Thank you for helping me validate that original question. I am just looking for enough validation in simple calcs to ensure I don't need to dig further into this. The bolts can be consumed after the test for all I care.
Orange component is a titanium alloy so it's plenty strong and my fixture...
I agree with everything you stated, and I don't have to use the provided part features, but this is the only feature on this entire part for fastening. I could develop a fixture that clamps onto the customers part, but then I risk damaging/marring it up.
The customer part is a titanium alloy...
I pressure test customer components in the aerospace industry. This test is just to validate a seal (not related to this interface I'm showing). The actual usage of this circumferential bolt pattern is unknown to me, and the pressurization of this part doesn't depict the real use case of this...
I didn't include all the details of the design because it didn't really seem pertinent to my question. There's going to be an o-ring sealing the two parts.
I'm forced in using the orange part with a circumferential bolt pattern and it is not my design. I'm only here asking this question because...
Yea I'm seeing that now.. I'm not using a typical friction joint here and realize the bolts are just being put in bending. And I agree that the shims really aren't going to be doing much for me except reducing any play that may be present.
Thanks for the advice (y)
EDIT:
I've attached a rough...
For fastener shear strength I'm using Grade 8 bolts, so 60% of it's tensile strength which is 90ksi.
Not sure how to go about the part bearing strengths. From what I understand, I would need to consider failure of the bolt and failure of the plates.
For failure of the bolt I can use a simple...
I'm designing a part that will attach to a circumferential bolt pattern, with threaded holes on the mating component. In my attached picture below, the blue components is my part that will have thru holes, the orange component is the mating component with threaded holes, and the grey component...
Appreciate all of your feedback. I agree that the 39 dia as well as the 36.4 dia shouldn't be basic.. their size really doesn't matter for my application. The only critical part is that shown in Detail D. The Chain line controlling the major dia can also have a pretty loose tolerance by intent...
Ok so if I go ahead and use a chain line, how can I best specify the rest of the diameter to have a looser tolerance? Just show that in another view? Attached is what I currently have (I've increased my limited length to 0.875):
Have a tight tolerance I need to hold on the ID and OD of a part, but it's only over a 1/2" section. What's the cleanest and most proper way to notate this?
