composite GDT callout help

[TK_Fire]

slightly skewed example of part, front and side view below, it is a simple pawl.
not 100% sure what to do with this GDT call out... (i've got some guesses but i'll see what people say).

1. Can I just take dev from D and C or do i need to account for C being at an angle?

2. What are the composite parts looking for?

3. How do I handle the composites in pcdmis?


Print calls ANSI Y14.5M-1982


GDT.png

[Wes Cisco]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShamefulDe...restricted.gif

Um. . . so . . . yeah, like you know, I think maybe a word or two with whom is responsible for creating this. Or just Totally Kill it with Fire.

The middle segment is meaningless as it does not allow anything the bottom segment doesn't already have complete control over, and the fact that it omits the Ø symbol just increases the near certainty this was liberally seasoned with symbols by someone who's only measure of a job well done is does it look impressive enough.

ymmv

[TK_Fire]

yippee skippie! and of course this customer can't change the print EVER. can't be done. impossible.

[mtalla]

Looks like these are 3 separate GD&T callouts to me. Not composite. Should be no problem.

[Wes Cisco]

Good point. It is multiple single segments - not composite. Middle segment is still rubbish.

[AndersI]

So, which one of the three is datum A?

[bfire85]

Yep, not composite because there are three separate position symbols.

[Schlag]

Funny how the FONT is different on the bottom callout. They do a refinement at 1 time and instead of adjusting what was there someone just added another layer....

[William Johnson]

Funny how the FONT is different on the bottom callout. They do a refinement at 1 time and instead of adjusting what was there someone just added another layer....

They probably figured out the middle one was bogus. So the fix was to just add another GD&T callout. Problem solved. Oh wait how do you check that??????????

[Trevor McLaughlin]

There should be a separate section of this forum dedicated to collecting "problematic" GD&T callouts and prints. I'm sure it would receive a great many contributions! I find these useful teaching tools for both GD&T and PC-DMIS. The better you are at quickly spotting illegal callouts, the more efficient (and confident) you will be when using GD&T in PC-DMIS.

This topic is one of my biggest pet peeves!! Bad drawings that fail to properly communicate design/functional intent unnecessarily shift the burden onto quality inspectors. The guy at the end of the line should not have to waste his time guessing at what the designer "means" or how to report what is being asked. At this point in the process, the material has been ordered, the part has been setup, machined, deburred, etc. then dropped on the lap of the inspector. This needs to be cleared up on the front end of the process, not the back.

[A-machine-insp]

Maybe we should all flag your post until it gets done... CALLING FLAG KING KIRBSTER!!!!!!

[Schlag]

I actually work in ESTIMATING now ( insert negative comments here ... ) and I am all over BAD GD&T. I'm not sending that crap to the floor. I love to bring up to engineers that I have a Y14.5 certification from ASME and their callout isn't valid per standard. Its been rewarding at times !

[AndersI]

There should be a separate section of this forum dedicated to collecting "problematic" GD&T callouts and prints. I'm sure it would receive a great many contributions!

I'm afraid that section would overflow. I've got 'a couple' of examples after more than twenty years of customer support...

I find these useful teaching tools for both GD&T and PC-DMIS. The better you are at quickly spotting illegal callouts, the more efficient (and confident) you will be when using GD&T in PC-DMIS.

I agree, but carefully - it can be problematic using bad examples when teaching, afterwards the pupils remember what they have seen, but not if it was the correct one or the bad one.