select
navigate
switch tabs
Esc close

Best practices for dimensioning parallelism from a datum

0
G
1

Hi, how do you handle dimensioning parallelism for critical parts? I’m debating between using basic dimensions with profile tolerances vs. a combination of ± tolerance and parallelism control. What methods and standards do you rely on for ensuring accurate alignment? Any specific guidelines or best practices you follow in your workflow?

Solved by Joao Clemencio

Hi Gregory,

When it comes to dimensioning parallelism, both methods—using basic dimensions with profile tolerances and a combination of ± tolerance with parallelism control—have their place, but here's how I typically approach it:

Basic Dimensions with Profile Tolerances:
When to Use: Best for high-precision parts where you need tight control over form, orientation, and size in one go.
Why: Profile tolerances give you more comprehensive control, making sure everything aligns as it should without piling on separate tolerances for each feature.
Standards: I follow ASME Y14.5 for this, as it’s the gold standard in GD&T. It’s also aligned with ISO 1101 internationally.

± Tolerance with Parallelism Control:
When to Use: Ideal for simpler parts or when you’re mainly concerned with the size and basic alignment.
Why: It’s more straightforward and easier for teams familiar with traditional tolerancing methods. Plus, inspection can often be simpler with standard tools.
Standards: Still sticking with ASME Y14.5, but ISO 2768 is good if you’re working with general tolerances.

If precision is critical and you’re dealing with complex geometry, go with basic dimensions + profile tolerances. For simpler parts, ± tolerance with parallelism control should work fine and might save time and effort.

Hope this helps! Let me know if you need more details or have other questions!

    • G

      Hi, how do you handle dimensioning parallelism for critical parts? I’m debating between using basic dimensions with profile tolerances vs. a combination of ± tolerance and parallelism control. What methods and standards do you rely on for ensuring accurate alignment? Any specific guidelines or best practices you follow in your workflow?

      0
    • Xometry Engineer

      Hi Gregory,

      When it comes to dimensioning parallelism, both methods—using basic dimensions with profile tolerances and a combination of ± tolerance with parallelism control—have their place, but here’s how I typically approach it:

      Basic Dimensions with Profile Tolerances:
      When to Use: Best for high-precision parts where you need tight control over form, orientation, and size in one go.
      Why: Profile tolerances give you more comprehensive control, making sure everything aligns as it should without piling on separate tolerances for each feature.
      Standards: I follow ASME Y14.5 for this, as it’s the gold standard in GD&T. It’s also aligned with ISO 1101 internationally.

      ± Tolerance with Parallelism Control:
      When to Use: Ideal for simpler parts or when you’re mainly concerned with the size and basic alignment.
      Why: It’s more straightforward and easier for teams familiar with traditional tolerancing methods. Plus, inspection can often be simpler with standard tools.
      Standards: Still sticking with ASME Y14.5, but ISO 2768 is good if you’re working with general tolerances.

      If precision is critical and you’re dealing with complex geometry, go with basic dimensions + profile tolerances. For simpler parts, ± tolerance with parallelism control should work fine and might save time and effort.

      Hope this helps! Let me know if you need more details or have other questions!

      0
      Reply
Best practices for dimensioning parallelism from a datum
Your information:




Suggested Topics

Topic
Replies
Views
Activity
Compact two-axis rotation without U-joints?
Hi all! I’m building a compact gimbal for a sensor head that needs to rotate around two perpendicular axes (pan and tilt). I’m trying to stay away from standard U-joints — they take up... read more
D
0
338
Aug 08
SLA wall thickness issue for microfluidic channels
Hi, I created a 3D design for a small microfluidic part using SLA (Clear Resin) with internal channels ~0.4 mm wide and wall thickness around 0.5 mm. The function relies on optical inspection through... read more
B
c
1
67
Jul 29
Embossed vs. engraved text for outdoor molded parts
Hi there, I need to add a part number and recycling symbol on the surface of molded parts in PP GF20 for outdoor use. I initially planned to use engraved text for aesthetic reasons,... read more
T
R
A
3
80
Aug 08
Minimum hole diameter vs sheet thickness 316L
Hello, I would like to produce a stainless steel 316L bracket, 3 mm thick, cut by fiber laser. I need to include several small holes for drainage and fastening, and I’ve heard there might... read more
F
A
3
104
Aug 01
Ejector pin placement near snap-fit
I’m working on a small injection-molded housing for an automotive sensor, using PA6 GF30. There are two snap-fit arms inside (cantilever type), about 2 mm-thick walls. I’m not sure where to place the ejector... read more
M
T
5
196
Jul 18