[Ri...] Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 What is the difference between ASME and ISO for measuring Co-planner surfaces? Is Calypso using ISO over ASME? My current discussion/situation Please sign in to view this quote. CO-planner difference.jpg Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Not sure I understand. It's a single plane as far as Calypso is concerned, unless you're checking them as 4 different features, which it isn't. Should be profile, form only, to itself. I don't think there is any difference between ISO and ASME on that, but I could be wrong. Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110160 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ma...] Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Hi Rick, this is Mark Ensley from Zeiss Application Support. If your print calls out ASME 14.5 -2009 set up Calypso according to this attachment.Screen of how to set up Calypso to match ASME Y14.5 which is the same as the ISO5459.PNG Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110162 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 Mark Ensley Our CMM's have been set like suggested since installation. It is a debate of inspection methods between personnel over which method is right or wrong. ASME, ISO or manual layout. I was looking to understand if there is a difference between ASME and ISO methods. Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110164 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted January 6, 2019 Share Posted January 6, 2019 The standards all agree on this I believe but Calypso is not correct. The Profile to itself evaluation requires a nuanced way of looking at things and Calypso doesn't provide for that. According to the Standard Profile to itself is the same as Form so Flatness in this case will provide a correct answer according to the standard. Personally, I prefer Calypso's doubling of the greatest deviation, plus or minus material but that just me. I'm sure the old gents in Chicago have their reasons. Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110166 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 Im not seeing how flatness controls coplanar?Untitled.jpg Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110168 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Me...] Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Your first example has 4 surfaces defined as datum A. There are no datum references, which makes it form only, and a best fit of all 4 surfaces as 1 surface, which is basically what flatness does. 2 parallel lines as a boundary zone with the points fit within it. Your second picture, top half, references a feature called profile/parallel to Datum A, which is different, as A creates the tolerance zone orientation for the considered feature. Hope that made sense. Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110170 Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Ri...] Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Y14.5 2009 specifically states flatness does not apply to coplanar surfaces. That's why Profile is the necessary call. Link to comment https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/19594-co-planner-gdt/#findComment-110172 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in