GD&T: Composite Profile With "Individually"

I made a mistake in using half of the .02 profile in the minimum wall calculation to the datum. The full profile should be used, not the .01 like I said in the video. Also, an all around symbol should be on the leader.
I discuss composite profile applied to a pattern, with an individual form and size requirement.
I show how the minimum gaps are calculated depending on what you are looking for.
This is based on a question from the ASME GDTP Senior Certification exam.

[@muscleweb]

Thanks Dean. I’ve been searching for a video that explains when both individual and composite control frames are used together, ultimately controlling the composite group of features in different datum directions with regards to tolerance. Well done and much appreciated.

[@Larry-kn1ij]

Hello Dean,
Thank you for putting this series of videos together. Very well done!
I have a question regarding tolerance for datum feature C.
It seems to me that since it is a datum feature, the profile tolerance for that feature would not be taken into account for the distance to the first square. Sitting in a functional gauge, aligning the part, A,B,C (3,2,1 method, all 6 degrees of freedom locked), the part would be resting against only one point of contact on datum feature simulator C, the "high point". From that high point, distance to first square would be evaluated based on feature control frames for square features only.
I believe the profile tolerance on datum feature C would be evaluated independently, preferably first. I believe it would be similar to a flatness form tolerance together with prependicularity to A and B. This would allow locations that are lower than the high point to get closer to the first square but would not affect the tolerance stack or play a role in functional evaluation.
I am not challenging. I only want to make sure I understand. There is a good chance I have it wrong.
Respectfully,

[@lisagutierrez8550]

Hi Dean, Thanks for the videos you do. They help alot in understanding. BUT I still have confusion. How would these dimensions be measured in Calypso? and what would the results look like?

[@abdi8583]

Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps I missed this in the standards but is there a way to only check form on a profile applied to a feature of size such as a slot?

[@abdi8583]

Actually nevermind. Dynamic profile is what would be used to decouple size and form

[@ntsclasses7702]

Thank you Dean..

[@RDeanOdell]

You’re very welcome!

[@fsfs-zc1bw]

Hi. Shouldn't the symbol "All Around" be added for the profile of holes?

[@yigitacar1549]

Hi , I like all vidoes which you created
I couldnt find the information about datum target usage. Is it posssible to explain when I will use point target, line target, surface target. I know these are especially for big sheet metal part,casting or forging part. I cant easly decide datum target elements.

[@carlosferraz2406]

Thanks for help us, I've a question about inspection, how can I do that in the Calypso? How does it work using profile features?

[@pawemarczak3022]

[5:55] Hi Dean, Are you sure that the amount of profile tolerance on datum feature C that needs to be taken into account in order to calculate the minimum gap between the hole and the datum feature C surface is .01 and not .02?

[@RDeanOdell]

Hi,
I see that datum plane as being developed from the high points of actual surface, because only half the profile can be used if it is also a referenced datum feature, I see .01” as the right amount to subtract from the total here.

[@pawemarczak3022]

@@RDeanOdell I agree that the datum plane C will be developed from the high points of the actual surface C, but before the datum gets established, the surface C may still have .02 error relative to A primary and B secondary.
For example, imagine this surface being out of perpendicular to A within .02. In that case (and actually in any case), the entire surface C will always be on the right side of the datum plane C in the main view of the drawing. This will result in the minimum distance of .94 (either at the top or bottom of the part).

[@RDeanOdell]

@@pawemarczak3022 thanks for the great input! I agree that there could be a .02 perpendicularity error with that surface in relation to datum A. My opinion is that that surface is part of the datum reference frame, and only .01 of that error would be allowable at inspection. I feel figure 11-21 from y14.5-2018 supports this.

[@pawemarczak3022]

​@@RDeanOdell Figure 11-21 shows a different tolerancing scheme. In that figure datum feature C is controlled with a general profile to A|B|C - so yes in that case half of the general profile tolerance value/zone is not usable. But in your example C is controlled to A|B only, therefore entire .02 lies on the right side of the datum plane and therefore .02 is the correct answer, in my opinion.

[@RDeanOdell]

@@pawemarczak3022 Hi, you win this one! I was incorrect about this. I’ll make a note in the description. Thank you for letting me know and engaging in some back and forth dialogue.