1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2" 3

[jmadd]

I hope this is the right forum for this question. My company is in the middle of a debate as to the proper way to call out material. Some engineers have asked for the 'PLATE, 1/2"' or 'TUBE, 4" X 2" X 1/4"' style, while others want the size located before the shape...

To my knowledge, there is no standard, but what is more common?

Thanks in advance for your input!

John

 

[ewh]

I've always used the noun first, followed by adjective(s). Much easier to sort that way.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[ewh]

I believe that method is in an ASME spec, but mine aren't available to discern which one at the moment.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[SteveMartin]

My recollection of spec matches ewh, but I also don't have a spec handy to look it up just at the moment.

For what it's worth our company spec calls out noun, adjective(s) order explicitly.

 

[MadMango]

I've always seen/used the "noun, adjective, adjective" nomenclature.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[MintJulep]

MIL-STD-100, chapter 300

http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/Military Standards/mil-std-100G.pdf

 

[KENAT]

It's also in ASME Y14.100 for those in the strictly commercial world.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[jmadd]

Thanks for the info - Where in ASME Y14.100 are you looking? I just took a quick look and didn't see it, but I didn't spend too long looking!

Thanks!

 

[KENAT]

Section 5 of the 2004 version.

Plus non mandatory Appendix C if you so choose.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ptruitt]

Everyone searches for parts in different ways. Many will do a sort on a column in a spreadsheet or database and hope that all of the screws or nuts or tubes group together. Using "noun, adjective, adjective" is user-friendly. Also, standardize on the terms. Don't allow scr and scw and screw and screws.

 

[fcsuper]

A good rule of thumb for names is to never abbreviate the noun/noun phrase, but use standard abbrevations for adjectives.

Also, putting the size (adj) before the name (noun) of the part doesn't make a lot of sense from an engineering perspective. 1/2" could be fore tubes, screws, plate, bar, etc.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[KENAT]

Actually, it's not just a rule of thumb, 14.100 says not to use abbreviations as the first term as I recall.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fcsuper]

Thank you for the confirmation, KENET.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[flash3780]

For machined parts, we rarely specify the size of the material on the detail drawings. However, for formed parts, it is important. Our methodology is as follows:
<Material Spec>, <Size> STK THK (<Descriptive Name>)
For example,
AMS5599, 1/2" STK THK (INCONEL 718)

The descriptive name is optional, but helps avoid confusion.

 

[ptruitt]

Your practice, Flash, might work well for your company and it might be the best approach for you. It does make me wonder, though, if your company over-uses acronyms. Acronyms makes it hard for new employees to come up to speed and sometimes generates a feeling of exclusivity where some folks are 'in the know' and others feel rejected. There may also be those who rarely see this information (such as bean counters) who will loose time trying to understand the terminology.

 

[flash3780]

It's not so much an acronym as an abbreviation. STK THK stands for "stock thickness" (I think it's one of the standard ASME abbreviations, but I don't have the spec in front of me). It may be belts and suspenders, but it implies that you default to the tolerances in the material specification.
As for not specifying stock material thicknesses for machined parts, I believe that this is the best practice. The manufacturer (being knowledgeable about manufacturing) may wish to use a particular size of stock material for reasons important to the machining process, but unimportant to the functionality of the part.

 

[ptruitt]

I was just referring to AMS5599. I think many folks would suggest:

STEEL, 1/2" STK THK, AMS5599

I am a Standards violator, myself. I dislike ALL CAPS and would go with:

Steel, 1/2" Stk Thk, AMS5599

 

[flash3780]

Eh... standards are important. There's no ambiguity about AMS5599. As far as the bean counters go, it's important to them as well (AMS certified materials generally cost more).

I've seen many drawings that only specify CRES or 300 SERIES SS, but if you're dealing with production parts, consistency matters; you want to be darn sure about your material properties if you're making 100,000 widgets. Hence, if I'm checking a drawing, the material spec should be on there (at very least).

 

[fcsuper]

In my material note, I usually state the material and condition/temper, then state the standard to be applied.

MATERIAL: 5052-H32 AL PER UNS A95052.

We don't have raw material in house, so I don't know how that would apply to naming a stock as its own item (standard first vs. general name and then standard)

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper