Jump to content

ISO 5459 setting Form Datum


Recommended Posts

Good Morning Everyone,

I wanted to get everyone's opinion on the Form Datum ISO 5459. Do you keep it on or off? When should it be on and when should it be off?
When we took the training with Zeiss and even when I was on the phone with them for support, we were told that should be turned on as a rule of thumb. Zeiss recommends it to be on. 3033_2906ec54aa87071ceface4077e5c881c.png
One of the senior programmers at the company I'm at told us we should keep it off though. His reason was this:
"We don’t use ISO5459 here in SV because most of the time there is not a way for us to validate outages* because there is no way to constrain the part according to this standard with the tools that we have. Same goes for the OT on datums if there is any debris or erroneous scanning it is translated into the base alignment throwing out the rest of the part."

*By outage they mean out of spec.

What are your thoughts.

Thank you,
Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/13032-iso-5459-setting-form-datum/
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why you wouldn't want to use the ISO 5459 setting.

If you were placing the part on a granite table with stop, it would most likely get constrained natively per ISO5459.

In addition, when functionally testing parts, the OTE is how it would get tested according to.

Measuring using OTE is a choice that your company and your customer need to agree on. There are pros and cons to using it.

Please sign in to view this quote.

Can you explain why you think it should be on? That is the one thing I am having a hard time trying to fully understand so I to talk to the other programmers about turning it on.

The OTE I agree with keeping it off so that isn't much of an issue.
In my opinion, your senior programmer is probably more right than wrong. If what he says is correct, then turning it off "meets the needs of the business" more than turning it on.


For example, if it has been established that turning it on yields incorrect results due to dirty parts( as he claims) then it is entirely acceptable under ASME B89.7 to measure that parts in a way that is not according to Y14.5.

Remember guys, Y14.5 is a design standard and not a measurement standard.
IMO

ASME 14.5 was supposed to establish the Functional aspect of part dimensions.
Therefore a plane would function as OTE
The secondary and tertiary Datum would translate until it touched.
Holes(cylinders) would function as max inscribed pin diameter

I work with castings so this is unpopular when a caliper check doesn't agree with CMM report. It still represents the functional condition of the part but as deviations of form increase, so does the discrepancy.

Build two alignments with both methods to quantify the differences.

Please sign in to view this quote.


Sounds very reasonable to me.

Please sign in to view this quote.

If it has been established that you get incorrect results due to dirty parts, clean them. We saw night and day difference in our results when we started ultrasonic cleaning our parts before running them on the CMM.

Please sign in to view this quote.

I wouldn't say "for no reason". There are likely situations where two different parties get different results because they have some differences in how they measure or evaluate the measurement data. E.g., whether they clean the parts, how accurate their machine is, whether they adhere to ISO 5459, whether or not they use OTE for evaluation, etc., etc., etc.
Please remember that Form Datum setting only applies for position and profile when you break the alignment out to the individual datum features. If you leave it to the alignment of the feature it is not being applied.

Does not fix itself for already written programs if you turn it on. Have to go back in and re-enter the Datum Features for all GD&T characteristics to get it to update.

I would always use it and it is almost always a different result, sometimes better, sometimes worse. From my understanding always correct for ASME and ISO.
×
×
  • Create New...