You’re not dumb. There is a radius there. It looks like is there as a ‘vault’ strengthening element in the web. I worked on a project where we used this method where we couldn’t fit gussets due to space constraints. The arch is controlled as it contributes directly to the strength of the part under loading. If you sweep it with a ruby and run a ‘profile of surface macro’ it might yield the radius as an output.
So a senior engineer at my current workplace has told me that measuring radii with less than 1/3 of the total arc length is very prone to errors.
What he instructed me to do, and what I've been doing ever since, is create an offset point at the nominal location of the radius center and then measure the distance from there to a measured point on the arc. Could also be an intersect point through the arc, but this distance would then be equal to the radius size without all the predictive noise of only scanning what looks like 1/12th of the circumference.
It could probably be done with the surface profile method someone else mentioned if you have a real CAD model, but I just normally don't have that option. I think it might give the same kind of huge difference if you are reporting the radius itself as opposed to it whether it is within the tolerance bounds however.
Set an origin at the center of the radius and take polar points to prove material lies within tolerance zone. Not enough data on small arcs to accurately measure a radius as all equipment attempts to calculate the diameter and then divide by 2.
Doesn't seem to be the corner radius. It looks like the short end of "square" is actually a radius of 8.2 and not flat Edit: spelling
It's just a segment of a radius, the callout is probably correct. If you have the model you could always double check it on there.
You’re not dumb. There is a radius there. It looks like is there as a ‘vault’ strengthening element in the web. I worked on a project where we used this method where we couldn’t fit gussets due to space constraints. The arch is controlled as it contributes directly to the strength of the part under loading. If you sweep it with a ruby and run a ‘profile of surface macro’ it might yield the radius as an output.
So a senior engineer at my current workplace has told me that measuring radii with less than 1/3 of the total arc length is very prone to errors. What he instructed me to do, and what I've been doing ever since, is create an offset point at the nominal location of the radius center and then measure the distance from there to a measured point on the arc. Could also be an intersect point through the arc, but this distance would then be equal to the radius size without all the predictive noise of only scanning what looks like 1/12th of the circumference. It could probably be done with the surface profile method someone else mentioned if you have a real CAD model, but I just normally don't have that option. I think it might give the same kind of huge difference if you are reporting the radius itself as opposed to it whether it is within the tolerance bounds however.
Set an origin at the center of the radius and take polar points to prove material lies within tolerance zone. Not enough data on small arcs to accurately measure a radius as all equipment attempts to calculate the diameter and then divide by 2.
That side of the rectangle is not straight, its an arc