一個默認的基本前提，即：與基準的90度關系。這不是你所想的，但我有義務得先申明一下。
' u" T) [* a1 `8 s9 l6 D/ u. w9 W* r* L( ?
You ask about locating the perp tolerance zone. That should never happen with basic dims. The perp tolerance zone can float freely within whatever other constraints there might be. 你問的是垂直度公差帶的位置。這與理論尺寸無關。垂直度公差帶的位置，可以在其它約束里自由移動，如果有約束的話。
- X/ G* U8 N- T, j" W" O3 U" j$ W" _9 c! w* B8 P% W2 L
IOW, the per tolerance never controls the distance from the parallel surface. There should be something else to do that, such as plus/minus. The perp doesn't get added to that; it must operate within it. 哦，平行平面的距離，不受垂直度控制，而受控于其它因素，比如+/-。垂直度不會擴大它；垂直度必須在此范圍內。, `0 n; y7 V2 n- t$ s! }' G. N6 c
' @& _+ t: m$ C" \0 b" P1 b8 Z: }
John-Paul Belanger0 x9 C+ G5 @( w# P& M
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional% t( U) S  R$ y6 ~
Geometric Learning Systems$ @( L. |. P: p* g  V& I
http://www.gdtseminars.com
& ?9 E1 f4 }: |
. D' c" j1 i: A' E8 s4 k

  J) x4 ]1 c  Q/ Z
dgallup (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:38 8 x  M7 c8 c0 K9 U
The surface can be dimensioned from a parallel surface and still have a perpendicularity to a datum that is normal to both surfaces.  The dimension will control location and to the extent that the envelope principal applies, form.  The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less. 某個面，可以從與其平行的另一個面來標注尺寸來定義距離，同時，可以標注垂直度（基準與此兩面都垂直）。尺寸，按包容原則來控制位置。垂直度公差，必須小于尺寸公差，通常為尺寸公差的一半或更少。
----------------------------------------3 m) q$ }& e6 K: u6 S! g' _

9 a( x1 x4 r/ [+ R+ g1 i$ e$ lThe Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows." A" R7 o3 s( O0 y& ^
3 }: b# T0 k% i: X0 I* y8 Y
- E# X9 G0 i8 s
( K9 ~' d# K6 S; J+ G) a
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 15:09 6 @8 I# |. t) _. {3 q( U
metaldork,
9 p! {2 {6 h6 u) G* S7 q3 ]* u2 ]
5 C: i3 J7 Q- \7 l) e: R  t; y! wThe way I like to look at it is that the Perpendicularity zone can always freely translate - its location is never controlled relative to anything.  So the Perpendicularity zone is always completely independent of any linear dimensions (basic or directly toleranced) connected to the considered feature.　我認為，垂直度公差帶，是可以自由移動的——它的位置，不受任何約束。故，垂直度公差帶，總是與被測形體的線性尺寸（理論尺寸或直接標注公差的尺寸）相互獨立的。' M' C* W) h% I) ~3 F
( x9 {- U  ^9 {
dgallup," w" F; K4 I7 k* L7 W! c
; @, `: L: s; F
In the scenario you described, the Perpendicularity doesn't have to be a refinement of anything.  The directly toleranced dimension doesn't control the squareness, so the Perpendicularity tolerance doesn't need to refine it.
Evan Janeshewski3 C: p* \5 i# W; I1 P
! l1 q1 u8 C. Z6 t5 T8 M2 ~
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.( O# f7 g" Y  x0 g
www.axymetrix.ca
' V8 i0 K; e2 P8 T

4 I4 q2 r" a- d3 I5 B: ?/ y8 l9 v) B7 T# y
pmarc (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:13
' d  {8 R* B; K
I am with J-P on this, the only basic dimension that applies for perpendicularity is basic 90 degrees to the datum and it is usually not shown on a print due to implied basic 90 deg dimension rule.
1 I. o( T- `: J* R0 i# r  c' A" Y9 U( S6 I3 j$ K- H
dgallup,! k: C" x# n, o2 {  e4 E9 L
You said: "The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."
" z8 I- D% `. d6 u, L( {I would be careful with that. If perpendicularity callout is applied only to one "side" of a dimension, its value can be whatever one can imagine (assuming there is no general angular tolerance shown on the print that would control a relationship of the other "side" of the dimension relative to the datum).
5 Y$ k6 e- V+ \* ]$ r/ tThe other story is when there are two perpendicularity callouts applied to both "sides" of the dimension. In that case, my vote is their values can be as big as the dimension tolerance (and not half of it).   4 V0 u- w0 N9 i+ l% C( i9 V
0 l' [. v; B8 Y" X& v2 r: z% i
  {2 `$ ?$ W& V, q9 X4 u2 K
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:57 : Q6 L+ S: b* O
Evan,/ E5 F/ p2 E" ^( t2 F
Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?  w1 Z7 g2 P/ c8 g; B; W
8 [9 w* Z+ A. m; M; J! _
( B6 ]2 P2 L$ G6 w3 \% M
$ o  u1 h. X' l+ U
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 16:39 / S' m$ b2 Z0 r! K/ N' }( D
CH, picture a U-shaped bracket -- sort of like field-goal posts.  Now take both vertical posts and bend them 20 degrees to the left.  Are they within the size (width) tolerance?  Yes.  Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground?  No.9 _% \# K7 N* t/ q

& @3 y: ]4 s$ `So there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.
( y. ?: t3 x! G: ^: j* t- [5 Z, {2 s& C0 }9 s6 {% ?2 {: t
Sorry for jumping in, Evan.  Feel free to modify my explanation  
John-Paul Belanger
7 k0 _6 ?5 J7 U; P9 ~4 e4 CCertified Sr. GD&T Professional& u8 W* v9 I+ \  n
Geometric Learning Systems
9 |; }5 q: `9 j0 |* Qhttp://www.gdtseminars.com
) ?+ q4 x1 G& e6 B/ W) s* V6 f4 z

! t) x/ M$ k9 o) h; Y
# o% ?& u6 h' p( J5 O9 F
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 17:54
! p4 w* b* a- s+ V
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?" . W9 `* q/ m* E7 M3 q8 V1 Y

( _& R( Z5 j& g. ~6 R7 ^CH,9 S! w) t+ u8 Y7 J* q  @
3 P: k" n' W7 J" |
Quick answer, yes.  But of course there's more to it.& I* E1 b  Z; o4 V% M% t1 |

3 \/ B+ {( ~+ N& ~' GIf we think purely in terms of the tolerance zone mechanics, which I always try to do, then the Perpendicularity zone is allowed to translate outside of the linear dimension / Position tolerance zone.
7 G( _" X. g0 W2 m; x  N' o0 A, v" v& L' U
It is true that the feature might not conform to the Position tolerance if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate partly outside of the Position zone.  It definitely wouldn't conform if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate completely outside of the Position zone.  But that is a different consideration.! A+ N+ }/ S! l
4 B) G* n$ O. o5 F
The way I like to look at it is that the Position tolerance and the Perpendicularity tolerance are independent requirements, that can be evaluated independently of each other.  This is the only way that I am able to make sense of it all.  Some GD&T books state or imply that the orientation zone must float within the location zone, but to me this is an oversimplification.  It is possible for part of the orientation zone to extend outside of the location zone, and still have the feature conform to both tolerances.
Evan Janeshewski
& b. a2 g# a) Y9 F1 s) W( o4 ^9 U! [' C7 L  x8 ?$ P
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.. D( ~. |  F7 d0 B0 {
www.axymetrix.ca

1 q. k0 O1 ?+ N4 |

; c4 v6 h8 @3 ]& H7 R0 k
2 R, H4 [9 @# j- @) m
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 6:32
# K2 T  p  b4 q
Thank you Evan,% C8 y( b6 e, _# I7 P
Appreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays.
  U1 P8 w; h8 a3 d# s( x' e4 L. {' l* JUnfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation:
4 ?# H/ j* `  R' j2 n( PYou are using some sort of measuring machine. You find out that the axis of certain hole (or boss) is laying WITHIN perpendicularity tolerance, but OUTSIDE of position tolerance.. }7 @6 |% E+ g5 X6 ^
Would you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated)
  @3 C4 Q& h3 f1 LI personally believe that your position and perpendicularity zones should at least partially overlap. (It will create some interesting conditions that probably were never fully documented, but nevertheless).
8 n! V+ T# T" S& v& Q! t
/ s( Z  J4 S3 c7 TJoan-Paul,
0 ?6 C! A* j. P+ u  Q- OYour argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry)* I$ ^3 p. t# Y6 q- k4 a
You said it yourself: "Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No." So what you describe is "bad" part that should never be accepted in the first place. The purpose of GD&T is to describe the parts we will accept, right?2 T7 \9 ?6 d3 U1 U. I
Another stretch: "tolerance number for the size across the posts". Most people would consider "fork" being two features of size, not one. Is space between two holes feature of size?
2 z: o% X9 ^. |  P0 jSo your argument basically is: "If we can make bad part from ambiguous drawing, then there is no relationship between the tolerances". Sorry, but I am not buying it.+ `( S* a' Y4 t- g7 i) W
5 h& E6 H' @6 A
0 B; _4 A. r3 Z7 Q) t
0 E1 _, r3 i0 ?1 [0 A5 ?
Belanger (Automotive)9 Mar 12 7:03 8 C1 x( N! a& ?
CH -- I don't quite understand your concern.  First, yes, the space bewteen the posts is a feature of size; so is the outside of the posts.  But my example was really meant to discuss surface perpendicularity (I just used the posts as a visual example.  Sorry for the confusion.), R* _, Y! j$ s

. F- ]; o) \* D9 q"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."
9 l' J- ?% ?0 U: u, H3 N
8 w0 T) o: O) x( H6 \The reason I wrote that is that many people think that a size dimension also controls orientation -- that's not true!  So I'll rephrase it differently:  Two vertical surfaces can lean in the same direction and still be within perpendicularity tolerance. They are also within the size tolerance.  But there is no connection between the tolerance values for the perpendicularity and the size.
John-Paul Belanger. S- C# e; g3 f
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional0 z' M& {* M+ X, ^- }' C. p
Geometric Learning Systems
* @  h" A% w, \2 Yhttp://www.gdtseminars.com
0 R( G$ E1 B# \8 _0 p
  D/ N% `* N- q9 m9 V& A; ?7 _5 M

! X# [+ k; p9 ]3 b( s2 l: w8 t
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 7:54 & E. h. J4 P! n
8 P2 k; `7 r- ]  q5 E

8 W- F) M5 a: i) X- I$ K- gThank you JP, we are getting somewhere.
: u* ^$ S$ f, MLet say, we have FOS with perpendicularity requirement added. The size tolerance is .001, the perp. .100. But they both affect VIRTUAL CONDITION, right? Now, what if we add position requirement to our virtual condition?; g+ q2 v$ O* k- Z/ j) \3 T7 i
You see, I never said perpendicularity is a refinement of size. But I still insist on the following conditions: Perp. tolerance zone being outside of position tolerance zone makes no sense. Perp. tolerance zone being larger than position tolerance zone makes no sense. It may be legal though.
( k) z0 ^9 o) S7 f$ g) aWhen you have 2 FCFs applied to same feature, their requirements have to be met together (I didn't say "simultaneously"). If perp. tolerance is .100 and position is .010 position requirement controls perp. indirectly and makes perp. requirement useless.2 p! ]/ F4 y; I3 s; B) j: C3 x  I
So, when used together with position requirement, perpendicularity only makes sense when perp. tolerance zone is smaller than position tolerance zone, and both tolerance zones overlap at least partially. To me it means "refinement".
+ N9 _- G( ?+ a, _+ v5 e& I8 ~0 l! w- W# g

) h+ g3 z& V& z3 i. z

# o% t# q/ a+ f8 \% T. b$ ~. C
8 L/ N! [  w5 u
pmarc (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 8:57
# s4 n# h9 P7 I) ?6 j7 I+ B
Apologies for jumping into main topic.+ _/ i. K9 Z5 O% s' L" b
Can you have a look at attached picture?
' f4 G4 ~7 p3 T8 v, u8 e2 F. phttp://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a7879b3a-d0d7-459f-b9ac-829eb08891da&file=surf_perpendicularity.JPG0 r" t4 H, ~! z. g
How big can those perpendicularity tolerance values be, assuming they both have to be equal? Is there any limit or not? Thanks. : E! {) T- ]7 f
$ }. Z9 F2 Y% c" w# r( d% M

; ~" }. R8 x9 e$ t+ f, @
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 9:15 8 T* }- G: S/ Y- J/ n( F+ I6 M
I believe it is acceptable to use a space between to pins say as a feature of size, right?9 j$ u+ {! z' q7 ?4 o. |
Frank 2 N2 l4 k" D9 X: v2 ?+ h+ y
* @& P8 q2 \# X; i6 W! y8 T! Y
% Z8 J% @- h' g0 N4 a, F8 L
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 9:29 ! Q$ N/ T# I! M  j, `: {6 n" F
Frank,1 B/ Z! C8 U- b$ J- F
Yes, but it will make them more ambiguous, than 2 FOS with position requirement, right?
: _+ o8 u. H% Y6 M2 F* p, g& Q. u3 w* v4 [' _- l' Z' N1 [. }0 V$ g2 U- E
pmarc,, \- Z( `) o: F7 R- s! X& c  S
What do YOU think?, X# {* l! s8 V" h4 ]
  • http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=83017c19-26f6-45c9-8d71-70/ }( S+ R6 i5 j6 G0 `) g2 H
4 B9 {" l3 z3 e' E- C4 X  `
0 D3 z  R% q* Z  I1 m  g0 `4 j
' ~5 q! y+ z+ E) L* h
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:03 6 h# \+ p3 V' s; J0 g( k
pmark,: _8 _; T) o* V6 ~
You are a genius - I think this is exactly what OP was asking: do you use basic dimension to control perpendicularity of parallel elements.
5 U) m# q' C8 [2 w! D2 t1 XI would use basic dimension with profile to control the whole contraption. That will also make it less ambiguous.% z/ ]1 Y9 E! k" ~9 n
. A( a2 V/ ^$ D9 K  L; X

4 W6 I/ S- O* `' o! q# {$ A; M' A  q- X% @) P1 \, ^6 W9 u
pmarc (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:04
: D% r* l+ r- K- o
CH,
- K* J# ]; z/ D/ [' Y9 jYou are asking what do I think about my sketch or about your modified version of my sketch? Or is your sketch showing only one of situations that may occur for my tolerancing scheme?  - a& k7 g: c) A9 ]+ P
. L# U  S# l! v1 \

2 d+ y% i1 _6 K9 g! V  ~. G
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 10:20 * }$ b' F8 c' d8 c) W4 _9 c
Sure ideally all should be controlled, that is right out of the book. Frank
1 s1 @9 I8 t) x! Q1 V& c2 j$ B. [8 z" q1 c2 ^2 M* x8 k: \

+ P5 [- o" {( T' D
) y, X3 n. ^, b  x+ [
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:22
$ R# z( E$ g+ j" @1 m( R
Actually both (or all three?).
" F& m! m( P9 W+ `5 DI feel like using direct dimensioning may create ambiguity here. There is a reason ISO calls it "two-point dimension".
6 [# b6 A  i  D5 W(See my post about using Profile)
! ^' ~% o4 Y+ M6 Q
; S+ Z; ~' k" G: @

( L+ j1 O1 E. U0 h2 V, X6 D
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 10:36
! r, j. Z0 k" f! l( l) f1 {) ~0 x9 U
Frank,
" z3 V' d3 l8 h8 D$ S0 j& z% G+ v  n% {Off-topic, but since you brought it up; have you ever seen round hole dimensioned to the edge rather than center?& `' T( `3 Y: B: h7 i# e
I did, I was even forced to do it myself, I still don't like it.
* L$ R9 M, P' r9 M$ s8 F: p' c, e9 n# w9 H' J8 l" a" X7 E' |

% k9 n+ A. [$ n" @/ S5 K
: C  c3 L6 @% \4 s: P4 u/ ~
fsincox (Aerospace)9 Mar 12 10:55
- Y6 N9 \0 N. X8 D* L; L
CH,
& t& G1 F$ t) f: M- h3 e8 KAre you kidding? I cut my teeth on that. It is what I was looking to GD&T to help me escape from. ;)  I6 _0 s" K: o: y; p* V% S8 C0 B  D
This thread has confused me a bit with the whole perpendicularity zone centered, center implies a location. Seems like at least part of the perpendicularity zone must be in the location tolerance zone or you would just move it.
" i6 \% \+ e: E9 EFrank ( [, j- M$ ^  f4 l4 {/ N

* o) R3 {9 X- X- }2 N$ L
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-4 14:24

2 h) D1 l. n9 t7 R4 A
1 C0 b" T8 m) Z/ t: i) |- n# Z3 r
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 12:53 0 |" q) x# I. r  t* L& C  l
3 L  J/ @% a3 q- @2 p5 ]
Can anyone please clarify if a perpendicularity call out is controlled by a basic dimension or not?  In other words is the tolerance zone centered on a basic dimension?
1 ^0 c6 ]; T' |哪位可以幫忙介紹一下，垂直度要求，是否須與理論尺寸相關聯？或者說，垂直度的公差帶，是否以理論尺寸為中心？" w( C: e6 v! J% U  `$ B

- x* c8 T! y1 m( T6 l8 ?" b
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:03
- G4 \$ J& j% Q0 I, h1 Y+ g
No, it is sufficient by itself. $ {0 E( e- a  e3 l' I; X; U
不，垂直度本身已經夠了。6 v$ O+ U5 X1 y% }( K4 x& _
9 m0 T8 O, k* D1 P$ P/ r, t
It MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.9 V. U% C4 d& W3 A5 a
當然，在定義位置的情況下，也可以與理論尺寸聯合使用。+ W' F. Y. Y" s) |4 O

; v& b5 `$ Y4 F/ [

8 z2 ^6 b5 y) T% J
. c% a- d6 o3 P+ A/ o1 H
powerhound (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 13:42
( H( z9 Q' k/ e- D  k4 l5 p" ]
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled. 不，公差帶隨著其控制的形體而移動。
8 i! C6 V1 H* y. D8 I1 H. a' W  g5 G
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
# B3 w7 V) `" E0 j" `" d0 uEngineering Technician* E8 v: O' h- i8 n
Inventor 2010
9 u8 b4 o# N1 D, eMastercam X5
9 y% I( ~2 [( i. R! _Smartcam 11.1
/ d! v* q8 u6 L* A2 v- FSSG, U.S. Army' Q# M- C6 Z0 @* T% Z- V; _
Taji, Iraq OIF II

1 V1 G; ^  n$ H4 E, `
4 D% v5 s  w4 g' f, o9 D

+ s& P3 \3 }* I. x
metaldork (Agricultural)8 Mar 12 13:56 ; z  k3 V# n( n* U5 \: F  `" K+ l
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic?
# v2 |6 v6 r( E+ u平面從互相平行的另一個面來定義尺寸……會要求用垂直度來控制尺寸嗎？若是，尺寸要為理論尺寸嗎？
, Z: A- v/ h. F5 X

1 P0 b" L2 C7 j: d# _/ T9 @
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 14:17
. I+ G- z. j. _2 w- |9 `! I! p! C
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism. 垂直度與平行度，是不一樣的。
. p6 G* \% e3 }. J/ y2 w4 PEven in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance. 就算是平行度，尺寸也可以標明公差；平行度將進一步限定公差。
# \- ?# N9 \7 [" j" VIf I don't understand something, please provide a picture. 如果不太明白，請給圖示意。
2 [" y9 |# T  w- ^( x; G) ~
8 {8 ]& g3 S- R2 t9 j! T+ k

7 h9 U+ y# `' r- I7 k# C) i/ ]% ?1 r7 A) Q8 @8 ~
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:35 3 e2 h6 }; I( Z4 L0 U5 J3 X
First, there is an implied basic dim with perpendicuarity. It is the 90 degree relationship to the datum. That's not the kind you were thinking of, but I feel obligated to mention it. 首先，垂直度有一個默認的基本前提，即：與基準的90度關系。這不是你所想的，但我有義務得先申明一下。& e7 \4 Q( V& N& Z, ^1 [

- r5 t: w& }( h2 i7 @You ask about locating the perp tolerance zone. That should never happen with basic dims. The perp tolerance zone can float freely within whatever other constraints there might be. 你問的是垂直度公差帶的位置。這與理論尺寸無關。垂直度公差帶的位置，可以在其它約束里自由移動，如果有約束的話。
7 F7 r2 q0 ~2 O2 R* N- z' I" L8 P/ W/ T, `; K
IOW, the per tolerance never controls the distance from the parallel surface. There should be something else to do that, such as plus/minus. The perp doesn't get added to that; it must operate within it. 哦，平行平面的距離，不受垂直度控制，而受控于其它因素，比如+/-。垂直度不會擴大它；垂直度必須在此范圍內。
; ^% p, O, E# c8 W0 H
2 C+ Y2 a1 p+ {9 j, h
John-Paul Belanger) G/ y3 A: F5 J. a. ~
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional. v& D! s7 ?6 F, N
Geometric Learning Systems
4 ]' m6 _) v1 ?0 thttp://www.gdtseminars.com

3 S' d/ z8 H  R: l

8 a4 e8 R3 Y) y' _- H, m1 u& ?! z2 E( i6 B& n2 W& }) ]! B" p6 c
dgallup (Automotive)8 Mar 12 14:38 % H- u& F! |; U2 H3 A# X: ~8 u1 A
The surface can be dimensioned from a parallel surface and still have a perpendicularity to a datum that is normal to both surfaces.  The dimension will control location and to the extent that the envelope principal applies, form.  The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less. 某個面，可以從與其平行的另一個面來標注尺寸來定義距離，同時，可以標注垂直度（基準與此兩面都垂直）。尺寸，按包容原則來控制位置。垂直度公差，必須小于尺寸公差，通常為尺寸公差的一半或更少。
----------------------------------------% y/ s5 W! b" r  _
* l0 `9 Y/ x: d0 N$ ]' y
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
9 h+ Z/ Z0 ^+ L% M- _
* J* p* a, e1 J* t) n% T* K
" s" o  K0 K) _# X

3 g+ l# i! m4 F9 d1 f% W
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 15:09 ( c% y. s* w% M: V9 u
metaldork,3 A; V% t: F1 `/ ~2 k
! I5 H0 P3 J) z  R0 j- n. O# v
The way I like to look at it is that the Perpendicularity zone can always freely translate - its location is never controlled relative to anything.  So the Perpendicularity zone is always completely independent of any linear dimensions (basic or directly toleranced) connected to the considered feature.　我認為，垂直度公差帶，是可以自由移動的——它的位置，不受任何約束。故，垂直度公差帶，總是與被測形體的線性尺寸（理論尺寸或直接標注公差的尺寸）相互獨立的。  ?, c9 W7 V' u- a) {

# @: ]. z! W7 O# Fdgallup,
: D: M& }8 Z( X& ~" ]/ n5 E3 d& ?8 J
/ J/ i* s, D8 m' c5 J; NIn the scenario you described, the Perpendicularity doesn't have to be a refinement of anything.  The directly toleranced dimension doesn't control the squareness, so the Perpendicularity tolerance doesn't need to refine it. 在你提到的例子里，垂直度不會進一步限定任何其它公差。直接帶公差標注的尺寸，不控制垂直度，故垂直度公差也不會進一步限定它。
Evan Janeshewski7 i+ S. R+ r* L' N

# }, Q+ g% f4 v# X& DAxymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
; _% M2 {# \& T) _  h3 y( lwww.axymetrix.ca
7 o! q2 V8 f1 D6 g; \+ x  K
' `: J" H* d0 ]6 h, H4 M+ x

* Q! N, Y3 w5 z- r( B2 T  m' x8 I2 i
pmarc (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:13 7 V( @5 V8 d  n0 {
I am with J-P on this, the only basic dimension that applies for perpendicularity is basic 90 degrees to the datum and it is usually not shown on a print due to implied basic 90 deg dimension rule. 1 ^0 i  v. W* T1 a5 U0 ?/ V
我頂J-P的觀點，垂直度里唯一的理論尺寸，為與基準成90度，且通常因為這是一個默認隱含的前提，所以在圖樣上不必標出。
, g: C' ^* E+ e) M9 r( t9 p- _+ ^
dgallup,
# d! i: x/ {/ @8 ZYou said: "The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."" m  r  P+ `+ Z( ^
Dgallup同學，你說“垂直度公差，必須小于尺寸公差，通常為尺寸公差的一半或更少。”5 q; {) h1 Y# I2 a) A* h
I would be careful with that. If perpendicularity callout is applied only to one "side" of a dimension, its value can be whatever one can imagine (assuming there is no general angular tolerance shown on the print that would control a relationship of the other "side" of the dimension relative to the datum).
/ f, n& H! d* N& x; x2 O我對此有看法。如果垂直度只應用于尺寸公差的單“側”，其公差值，可為任意值（假設在圖樣上，未標明用以控制尺寸公差另一“側”與基準的關系的角度公差）。  z) B& \0 D+ b
The other story is when there are two perpendicularity callouts applied to both "sides" of the dimension. In that case, my vote is their values can be as big as the dimension tolerance (and not half of it).   
; O% A5 b$ v3 q' {另一種例子是，尺寸兩“側”同時標注了垂直度公差。這樣，我的觀點是：這樣垂直度的公差值，可以與尺寸公差值一樣大（并非其之一半）。
* M0 v9 a% d5 O. w1 K, {

$ y( F! b0 ?2 x* \6 {9 a/ Q" B
CheckerHater (Mechanical)8 Mar 12 15:57
% \' p" K1 J5 ]! f& K* ]
Evan,
" k* E2 _/ K  O" X/ l* NCould you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?5 j8 Y6 E9 {2 h0 ?% l) S! _
您能否解釋一下：您相信垂直度公差帶可以在線性尺寸/位置公差帶之外“自由移動”嗎？

# s2 p! M/ [& b9 Q) N. R" W5 W/ r: {
Belanger (Automotive)8 Mar 12 16:39 ; k2 k! r8 T2 n" k! b- ^4 W
CH, picture a U-shaped bracket -- sort of like field-goal posts.  Now take both vertical posts and bend them 20 degrees to the left.  Are they within the size (width) tolerance?  Yes.  Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground?  No.
' M/ A. W" D0 {( ^' z樓上的，假設有個U形座，比如一種投籃用的那種架子。現在，把“U”的這兩個豎直桿“l"同時向左邊傾斜20度。那“U”寬度的尺寸還在范圍之內嗎？是的。那左邊直桿與地面的垂直度還符合要求嗎？非也。# `+ f4 q( A, t( O" P1 |8 B
' j4 ?, o# y# n4 J/ h' z
So there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.
. M* p; ]  d% H故，兩個直桿之間的寬度公差，與直桿的垂直度公差，沒有關系。
! m4 q! M# r8 [Sorry for jumping in, Evan.  Feel free to modify my explanation  9 b; }' g+ N& ]6 J, g1 Z* g8 O" c
搶樓了，不好意思。EVan，有啥子意見盡管說。
. e3 f, P, W: X4 _) ~
John-Paul Belanger
, M1 |& f* e+ N* w' Y3 h9 NCertified Sr. GD&T Professional* P$ J8 l1 r: u2 ~. A* n% P
Geometric Learning Systems
7 Y6 N6 @7 ?5 B# g2 A9 M% Ahttp://www.gdtseminars.com

  m5 @$ F5 p' m% i2 k) _/ x
0 X; D; q9 M" P* a& g4 f, |6 {2 U+ ]
% b2 K# d$ Q( x2 l( h+ W# \
axym (Industrial)8 Mar 12 17:54
& [3 l0 z( O$ K6 Q; g6 O
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?"  您能否解釋一下：您相信垂直度公差帶可以在線性尺寸/位置公差帶之外“自由移動”嗎？
+ [0 `8 ?) d  g. l/ \- @
CH,8 O/ P6 |: N% ^6 j
  S0 l2 u$ T$ h
Quick answer, yes.  But of course there's more to it. 簡單說：行。不過當然不止這些。( a4 `  W! r; _/ {* n0 m  P

0 k/ f; U- }+ p3 J/ y- ]. ~If we think purely in terms of the tolerance zone mechanics, which I always try to do, then the Perpendicularity zone is allowed to translate outside of the linear dimension / Position tolerance zone. 從純粹的機械理論方面來討論公差帶的話，我經常這樣做，那么垂直度公差帶，可以在線性尺寸/位置公差帶之外移動。
( n" F4 |. I1 L. }1 `' t
  O. X  e" X9 v: A4 N0 @It is true that the feature might not conform to the Position tolerance if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate partly outside of the Position zone.  It definitely wouldn't conform if the Perpendicularity zone had to translate completely outside of the Position zone.  But that is a different consideration. 當垂直度公差帶部分走出位置公差帶時，形體確實有可能會不符合位置公差要求。而當垂直度公差帶完全超出位置公差帶時，則肯定不符合位置公差要求了。但這是另一種考慮。  R7 M2 \* ]) R$ a

1 K& B- W; P% a% j1 aThe way I like to look at it is that the Position tolerance and the Perpendicularity tolerance are independent requirements, that can be evaluated independently of each other.  This is the only way that I am able to make sense of it all.  Some GD&T books state or imply that the orientation zone must float within the location zone, but to me this is an oversimplification.  It is possible for part of the orientation zone to extend outside of the location zone, and still have the feature conform to both tolerances. 我對這種情況的看法是：位置公差與垂直度公差，是互相獨立的要求，可以獨立驗證。這是我唯一能理解它們的方式。某些GD&T的資料里，明確或隱含提出了方向公差帶必須處于位置公差帶之內， 但我覺得這過于簡單了。對某工件來說，有可能其方向公差帶超出位置公差帶，但形體仍然同時符合兩種公差要求。
Evan Janeshewski0 N3 c: [  z% r% p( h3 K
5 _4 f8 G0 |9 [3 X% c. b
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.: \; f7 \6 I4 {  N1 y  X+ ]& ]
www.axymetrix.ca
5 `( N% ~1 h/ h( [9 L6 n, S! o# s
1 d) c2 j) U0 c% _( O0 {
6 a8 c+ g' M) t! o8 Q
- n$ L  ~1 d" F* C

! K/ j3 [6 M0 e' y6 ]
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-4 23:21
! T& z5 Z* Y" c2 O. L1 M8 Q
9 k* C: `/ c. Q: J4 t
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 6:32
) i; S( R$ J6 `
Thank you Evan, 謝謝Evan好人！9 E% [7 t2 ^% ^, U( D0 w' r
Appreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays. 感謝你直接回復“行”——現在難得的爽快。
6 r5 T# n& K( u. {Unfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation: 可惜我卻還不太敢認同。我猜可能是這樣的：& D5 M, d, i; k- r$ j8 P# m# G
You are using some sort of measuring machine. You find out that the axis of certain hole (or boss) is laying WITHIN perpendicularity tolerance, but OUTSIDE of position tolerance. 你使用了某些測量設備來檢測，發現某孔（或凸軸）的軸線，位于垂直度公差帶里，但卻超出位置度公差。
4 z+ O5 x7 A7 ^6 ]( W2 X* hWould you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated)  那你會判定此被測工件，是接收，還是拒收呢？（可以再直接回“行”或“不行”，謝謝。）. g3 e0 D' ~$ a# ~* o! B. N6 S
I personally believe that your position and perpendicularity zones should at least partially overlap. (It will create some interesting conditions that probably were never fully documented, but nevertheless). 我個人覺得：你的位置度與垂直度公差帶，至少要部分重疊。（這會導致一些有趣的狀態，可能還沒有相關資料，但不影響。）
8 O+ n2 V# I2 j
- R2 `6 R3 q) O* X; R
$ ?/ e; o4 j9 \  ~. k+ e
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-7 00:33

1 X. T; }' t5 h/ G/ F, d, \Joan-Paul,JP（瓊-保羅）：
. V6 [/ m2 S1 D, ]  ?1 b6 ^4 v2 fYour argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry)! g/ u' J2 B! w3 R- P# X0 A* S
You said it yourself: "Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No." So what you describe is "bad" part that should never be accepted in the first place. The purpose of GD&T is to describe the parts we will accept, right?你的回復，好像有點離題，有點不著邊際扯談了（對不起）。7 R0 ^& Q/ h. s8 d- O& M! b
你自己說的“左邊直桿與地面的垂直度還符合要求嗎？非也。”所以，你所i講的是“壞”的產品，一開始就不應接收。GD＆T的目的是闡述我們會接收的好的工件，是吧？
0 M/ t: H0 }- l- E
: i4 r* O4 M+ P: m% PAnother stretch: "tolerance number for the size across the posts". Most people would consider "fork" being two features of size, not one. Is space between two holes feature of size? 另一例子：“兩桿之間距離的公差值”。多數人會認為“叉子”具兩個形體尺寸，而不是一個。在兩個孔狀形體尺寸之間，有空間嗎？  n- U4 N0 d# v6 q
So your argument basically is: "If we can make bad part from ambiguous drawing, then there is no relationship between the tolerances". Sorry, but I am not buying it.因此，你的論點基本上是：“如果我們按模棱兩可的圖來制造產品，那么公差之間會沒有關系”。很抱歉，我不買這樣的產品。1 I# V1 P# v* q8 n$ u

; K' Z, n$ X- r! ?4 s9 @& c+ _0 }1 d
, J( v& K4 H8 E- f. S. @) O2 j3 I" I  N
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-7 00:43
, n1 k- t' L. D/ |# [4 R7 F
9 Y' K$ o8 A# U/ O" h
Belanger (Automotive)9 Mar 12 7:03
4 G# V8 V! J+ ~% t9 Z1 v
CH -- I don't quite understand your concern.  First, yes, the space bewteen the posts is a feature of size; so is the outside of the posts.  But my example was really meant to discuss surface perpendicularity (I just used the posts as a visual example.  Sorry for the confusion.)
  S* s9 p& _) o+ iCH同學，我不太明白你的意思。首件，肯定的，兩桿之間的空間距離，是一個形體尺寸；但我不是指桿本身，我的意思應該是討論面的垂直度（我只是用桿來打個比方。不好意思讓人誤解了）。
. B4 i- h) \/ |, ~- R# i
4 X# ]4 H. j) Q# u3 N  J"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."& N) H: v6 m; Z+ _: J( G
“左邊直桿與地面的垂直度還符合要求嗎？非也。”( L# a8 X8 X6 z  f
! B4 m1 a  t. B  z( P
The reason I wrote that is that many people think that a size dimension also controls orientation -- that's not true!  So I'll rephrase it differently:  Two vertical surfaces can lean in the same direction and still be within perpendicularity tolerance. They are also within the size tolerance.  But there is no connection between the tolerance values for the perpendicularity and the size.
8 Y0 Z* a! E) g1 i5 V我舉這個例子，是因為許多人認為“尺寸會同時控制方向——實際上不是這樣。在這里我換個方式澄清一下：兩個原本都豎直的平面，會同時向同一個方向傾斜，但仍然還處于垂直度公差帶內。這兩平面之間距離，也會在范圍之內。但，垂直度公差與距離公差，是沒有關系的。, \) V5 H5 [/ `  x

# d1 h! x( J7 P4 z
John-Paul Belanger& J+ k8 N3 e4 A$ J# P: k
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
9 C& ^% Z' o! v. r  _+ q: tGeometric Learning Systems: i  P' ~* ?! I
http://www.gdtseminars.com
4 |% a: J  W! T
, ~% c8 p' ]* G. U' T5 a6 r5 {( N
; e  A9 U1 W: B* w% _, i) r+ F$ `
作者: datafield    時間: 2013-2-7 17:47

+ Z1 |3 g0 ]: k4 B0 Q1 w5 P$ p
' w5 {9 I1 `+ R
CheckerHater (Mechanical)9 Mar 12 7:54 ( t" M; ?, [) w8 g
" Z0 a9 `+ ]+ y+ z' e- {0 i
Thank you JP, we are getting somewhere. 謝了JP同學，有點明白了。
( k$ ?$ O0 R" P3 T8 h! Z( ~) g! g% k' n8 Z
Let say, we have FOS with perpendicularity requirement added. The size tolerance is .001, the perp. .100. But they both affect VIRTUAL CONDITION, right? Now, what if we add position requirement to our virtual condition?
: H. R% f4 S* o! f比如，讓垂直度附加FOS要求。若尺寸公差為0.001，垂直度公差為 .100。但它們都影響實效狀態，是嗎？現在，如果我們對實效狀態添加位置度要求，情況會如何？8 i3 b) x' Z& I" Q
7 u9 B7 u$ p, r) M
You see, I never said perpendicularity is a refinement of size. But I still insist on the following conditions: Perp. tolerance zone being outside of position tolerance zone makes no sense. Perp. tolerance zone being larger than position tolerance zone makes no sense. It may be legal though.
+ z& c; e/ i, y你看我從沒說：垂直度要求會進一步限定尺寸公差。但，我還是認為：如果垂直度公差帶超出位置公差帶，就沒有意義。垂直度公差帶大于位置公差帶，也沒有意義。它可能是合理的想法。
2 q; O1 j8 ~# r" z5 Z/ ?3 L+ G/ T$ k, p5 j5 Q
When you have 2 FCFs applied to same feature, their requirements have to be met together (I didn't say "simultaneously"). If perp. tolerance is .100 and position is .010 position requirement controls perp. indirectly and makes perp. requirement useless.
( V1 _0 T7 _/ `0 c' c* m當你給同一形體設定兩個FCF，它們的要求都要達到（但不是同步要求）。如果垂直度公差為.100，而位置度公差為.010，其實這是位置要求間接控制垂直度，使得垂直度起不到作用。
+ H$ i. X0 X5 `  u- }9 E5 N  S5 i' ~2 E/ S
So, when used together with position requirement, perpendicularity only makes sense when perp. tolerance zone is smaller than position tolerance zone, and both tolerance zones overlap at least partially. To me it means "refinement".
, V" H# L" b* z, [所以，當與位置公差一塊使用時，僅當垂直度公差帶小于位置度公差帶，并且這兩個公差帶至少部分重疊時，垂直度公差才會起作用。在我看來，這就是所謂的“進一步限定”。' l* G/ {) f% R$ y

* o* o) _5 b4 _  n7 {4 o8 R  z2 t/ Q

% U1 R% o% A& y5 m9 R5 Y+ Y
% m6 w% A- X: \) }
作者: 夕陽書生    時間: 2013-2-8 23:10
不怎么看的懂的啊
& ]* n2 u2 L# p$ X
作者: alphazhan    時間: 2013-2-16 19:51
這是在考驗我的英語啊
作者: 寂寞的雪人    時間: 2013-2-17 10:15
英語有差距
作者: 江蘇阿虎wyh    時間: 2013-4-1 12:02
英語好復雜啊。真沒有學明白啊。謝謝分享！



歡迎光臨 機械社區 (http://www.ytsybjq.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.5