机械必威体育网址

标题:[2C] 一个老美的贴子：关于垂直度 [打印本页]
作者:十年一梦 时间:2012-3-10 00:29
标题:[2C] 一个老美的贴子：关于垂直度
这是一个美国机械必威APP精装版下载关于垂直度的贴子，地址： http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=317827
. [, g8 m& o; j6 \8 ? 7 K3 Z3 h" o' m5 n: B0 r
很不错的一个必威APP精装版下载，大家可以注册一个网名，参与讨论。 x2 M) b1 F# [. R

" O/ o4 J, J4 Q" K7 q8 _6 a 2 `8 H" B6 N+ i! W& M
5 R, |; }/ U$ I" M9 S& U
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 12:53
, o5 e: X$ v) [/ c

% K, m& }9 Z! q
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?/ S: \! G6 C7 g% e; \2 L+ u x( S
' i) p5 d) a9 x' d" Q
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:033 Z. C" O( B# g/ z0 I1 D1 L* z
No, it is sufficient by itself.0 o, f# o* j+ H5 [+ S! O# R; d
9 ^: P; Z& G4 ^- @9 \+ H
It MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.
/ m) [" L4 P8 X# L0 o
) b" w i1 P$ {

2 W) f1 s( r( ]! Z X ' u- p$ \2 K7 {5 y, \, B' i7 _
powerhound(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:42
1 K; r! ?2 c* o
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled.
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419 ) v( Q" {# i- P
Engineering Technician / b; b3 m8 h& e
Inventor 2010
: u" e3 S! l6 ZMastercam X5
( O f2 b1 M2 u5 W# vSmartcam 11.1
9 D6 `: F* I2 ?/ f1 o* }SSG, U.S. Army ' e" t! A1 S4 U' P
Taji, Iraq OIF II
) T& A" R1 c* A/ C/ n7 y

' \' M( K, ^0 y$ h) @% ]0 N) l : d! n( ]$ @: D# f* g7 [
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 13:56
0 h: B+ d- s. O5 f
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic?
: Z; o) O4 u4 O: }8 K2 J* D9 |- o

' e/ H7 h: S \6 m! W/ i$ _6 U h7 d # j) v+ W3 e2 P- }5 p: ~0 m0 b5 a
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 14:17% A& k: n) z2 ]4 l( ]5 C: k
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism.
4 V; v* |+ \5 ^; k- D" QEven in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance.2 \- V7 u" V! G9 j0 ^! \/ M$ w
If I don't understand something, please provide a picture.1 @& m+ U+ h; j/ A& T! |2 X( Y

+ w9 J" [* {* n+ G% ]

. m6 h- Q: L( |8 }; \* [+ H ; t% B! H- F( z D8 o$ U
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:35
' Q* o' w. `+ 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.
. C% \9 S: ~" c* B# ]! n7 r, t
. W) c' y1 t+ h) U" HYou 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.
8 W) g" q& M7 r |6 u( y5 s) L- _: Q } _" V) n6 k* 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.
John-Paul Belanger $ l: X$ N. @) z* e4 N
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
* s! M7 i9 T E$ oGeometric Learning Systems
2 c4 O8 D* Z+ Z: k+ O. j http://www.gdtseminars.com
7 e7 q! r( U) E8 P

# l% t: {+ |7 R! o6 k5 a
2 L- U; _5 h% T7 F9 i
dgallup(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:38
+ [& Y9 H+ a a8 ]* }
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.
----------------------------------------
" l' U7 P+ `' ?! I l# q2 ]
+ a; U0 l/ w9 D5 x2 e+ CThe 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 D0 n! A1 W9 c- V( J
5 N: w* E x) n7 N$ j
r5 D! C, J5 k; ?/ l) k
5 t! Q3 s- P% i. ^- }
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 15:09
2 L) ^5 H; j5 K: N
metaldork,4 x' T5 ?% H- ~& |
' M/ h# k, a2 G2 M. x3 T
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.
& q- \9 R" z Y& w& n D4 D
1 B: { s5 N7 h7 Y) Jdgallup,. o$ f9 z1 [, |1 ?( H5 J8 E8 J2 e

3 k4 s$ w: f* j( _! p4 hIn 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
9 j: ?* r8 Z& g$ X, |. N% \1 e4 F1 S 6 q% v2 ]+ o( g! @* f0 r6 q$ P
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
/ {& D; s' [& h& N _% ^4 _9 t www.axymetrix.ca

) N% ~. N c% R; g5 ^

! d [1 o. d2 S' e, w8 Q3 _
$ W" O2 H9 r, t4 q* t# J
pmarc(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:13
C9 p b) m/ U3 H/ N7 f. R7 L
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.* W- c4 g. N: Z% P+ r
6 Q; U$ ]) o+ X5 k# T
dgallup,
" ^/ c; Y% ]& D3 X' d0 k9 l$ q3 O" IYou said:"The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."
! N0 s9 i9 s" [; ?3 xI 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).; A2 R V( \! u! i" W: N+ @
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).
% F, j3 q9 C6 L4 [: p

# i! [% `+ a! T 8 C- x A$ O7 j0 @, D/ A2 f
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:57) _) c2 |1 ~7 ~% t0 e
Evan,
# [! g' B" H1 \Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?
& w; ]' P; J' C0 L+ H( q
1 F. G9 D1 V0 ~ J
, |% o. ]$ k+ i$ u/ c# A) N
3 m4 r, z6 d- {" ^$ v
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 16:39
( N- s7 e: d5 ]
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 c% b: o& h7 N- R4 ]5 A8 X
5 T- `- O& j- vSo there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.
$ F: Z4 W( O- m, p5 o: t N& H \/ J% B: z- _
Sorry for jumping in, Evan. Feel free to modify my explanation
John-Paul Belanger z# F4 g' ]( A
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional 8 V; h) k& V; y, R" `
Geometric Learning Systems
; y# _; [6 r; m5 D: e7 t http://www.gdtseminars.com
* G! u( b5 {' q+ Y! ^
! [' p+ f) @# ? O# Z$ E; @

; q( F7 N* F' i2 E4 w
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 17:54# g* S0 v& O X* q% O Q6 W( j; H2 h
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?"
' C$ v/ {) |7 L, y3 {
6 e- `; p& h. |5 x
CH,( o% g8 j/ {; n6 d
0 P" v/ f0 Y0 V( F( U( v' ~
Quick answer, yes. But of course there's more to it.
0 k$ Y X3 X2 S8 H3 r" b% F: _$ V8 L3 a& o0 [# x
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.9 F1 w, P8 p# J `/ I$ _
# W- F' N$ Q# {6 j* M" c
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.T. s% E, _$ e# p; g) H6 X9 g2 Z5 u
( y% D: v' u" S1 r- U1 \
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
& t: m- }) p% |5 w Z T# C- C / B4 K0 \1 x7 x b2 V5 ]
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
8 ]' s6 W. ]6 q- h' k www.axymetrix.ca

+ S1 Q+ @+ ^1 U @

6 V4 N8 u4 p. |$ R& Q
3 ~6 h" W' o) u" }( w2 ^9 j
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 6:32
. P6 ]) |4 h; r1 Q
Thank you Evan,
! `$ G! }# N& v# uAppreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays.+ h: z7 i: I3 x! Z$ T) ?
Unfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation:3 U- R- e. l# F& d" G7 a3 q% ]8 D
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.
. G/ m+ u o% X2 I& NWould you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated)' }3 t* A X( g2 C& J
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).
5 X! g( @# X" m% |, G' b' h2 n, u- p6 F: H, O5 v
Joan-Paul,
( o' x0 M# ]; |Your argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry)6 B) }. P* X" Y0 J
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?
& g1 Z. v8 I; ^& X! s _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 t+ W: t! {2 s# c/ R' X! aSo 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.! ?0 ~- }& Q$ e y @8 `6 e

, `7 a" |, u7 a, k- i
* i( ~8 Z1 i* E5 S% o9 I0 A: t
% L- y5 c9 G* w' C: o0 T: T
Belanger(Automotive) 9 Mar 12 7:03
7 {# [- @) W( ?
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.)
1 R' [* G- o# U
# o* r- E* ]6 g' O"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."
5 R6 k( y: ^6 S$ @. y4 [9 h8 K5 ~* H# w
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 u, }5 W% O* v+ [
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
. Q# c, V1 k; t/ l7 NGeometric Learning Systems 2 d5 A7 _( R5 b7 y" Z Y
http://www.gdtseminars.com
2 {* c9 v) R0 c. t% ?
. X6 \3 g, J' Q8 A& S6 J

: B1 u7 R9 w+ P+ w" f5 [. x7 {
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 7:54
) R7 E& C+ u9 g1 ^, |6 X8 p) `
8 Q! @# C* Q t$ Z+ v% S

: W" }4 Q2 ]5 ?7 }# X/ kThank you JP, we are getting somewhere.
$ L, m/ c: a5 Q) y2 {5 x: |/ ]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?
! V1 @1 H6 V3 m1 c* V) M9 d- D7 JYou 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.. E# j5 _. |- a6 W; U
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.
/ J6 v& Y% w' l: ?6 ZSo, 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".
: a- a' J3 C: o! f' |; T
- |! s+ U3 F6 R: X o3 @! q- B9 S# {, V
' h1 E" W3 O# r

; x3 ]+ N# j( I( V, ^/ v
pmarc(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 8:57% L. M d, ]2 h. G2 I. l
Apologies for jumping into main topic.! _/ u' i0 Y) |8 ?* x
Can you have a look at attached picture?: T- ^, a& S5 ]( I1 x' ]! A
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a7879b3a-d0d7-459f-b9ac-829eb08891da&file=surf_perpendicularity.JPG, X# K7 Z' b5 F$ T
How big can those perpendicularity tolerance values be, assuming they both have to be equal? Is there any limit or not? Thanks.
! g0 F1 d' O; h* B- j3 {2 \
- j0 q) d" M& C) u8 c) |
& D, x+ T' q* n
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 9:150 `' c6 o' x, x \
I believe it is acceptable to use a space between to pins say as a feature of size, right?
# t) @$ Z4 t1 XFrank! f( k6 `4 s$ h" c5 N- J% w @0 k

, ?3 [$ b- \0 c: w0 Q+ P
+ `0 ?8 v. P( N7 z! P
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 9:29
& I" _) l1 g3 r$ a4 {: i' ?; |
Frank,: o5 l( @7 q6 [( P: k6 U o
Yes, but it will make them more ambiguous, than 2 FOS with position requirement, right?; T8 f5 C. @- K/ [# r% _
- j3 [3 s+ b( x0 ]& \" m4 }
pmarc,
; B2 G- N3 v/ ^1 \, s( mWhat do YOU think?
$ [5 A" {& X& t
  • http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=83017c19-26f6-45c9-8d71-70, Z0 \' Q5 ~' u* ?4 t; [
) I6 u1 W( q# t2 `. k

1 X0 m& e7 G7 f, Q; ^$ g0 `0 ? 1 Y C" X' e+ G; K6 r+ J) _
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:03
: b) _8 J. ?' s, q1 ?/ M% x ?
pmark,7 e* A# V" w& t' |( Y6 o- i
You are a genius - I think this is exactly what OP was asking: do you use basic dimension to control perpendicularity of parallel elements.4 \& J8 k; F5 u- i9 n3 E7 ?
I would use basic dimension with profile to control the whole contraption. That will also make it less ambiguous.
5 R3 Z* I2 l3 j. b' ]* H! V0 b8 q/ P+ }( y8 k: C) }' k

' Q. J M7 ~- p0 {+ l0 r& _7 ~
3 k1 p% l! E# W$ \9 H$ H. g
pmarc(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:04
( e2 o. ~' O8 N4 I* F
CH,
4 @6 A. `! p R# @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?
% W0 c. ^9 R' t! N6 F8 C, _

. f% j4 ^$ }; w8 C: i 5 j ?& k# A7 @" N7 n
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 10:20
1 L B7 T3 A( |$ n9 A0 `
Sure ideally all should be controlled, that is right out of the book. Frank2 c0 y# X+ ]1 r; x% x- e" p+ W! g2 M
/ A: v" u; y, ?2 b" M, n, [

- n" U6 N+ R$ }* K1 |5 r; s) F3 s
4 @0 Z; e b( N2 f
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:22; c4 D& U6 T q
Actually both (or all three?).0 T7 J7 Z' |7 D9 X
I feel like using direct dimensioning may create ambiguity here. There is a reason ISO calls it "two-point dimension".1 q: U# N7 F0 Z9 d$ }7 p
(See my post about using Profile)
! A: N& b* C8 b3 i% ]

8 k/ @0 ?" {8 P
2 I3 X" f9 m1 t% d( \/ W
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:36
" z6 ]. i. s! N8 I/ w* y$ ~+ @
Frank,+ Q# [6 X! S9 L% b7 W; K# I
Off-topic, but since you brought it up; have you ever seen round hole dimensioned to the edge rather than center?5 M5 t( c4 H, @0 _
I did, I was even forced to do it myself, I still don't like it." e1 L P b, K2 s3 H7 t

: u9 k1 k/ r3 X: U: p; { u% m
3 m2 s/ E7 o# t# l+ F V
+ w# B! B( n% X- o- ^+ W
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 10:55" Y% q& o. U! t; q5 O
CH,
0 U1 w2 I# l# z4 M& I( Z2 rAre you kidding? I cut my teeth on that. It is what I was looking to GD&T to help me escape from. ;)
) H6 l2 M' k; [9 G) F, y) xThis 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.
R4 g1 P5 ]" s* C1 G3 @Frank
6 W$ o0 x S5 P
7 s( _* o5 S( b* t- H! l; v

% a. S& {$ ^$ P/ d- c* m' B" X3 R; L: o2 ~$ R
 9 {; D4 s9 i8 K# K( A: _
作者:wangqunfeng1979 时间:2012-3-10 09:47
不错的网站，值得学习，希望大家多去美国网站看看
作者:老屈 时间:2012-3-10 09:57
感谢楼主呀，之前我上的另一个必威APP精装版下载的，笔记本一换找不到了。
作者:机械神话 时间:2012-3-10 10:19
1楼是沙发，但他是明白人，2楼答对了一半，3楼是楼主的追加解释，4楼答非所问，但毕竟是沙发，水平开始展现，5楼正解。至此，沙发主导了讨论。我的疑问是，他们讨论，怎么不用google查一下perpendicularity的定义？
9 I+ m @9 g; |
8 l9 _1 K& ]0 t+ w6 d5 F7 _楼主继续这样的帖子。学习了。
作者:蒋澄灿 时间:2012-3-10 10:24
纠结，{:soso_e117:}，不怎么看的懂的啊
5 e* x$ x4 K8 c' N
作者:datafield 时间:2012-6-18 10:06
http://www.eng-tips.com/
% _9 e6 x0 r1 N2 M这个网站，几年前我有注册过，可是现在老是“该网页无法访问”，别人有这样的情况吗？
作者:steven1977 时间:2012-6-19 10:47
很有趣的帖子
作者:dong_huike 时间:2012-11-18 14:46
感谢楼主提供这个网址；
作者:夕阳书生 时间:2012-12-24 17:34
纠结，，不怎么看的懂的啊 : E: e2 J7 D, k4 ?7 ?
, W- B/ Q% z4 C; q0 J
作者:梦里寻花 时间:2012-12-25 15:03
网站打不开，什么情况？？
作者:wsxm82 时间:2012-12-25 16:54
打不开，楼主给个主页网址吧，多谢！
作者:一休哥一 时间:2012-12-26 11:39
看不懂里面的内容{:soso_e135:}
作者:小杨XG 时间:2012-12-26 22:35
英语不好
作者:王树大 时间:2012-12-27 09:56
强烈要求翻译，不是电脑软件翻译的，最好是专业人员给翻译一下、
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-4 00:14
本帖最后由 datafield 于 2013-2-4 00:40 编辑
# _0 P7 E. s8 R5 |1 P 3 d- M" n1 j1 A
我先占座，有空再来一点一点翻译。
4 n& k T- o R; G+ }（另外，这个网站我老是进不了。） : V$ |6 @% Y0 |: g# `

# G6 V, H& ^1 L2 o# {+ A
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 12:533 _" `, b, K9 s7 @& e

1 x2 N& n( z) g; J. j
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?. T# ]) S$ {9 p N2 D% v$ t
哪位可以帮忙介绍一下，垂直度要求，是否须与理论尺寸相关联？或者说，垂直度的公差带，是否以理论尺寸为中心？0 K. p5 Y+ W1 O4 E; ~- n4 @" o5 L5 ?

2 f1 p D& [8 s8 r
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:03
1 b) Z* G& J& x0 {7 f+ [
No, it is sufficient by itself.
s ]* f: u6 l不，垂直度本身已经够了。' e+ K5 F4 `/ u/ b3 M4 { i

! E/ t8 F, |4 Y9 w# x2 J* XIt MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.0 ~$ _, t1 ]1 v+ d0 w
当然，在定义位置的情况下，也可以与理论尺寸联合使用。8 E/ g* I/ g$ [" h* C# j

2 k# H1 P0 \2 Q. C- f

* q6 R0 J& n4 ]% x3 e2 q) x X
* W; T) I& n3 Z1 U8 B. H+ b
powerhound(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:424 @) ]5 K/ M" O1 ]* H' O/ I f
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled. 不，公差带随着其控制的形体而移动。' j4 l. u' c: ^$ r

" D! H- e; Q1 y3 K; X1 f7 }/ K
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419 * R1 S1 n# C. ?( D) `( W2 h' N
Engineering Technician / H/ L. ~! j5 Y; K0 D `, t
Inventor 2010
# u: G6 b: L6 ]- n/ nMastercam X5
( c. Q( |' z+ I3 P$ l2 eSmartcam 11.1 1 Z7 ] h! k$ v7 P9 g" g3 D
SSG, U.S. Army
' I; X3 ]# U5 c) b9 uTaji, Iraq OIF II

% h2 A3 S8 T9 k2 D, i- d

5 b" p7 \- S; }
U4 W# S( y$ @" ^+ x
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 13:561 _8 W7 [" {$ l/ G7 ^& ?& ]
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic?- t9 ]. R- H4 R5 m. F, C2 S" D
平面从互相平行的另一个面来定义尺寸……会要求用垂直度来控制尺寸吗？若是，尺寸要为理论尺寸吗？
) E6 u& {3 J- y
& l( J {" y( ?
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 14:17* N% M- a1 V6 s2 I* T, ]- W
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism. 垂直度与平行度，是不一样的。
# ? G- L$ n- ^$ ^, @0 qEven in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance. 就算是平行度，尺寸也可以标明公差；平行度将进一步限定公差。
7 X2 G3 r4 j6 n) W {6 vIf I don't understand something, please provide a picture. 如果不太明白，请给图示意。
9 m; y2 N! B- t9 T, f& c+ ]# }# ? s" |
3 q% H J0 c* s1 s$ [4 T
: {- L# E' \& R" p1 m* C
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:35
; w! ^% j9 u# D* c. i% b
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，垂直度有一个默认的基本前提，即：与基准的90度关系。这不是你所想的，但我有义务得先申明一下。
& l r: u& B# n8 j, `& R, F3 l" w: P' ?; t6 e
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. 你问的是垂直度公差带的位置。这与理论尺寸无关。垂直度公差带的位置，可以在其它约束里自由移动，如果有约束的话。, d D6 k/ M* O. l- V

; v$ i) h: m: @* }5 y, K* qIOW, 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，平行平面的距离，不受垂直度控制，而受控于其它因素，比如+/-。垂直度不会扩大它；垂直度必须在此范围内。
2 J; M$ ^1 n* z7 f# p8 ?! m+ N _9 M' |) ], R. x3 Z# }/ t+ j9 I$ f
John-Paul Belanger - E" @- C$ x w- Q4 [1 D
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
' @* B0 x* C9 b- p' O9 TGeometric Learning Systems
1 H" B4 Z" x* P+ d http://www.gdtseminars.com
9 Q3 n# F. J6 e, f' j

# I [- U3 a) s0 L- {* A
" m! P. y8 b m/ W. x
dgallup(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:382 R4 i/ k* D8 t) R
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. 某个面，可以从与其平行的另一个面来标注尺寸来定义距离，同时，可以标注垂直度（基准与此两面都垂直）。尺寸，按包容原则来控制位置。垂直度公差，必须小于尺寸公差，通常为尺寸公差的一半或更少。
----------------------------------------
2 o: `) c5 k! T" `% F- q 6 c; M) A } O% k
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.
' c/ F: d* q! V# s/ @. k9 x
% G) p H- v! M& e

4 U. E$ x9 M# E I v0 z- H7 k) V' L8 y7 _5 A& R
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 15:09
; B5 W4 [' {, y3 o& ]: S: i
metaldork,
! I8 k' J' V: [' ?: l. h9 t) Z* w0 t3 m8 K2 z
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.　我认为，垂直度公差带，是可以自由移动的——它的位置，不受任何约束。故，垂直度公差带，总是与被测形体的线性尺寸（理论尺寸或直接标注公差的尺寸）相互独立的。
9 Q! L" k, i& o. E
% \- C. i2 x; o. D6 g" cdgallup,' ~; t0 l5 D, J+ P
2 o+ g( ]% X0 z' R a0 X! h
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 Janeshewski
9 n- H% j# O4 E$ O$ V / L" ~- y6 K E8 d2 m! I" [
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
, [. P% t4 i; P0 n6 Q www.axymetrix.ca
) b5 t1 o2 f) _2 c
( F t/ |3 x% M8 @, `( y

* [- _; C$ P7 [9 X7 ?3 y
pmarc(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:13) X. x4 L+ }6 e/ K6 Z
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.; Z T" [% u" T2 Y: d

. q' c! e* m) Kdgallup,
! [. P& b1 M& }( T9 g/ o4 s+ h" o, rYou said:"The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."
6 c8 a% k* s% i3 S( s, C& G/ C+ |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).
! j5 X9 _! q& K5 E( H4 `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).
1 L/ j- u- |: I( m$ N" v

% B6 A3 W( v; L- I" K8 ?5 R) ^ ( Y* Y, k3 G& T- G- D: m
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:57
+ p8 d& p( m* |2 H9 \
Evan,6 G f% ~6 b/ M' ?* z! f
Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?& }; a/ h7 r2 J9 W @! x
$ o- ~& J: X- n7 ^' R
" F, ^3 a) e) I
! u# \( I: h$ X( z
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 16:39
Y* f8 f1 R5 D& l$ ^7 e* c
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.$ `+ B! W7 ~( l+ l3 ^

0 o/ }' m0 N' W$ h. y0 MSo there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.
Z' V& } l: l1 d& X1 g; d& y1 x4 N, L- d3 n: ~6 [* g" [* u
Sorry for jumping in, Evan. Feel free to modify my explanation
John-Paul Belanger
+ ~* w- }+ B6 _ m2 kCertified Sr. GD&T Professional
g- n8 h% ]; P! `! P( mGeometric Learning Systems 5 T8 P: t; k# H' v3 g, A- R# ?1 q
http://www.gdtseminars.com
9 S& H' v- Q4 |( q( A
1 J+ p$ k/ O& X" I# g R" b

- X# J8 Y2 G* @$ R
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 17:54) J4 u! \! D( } e+ t
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?"
* B! Y3 ] l$ h. W
, }" @' N' \/ ?1 s
CH,; ^( ?* {5 S; q9 _
% P. e5 M3 ?% V. s" H3 S
Quick answer, yes. But of course there's more to it.' Y2 N" l4 `6 V) x2 _. ~
- V& z' F# A: U. @! p- \6 _
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.
2 X( [' c3 \8 v& ]" {' o& t7 M2 t: d4 j' A4 |. F
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.) Y& i2 M0 n# c. j, |( ]( q2 y( }

' e/ c; t1 C1 F$ e( [ 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 " K' `8 ~, G9 G- F' d7 ?
4 s) L% |* P( C- Z( ?( {/ p6 E
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc. $ r' z+ Q: }& o2 F) ^1 u
www.axymetrix.ca

5 ]. R- M0 X) V+ |& o
( `1 b- I2 L* Y u6 M `$ _

6 W2 G& n6 O9 H" h
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 6:32
6 K) z1 O+ X& p2 r8 K
Thank you Evan,: c9 m5 Y7 t1 p9 `6 S. l5 p
Appreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays." T/ O$ e1 X2 E: H; B
Unfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation:& r3 e; S: e0 ^7 Q5 k3 E( P
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.' M4 t* q6 P( {% Y- k6 G
Would you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated)
4 | a5 {9 {, o0 XI 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).) `. N. V. d0 L8 z6 r9 @

+ Y5 t4 O7 {- s0 ~9 UJoan-Paul,
& h( `0 v2 J9 ~- C: m9 Q; @Your argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry)9 N, K" j5 d8 l# F* `: G
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?
" z! M. S3 u& d+ G/ }8 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?
6 I* N1 _; R8 }& fSo 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.
) M6 c; z5 w2 I& D* T
% \4 o8 T& j' Q. N1 S5 x

9 s3 L, C# t' D6 S# F ; o( R7 E6 Z% u; z
Belanger(Automotive) 9 Mar 12 7:03
( m0 x; w2 H: m2 W
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.)' |3 P0 s! W9 O8 I* L2 }; J3 g
' I; a2 ]# a, g0 V& a$ b3 @) X0 G
"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."
0 y9 k) n* }4 x, [( Y2 e2 a9 Y* {3 O0 y/ L7 d( |/ i" \
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
$ u @1 R7 M' M0 u: N/ VCertified Sr. GD&T Professional ( J* P9 z" j% }5 b1 @3 R
Geometric Learning Systems 8 N! X6 l- h/ s" L- j- ~2 k% m
http://www.gdtseminars.com

- K" _$ s2 f. @+ a
, H* i# l7 s1 T& C3 `/ [

$ a) A$ M3 ^9 f, g
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 7:54( n- Q- I* m+ z* X
7 } j, C! {! J3 k( m& [1 n

0 H2 x) ?, k+ b* |/ _Thank you JP, we are getting somewhere.
. v; Q8 C; p$ X3 E6 _, ^ KLet 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?1 U# ?# k# F$ \. e
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.
$ E: x8 c9 f. a) A8 U9 t# |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.
( @- ]2 `* m; d. G$ m* g4 |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".
* P9 S# l7 Q) e8 V" n4 E" \( T1 U2 `1 u" R( R
: ^% w6 w+ ]8 U& t- n" _

' h) H) j$ U o+ e% W# `
; P% r/ ^ z9 ]. p5 e
pmarc(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 8:574 T8 d$ R! Q# F# S) l
Apologies for jumping into main topic.
/ c; I6 ?/ \, \ nCan you have a look at attached picture?& \( l" ?+ u; L0 T) k* ~
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=a7879b3a-d0d7-459f-b9ac-829eb08891da&file=surf_perpendicularity.JPG
7 E6 A# F2 }( U* _) d4 V9 A2 ^How big can those perpendicularity tolerance values be, assuming they both have to be equal? Is there any limit or not? Thanks.7 v2 Z. o5 a/ e3 }% d# ?
7 X$ T( v+ ?5 Q0 K r) z5 W% X
( j3 k# a6 y: M9 j7 e/ S, k* A5 a+ P( ]
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 9:158 } S4 a$ J% E1 i5 z4 o
I believe it is acceptable to use a space between to pins say as a feature of size, right?; |. C0 G& j/ x( f' k6 l
Frank
, H' I" z: J) O) b I

& J* E3 W4 x$ e6 g3 t y: r; [7 L6 X 9 b. \, K; y( M) K: \5 M" ^
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 9:294 n" Y- t! K& q" J' _/ G4 O
Frank,4 y; a- D# p7 y# R& H
Yes, but it will make them more ambiguous, than 2 FOS with position requirement, right?
7 |, N& X6 n d0 _% }8 I$ W- B. X/ y& t; q" w2 d* c' A8 u8 z" |# R0 b
pmarc,
& K7 c# c4 ?4 E! DWhat do YOU think?
6 |" X. z' C1 t0 A/ ^: P
  • http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=83017c19-26f6-45c9-8d71-70
    ( T7 a! ?$ J' B7 D

0 a- i; q$ \3 Z9 A+ x4 U, q
: u$ Q3 n' b9 B4 F: \

) s5 h+ O! T q# ~, R8 Y6 p$ U1 N9 i5 O, B
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:03! y3 G8 ~0 R7 E% p
pmark,9 I, Q" g2 C' F1 C) N l5 z
You are a genius - I think this is exactly what OP was asking: do you use basic dimension to control perpendicularity of parallel elements.
6 v4 v- s L# ^% E5 q: i* c. XI would use basic dimension with profile to control the whole contraption. That will also make it less ambiguous.2 F' s3 J0 |3 c8 M+ e6 i

% r! P! L4 C, }* v" }9 R

$ Q7 R! T ~# S- k4 Z0 O , ~/ ^& e4 e7 g6 K2 `$ X
pmarc(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:04
! Y' W5 z7 T0 a& Q) R4 B. v
CH,
" ~! D5 h5 _0 \6 `. Q3 ]# NYou 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?- a3 x4 u0 S, x, [

. Z5 i1 _, J; l/ z1 R# ^* L- p. y3 l + E- `, I5 {% t% _
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 10:20
5 ^/ \3 m/ |2 }# w' T: A. `6 T
Sure ideally all should be controlled, that is right out of the book. Frank
' K4 r) S) d, \. w: D6 W+ w, i" R* `
/ r" t1 i3 D& H: x' m9 @* d1 r

( ]) M4 P* p& ~4 E$ i7 t
$ w& m- ]5 i) C
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:22
$ N" v$ k L' O6 e( n
Actually both (or all three?).
: t5 L( U2 p& wI feel like using direct dimensioning may create ambiguity here. There is a reason ISO calls it "two-point dimension".
; N8 O6 ~' Z/ X/ l( e6 S(See my post about using Profile)
4 D) h* T4 n" `6 e5 k

8 x9 F. B0 \4 s
8 h* [! C1 P) d
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 10:36
% G7 D# o. J# D7 M
Frank,- C" y2 x& m: Y/ N$ F
Off-topic, but since you brought it up; have you ever seen round hole dimensioned to the edge rather than center?4 e- [0 K5 i& h# x. L
I did, I was even forced to do it myself, I still don't like it.8 Q& A' `( b7 e$ M4 h( A
* f d4 `% |4 j+ t& L: a2 Y1 @: \
! C# Z: W$ H6 `4 L/ o
( I; {" a$ ~' K* ~2 B' e p
fsincox(Aerospace) 9 Mar 12 10:558 Q! w0 v: K+ k2 Q4 @
CH,8 x1 N* n! L* }) X& F
Are you kidding? I cut my teeth on that. It is what I was looking to GD&T to help me escape from. ;)
3 {$ y1 A( K/ e$ H, t* C$ IThis 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.
7 N5 ], T& A, B. F, iFrank
% G1 E: v' s" }: ]/ S
% N9 w. B' [2 m1 H9 J0 c
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-4 14:24
, z+ ^+ y" J; m2 u6 J
q! ^5 h4 E2 b3 q# Y
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 12:53& H+ J* ]9 T; k4 A

5 G3 s# I4 Q4 x% R! a6 ]
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?
, A/ O. \ T1 W, z$ D: u" g/ d$ w哪位可以帮忙介绍一下，垂直度要求，是否须与理论尺寸相关联？或者说，垂直度的公差带，是否以理论尺寸为中心？
! A2 J3 R6 {7 p& X% [
' E7 y- L2 q% S7 C% O) R+ Q8 ^& z
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:03
5 q+ c& a: f% j" t! A! E
No, it is sufficient by itself.( S0 S* |* t' I- r+ {! l& H4 I
不，垂直度本身已经够了。
4 y, ]( p% w6 K- X$ M1 u! e( d- N# H
, E0 n8 p g8 X7 lIt MAY be used together with basic dimensions when used to refine the Position.0 ^/ w& Q2 M3 B: t+ }
当然，在定义位置的情况下，也可以与理论尺寸联合使用。9 x! v7 d& N: d7 V

" T F8 }% k+ A

9 @+ p* i5 I" G* c! y3 t: [) l, V2 a! B$ E/ L* E! D& _0 Q
powerhound(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 13:42
* _6 \9 c% Q* F8 |9 o
No, the tolerance zone moves with the feature being controlled. 不，公差带随着其控制的形体而移动。( ]0 c3 l6 {' k. b3 t2 P! P& D9 [
8 m5 J$ W @. w/ F( R
Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
& T# A, F" i" X% i, }+ NEngineering Technician : C" c3 {0 O0 o; i' Z: A8 W
Inventor 2010 : @. c' ?2 e3 m* {) C
Mastercam X5
N# w# \: R. ?. xSmartcam 11.1
5 l/ c# C/ ?. kSSG, U.S. Army 7 o% l1 O, k+ ?8 F; X. R! p t
Taji, Iraq OIF II

5 ?9 Q# g" i5 r' e, C2 @% {

6 D5 g8 x( ]' M5 E# m6 p/ e6 p
metaldork(Agricultural) 8 Mar 12 13:56
, k4 N. m* I' o8 u2 `9 i
The surface is dimensioned from a parallel surface ...would the perp callout control the dimension and if so should it be basic?" O5 t* B; L8 B1 y, n/ M/ r$ u
平面从互相平行的另一个面来定义尺寸……会要求用垂直度来控制尺寸吗？若是，尺寸要为理论尺寸吗？
+ V7 K o3 e; q* v V, T. `4 ~

3 j0 D% J9 J/ W5 S: N+ y& M" t
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 14:17
8 U4 |7 n3 B' ?5 ]
There is a difference between Perpendicularity and Parallelism. 垂直度与平行度，是不一样的。0 l `" i! Z: [* g7 ]- [
Even in case of Parallelism the dimension can be toleranced; the Parallelism will refine the tolerance. 就算是平行度，尺寸也可以标明公差；平行度将进一步限定公差。
. a( C4 u0 F( v5 t- @: BIf I don't understand something, please provide a picture. 如果不太明白，请给图示意。
% P* j/ p: z" m f
" j: C( W+ g- c* w% ^# Q; w+ k

6 v' Y2 X8 `' ] d: v( ]. j& I: p( ]4 ` ^1 A: Z" q
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:35
, T+ [6 m$ ^1 t
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，垂直度有一个默认的基本前提，即：与基准的90度关系。这不是你所想的，但我有义务得先申明一下。. X$ u/ P- X6 E+ q: ?0 E5 W
9 o- r$ C8 `9 z. z8 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. 你问的是垂直度公差带的位置。这与理论尺寸无关。垂直度公差带的位置，可以在其它约束里自由移动，如果有约束的话。
3 @: y; i- H( e5 ~; m* s5 Z2 [- p
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，平行平面的距离，不受垂直度控制，而受控于其它因素，比如+/-。垂直度不会扩大它；垂直度必须在此范围内。, u4 L: F2 m2 @

$ }- ~5 S( ~* I
John-Paul Belanger
+ ?$ l* H/ o9 F# g* ]4 CCertified Sr. GD&T Professional
6 t+ G/ H; v% I- r% y. z" T9 a; LGeometric Learning Systems 9 Y; k6 L- t9 ^# Q" Z
http://www.gdtseminars.com

{. U+ L& O- b/ d

1 O' V7 b+ F. `+ B
7 f6 S5 }8 |" r/ e2 F1 i
dgallup(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 14:38
; j. P8 F! I9 f1 X% F0 J2 }
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. 某个面，可以从与其平行的另一个面来标注尺寸来定义距离，同时，可以标注垂直度（基准与此两面都垂直）。尺寸，按包容原则来控制位置。垂直度公差，必须小于尺寸公差，通常为尺寸公差的一半或更少。
----------------------------------------
. r3 M" s* {( o8 `" ?3 [ 2 g/ p+ D9 y+ h$ }* h. G$ ~) U
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.
, ~; ^% R, P- N
0 @. g8 C0 Y4 y, |' Q7 c9 E
1 e+ V# \3 g0 L& G9 ?" X" L7 [
, }/ ^( B( `* g
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 15:09- Y4 P4 J+ L% O5 ^0 k2 q# _
metaldork,+ g4 o% A- O) F- F& K

- @* s9 ^) B1 EThe 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.　我认为，垂直度公差带，是可以自由移动的——它的位置，不受任何约束。故，垂直度公差带，总是与被测形体的线性尺寸（理论尺寸或直接标注公差的尺寸）相互独立的。
3 u0 e& J9 k3 v2 o% c6 R2 i( [* g, G3 k" q. X% F. n% b8 G% m
dgallup,
" ]/ K9 l& S/ h% ^9 }
8 p& X2 }+ j' J2 L: @# 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，垂直度不会进一步限定任何其它公差。直接带公差标注的尺寸，不控制垂直度，故垂直度公差也不会进一步限定它。
Evan Janeshewski ! Q/ E$ j: W: [/ P
* v+ v( p) e& [' h- U
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
5 |: m) h8 q3 { www.axymetrix.ca
( D0 e4 i& I5 ^2 N

5 i! m4 O. Y( O) l; g
! H% Z# c: u1 G5 f
pmarc(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:13
E$ u# {1 h+ k& g9 F
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.
3 T, l7 w0 N. o1 G我顶J-P的观点，垂直度里唯一的理论尺寸，为与基准成90度，且通常因为这是一个默认隐含的前提，所以在图样上不必标出。
j' q0 s5 u. `0 s" I) T4 I* T. n. u7 ~+ U' W3 J- w
dgallup,2 M. F0 F9 D4 Q( u+ E% X8 u! e
You said:"The perpendicularity must be a refinement of the dimension tolerance, typically half or less."
; a0 ^ ~' U2 s" M9 O, l# O( vDgallup同学，你说“垂直度公差，必须小于尺寸公差，通常为尺寸公差的一半或更少。”
; B, \1 b/ J u( A) ZI 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).8 Q/ i! F0 {+ o# b0 `
我对此有看法。如果垂直度只应用于尺寸公差的单“侧”，其公差值，可为任意值（假设在图样上，未标明用以控制尺寸公差另一“侧”与基准的关系的角度公差）。& J7 Q( B, n" A- b `5 M5 K
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).
6 u6 G1 c- R6 n+ J( F5 a- c, b另一种例子是，尺寸两“侧”同时标注了垂直度公差。这样，我的观点是：这样垂直度的公差值，可以与尺寸公差值一样大（并非其之一半）。

! I! S- m' {5 x
. g- l l! t$ M" F0 G
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 8 Mar 12 15:57
0 ~# b! b0 ^- e+ @( l/ v
Evan,
1 I9 S6 h* V& ]7 Z! c2 w. tCould you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?
( b* ]# ^( G+ K) J0 J! A0 x9 C* y8 H0 l您能否解释一下：您相信垂直度公差带可以在线性尺寸/位置公差带之外“自由移动”吗？

/ y) a! f& m9 ]
# K1 s% e/ A; G6 Q
Belanger(Automotive) 8 Mar 12 16:39
% P% ]5 |; S/ F& g
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.
. T! D" u5 j+ a5 w楼上的，假设有个U形座，比如一种投篮用的那种架子。现在，把“U”的这两个竖直杆“l"同时向左边倾斜20度。那“U”宽度的尺寸还在范围之内吗？是的。那左边直杆与地面的垂直度还符合要求吗？非也。
2 o \3 a7 {# b7 \/ h; L
' ]' X0 c- @+ w# K2 c( A! H) R/ ySo there is no relationship between the tolerance number for the size across the posts and the tolerance number chosen for the perpendicularity.. ]% G0 ?& }" q( A7 u
故，两个直杆之间的宽度公差，与直杆的垂直度公差，没有关系。; } X! X- T2 Y0 G1 G& e! _- P
Sorry for jumping in, Evan. Feel free to modify my explanation
0 v2 B- B; t s% P3 n$ S( h3 k7 L抢楼了，不好意思。EVan，有啥子意见尽管说。& Z* P4 V8 x0 s8 P. \" `! |* h
John-Paul Belanger
" k. n# f+ {' m& V8 j; ? VCertified Sr. GD&T Professional
% U6 \6 \ R% {' A6 M* |* SGeometric Learning Systems
: o" h: i# f3 j, v* Q+ ~& Q0 [4 o: ^ http://www.gdtseminars.com

& w* E$ a h; {3 P2 ^; C

" [# W( g) [6 G! W2 Q2 w2 _0 E
& d1 n/ M/ T# \6 T" M! y2 P- _
axym(Industrial) 8 Mar 12 17:54
# h$ q Z, @' T. J
Quote (checkerhater):"Could you please clarify: Do you believe that perpendicularity tolerance zone can "freely translate" OUTSIDE of linear dimension /position tolerance zone?" 您能否解释一下：您相信垂直度公差带可以在线性尺寸/位置公差带之外“自由移动”吗？

! Z4 r' L" F/ M* I( MCH,' \' m8 t( h3 l
- p! q* I# @# {7 f! b; w3 {
Quick answer, yes. But of course there's more to it. 简单说：行。不过当然不止这些。4 H" j' s! O3 A7 K

7 T% S( }& K2 v- _7 V! nIf 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. 从纯粹的机械理论方面来讨论公差带的话，我经常这样做，那么垂直度公差带，可以在线性尺寸/位置公差带之外移动。
1 ^7 F- Y+ z F R, l5 t& s1 @. l$ j" ]$ Z
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. 当垂直度公差带部分走出位置公差带时，形体确实有可能会不符合位置公差要求。而当垂直度公差带完全超出位置公差带时，则肯定不符合位置公差要求了。但这是另一种考虑。. @ A% L: Z: K+ v! ^. c
) w) L9 [, j: r3 a
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. 我对这种情况的看法是：位置公差与垂直度公差，是互相独立的要求，可以独立验证。这是我唯一能理解它们的方式。某些GD&T的资料里，明确或隐含提出了方向公差带必须处于位置公差带之内， 但我觉得这过于简单了。对某工件来说，有可能其方向公差带超出位置公差带，但形体仍然同时符合两种公差要求。
Evan Janeshewski
- O7 G$ i9 l- {' f
$ z- j e7 p& W6 WAxymetrix Quality Engineering Inc. , ?5 m' `- Y L
www.axymetrix.ca

) m- U+ y) m8 b" x# a1 w- I8 {

9 S7 P# E# }: w: G8 ?8 |( m- E0 l0 O: t( Y8 {5 g
7 B3 q! |" z1 }8 s+ Z% I7 Y# x; O

$ R$ I- {) ^2 S
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-4 23:21

, {: f! o: r3 B 8 w% x$ ~0 v" Y3 Q9 k: ?. b
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 6:321 k# z% n0 p5 |
Thank you Evan, 谢谢Evan好人！& L$ z: ^- F3 b/ }" l- y
Appreciate straight "Yes" - rare thing nowadays. 感谢你直接回复“行”——现在难得的爽快。; P4 n+ \1 T% f8 v
Unfortunately I am not convinced. Imagine the hypothetical situation: 可惜我却还不太敢认同。我猜可能是这样的：
' F3 G( w8 B* D, q/ u, |' VYou 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. 你使用了某些测量设备来检测，发现某孔（或凸轴）的轴线，位于垂直度公差带里，但却超出位置度公差。
1 V* E3 {2 P: {. D8 q7 J* FWould you suggest the part to be accepted or rejected? (Another straight Yes or No will be appreciated) 那你会判定此被测工件，是接收，还是拒收呢？（可以再直接回“行”或“不行”，谢谢。）+ ]" V2 Y3 \# ~
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). 我个人觉得：你的位置度与垂直度公差带，至少要部分重叠。（这会导致一些有趣的状态，可能还没有相关资料，但不影响。）3 j( y8 A& ]* h) ^+ P- }
$ U4 _0 Y! s0 r6 N2 y) d
6 `# q- _ ]1 d8 F% e0 ^% q l
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-7 00:33

" Y- N/ a1 y& \+ BJoan-Paul,JP（琼-保罗）： 7 B5 h* F/ s. d- o5 Y
Your argument appears to be far stretched and borderline cheating (Sorry) . i8 a) A7 X! `# ^5 T! ~% R
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?你的回复，好像有点离题，有点不着边际扯谈了（对不起）。
9 p7 f' m* T( A( t' _- ?# [你自己说的“ 左边直杆与地面的垂直度还符合要求吗？非也。”所以，你所i讲的是“坏”的产品，一开始就不应接收。GD＆T的目的是阐述我们会接收的好的工件，是吧？ & y* `& h8 G( Q) J
) L. F! T. N1 O' g4 l ?* i; m) i3 p
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? 另一例子：“两杆之间距离的公差值”。多数人会认为“叉子”具两个形体尺寸，而不是一个。在两个孔状形体尺寸之间，有空间吗？ , k. v. o5 z" ~6 u; I- Z
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，你的论点基本上是：“如果我们按模棱两可的图来制造产品，那么公差之间会没有关系”。很抱歉，我不买这样的产品。
7 Z ]4 X% q3 h" D
\* a( u' k$ j$ t% j
! n6 h7 Z8 ?7 n) e3 m ! @& ^" j U2 p* T
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-7 00:43
; k a- g5 G7 H, e( w( j) R
) o v. D3 k* w/ s' X+ J5 V, Q) d
Belanger(Automotive) 9 Mar 12 7:03# ^5 u z; X) X4 }7 J7 r" F2 I' g# @' Y$ 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.)& O8 J( F T, X& n
CH同学，我不太明白你的意思。首件，肯定的，两杆之间的空间距离，是一个形体尺寸；但我不是指杆本身，我的意思应该是讨论面的垂直度（我只是用杆来打个比方。不好意思让人误解了）。6 d a' j4 E) P3 Q0 i3 t$ n$ H

6 }/ Q' m' U9 q; a# x" b. }- P2 Y% H. |"Is the post on the left within its perpendicularity tolerance to the ground? No."
' J6 W- b( K3 m7 ?“左边直杆与地面的垂直度还符合要求吗？非也。”# B* ]0 I/ j9 s: O' |4 u% x# J: Y
]. D( k9 a1 Y: A, e5 Z2 B! [
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.; p' V5 q( ^* @+ L7 N: k3 Z U7 v
我举这个例子，是因为许多人认为“尺寸会同时控制方向——实际上不是这样。在这里我换个方式澄清一下：两个原本都竖直的平面，会同时向同一个方向倾斜，但仍然还处于垂直度公差带内。这两平面之间距离，也会在范围之内。但，垂直度公差与距离公差，是没有关系的。: U# F8 J! E( b* I4 ?

0 G0 g) X7 H9 V6 U
John-Paul Belanger 6 S2 b8 q& P9 t1 Q$ h
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
; h( K: P* M, E! g ?Geometric Learning Systems
; _8 P. [% W$ m6 ~! U% ?; w d4 W5 S http://www.gdtseminars.com

6 Y; T* U8 W- X5 o; P8 X
/ W6 F# |- @7 f, A
* Q% N- c7 l$ t$ h, s
作者:datafield 时间:2013-2-7 17:47

$ G- A; m7 k* \% W5 z _
( x) @& `0 l! @: r1 c/ @
CheckerHater(Mechanical) 9 Mar 12 7:54! b! f0 f8 d8 S9 s6 ]
4 d, w6 l& ~, K4 k# k
Thank you JP, we are getting somewhere. 谢了JP同学，有点明白了。
% ~" e& l; z& U4 S) b9 I7 W' d( x( D% L
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?
) \) S" U5 ?4 J7 f) K比如，让垂直度附加FOS要求。若尺寸公差为0.001，垂直度公差为 .100。但它们都影响实效状态，是吗？现在，如果我们对实效状态添加位置度要求，情况会如何？2 `5 O: q9 }) s7 z& x2 e! ~0 Y
9 i/ E( a1 q' l6 y) C' R
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.
" P1 S4 y& ^% ?3 ~你看我从没说：垂直度要求会进一步限定尺寸公差。但，我还是认为：如果垂直度公差带超出位置公差带，就没有意义。垂直度公差带大于位置公差带，也没有意义。它可能是合理的想法。
: K7 U1 _5 T# \$ h- ^9 Z. n( i% k2 a
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.
4 o- Q: d4 i3 r当你给同一形体设定两个FCF，它们的要求都要达到（但不是同步要求）。如果垂直度公差为.100，而位置度公差为.010，其实这是位置要求间接控制垂直度，使得垂直度起不到作用。" D& e: h+ c" ^* [

2 n' ?6 L& u! S* C* ]$ gSo, 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".
" M6 U {2 [3 O' {1 _' k所以，当与位置公差一块使用时，仅当垂直度公差带小于位置度公差带，并且这两个公差带至少部分重叠时，垂直度公差才会起作用。在我看来，这就是所谓的“进一步限定”。
: m+ g8 ]! L* R8 U! d
7 D! N* A& P' i( M3 x" @
7 N8 R& m: u! n% ~& o
- N2 r# @" M- U s- |- E

; b+ O7 @3 L+ d: H0 h; z3 K0 Z8 _/ @3 x* I
作者:夕阳书生 时间:2013-2-8 23:10
不怎么看的懂的啊 / i& }6 ]) E7 k
作者:alphazhan 时间:2013-2-16 19:51
这是在考验我的英语啊
作者:寂寞的雪人 时间:2013-2-17 10:15
英语有差距
作者:江苏阿虎wyh 时间:2013-4-1 12:02
英语好复杂啊。真没有学明白啊。谢谢分享！



欢迎光临 机械必威体育网址 (//www.szfco.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.4