ASME Standards for...

[cadfreak]

Per ASME Standard Y14.5M -1994, can you add the following note to the Drawing Title Block:

Interpret Drawing per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Y14.5M- 1994 Standard.


Also, what is the standard for notes: ?

NOTES:

or

NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.

 

[ewh]

1) Yes, it is actually recommended to call out ASME Y14.5-1994 if it pertains to your drawings. Many companies make it part of the drawing format.

2) Your choice, though I have seen "NOTES:" used most often.

 

[aardvarkdw]

"Unless otherwise specified" is just a way of allowing you to place a general note in that will apply to everything and then break that note somewhere else on the drawing without confusion. Anything you place in your "NOTES:" applies to everything in the drawing unless it is a flag note. By putting Unless otherwise specified, you can, for example, say that all dimensions are in INCHES except for the one that you have labeled as MM. Without "Unless otherwise specified", all of the dimensions would have to be in INCHES regardless that you say MM after one of the dims.

David

 

[ctopher]

To safe space, you only need "Interpret Drawing per ASME Y14.5M- 1994".
I have used "NOTES", but "NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED" has become more common.


Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-26-07)

 

[fcsuper]

I know the rule is to list the applicable standard on the drawing. However, read this thread:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=182045&page=1

It seems to me that it might not be advisable to list the current standard, but rather say something like, "Use current ASME standard to interpret this drawing". Or, say nothing at all, even.

On topic now: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED is recommended, per aardvarkdw's comment.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[ctopher]

I'm used to doing military projects ... where listing the spec is required. Otherwise, every company does it different.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-26-07)

 

[ewh]

I don't advise not stating the standard to which the drawing is to be interpreted. This will lead to assumptions and ambiguity, both of which should be avoided.
At the very least, note the company drawing specification.

 

[aardvarkdw]

Matt,

I must disagree with you. ASME Y14.5M-1994 states in section "1.1.3 Reference to this standard. Where drawings are based on this Standard, this fact shall be noted on the drawings or in a document referenced on the drawings. References to this Standard shall state ASME Y14.5M-1994."

I see no other interpretation of that then to state ASME Y14.5M-1994 on the print or in a company standard that is referenced on the print.



David

 

[ringman]

I believe that is is mandatory to call out the Standard to which the drawing was prepared and this will include the DATE also.

There are significant although minor variations between the different issues.

I believe this goes back like 25 years or more.

 

[KENAT]

Our first 2 standard notes & header are:

NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

1. DIMENSIONS AND TOLERANCES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.5M-1994.
2. INTERPRET DRAWING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.100.

I believe aardvarkdw is correct about 14.5, you need to put the date because there are major differences between revisions, and of course because it says to.

Generally though I don't put dates on the standards as normally you want the latest version invoked, 14.5 is an obvious exception.

I've also used NOTES: I think putting 'unless otherwise stated' in the note block 'title' just means you don't have to worry about wording each note to allow for exceptions when necessary. I quite like it.

I believe (with in reason) in listing all the relevant specs, for instance if you have unified threads on the drawing then somewhere you should reference ASME B1.1 either in the thread call out or a general note:

"3. SCREW THREADS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME B1.1."

The thread standard recomends you do this though most people don't seem to bother.

Back in the UK on defence they were really strict. For instance when specifying material you had to give the standard as well as the grade, e.g. you couldn't just say "Aluminium 6082-T6" you had to ref the releven BS/EN/ISO spec as well. This was a pain as different sheet/billet/bar sizes were sometimes different specs and always seemed to be changing with the move from BS to ISO specs.

 

[Heckler]

Most US Defense projects I've worked we have to call out the material specifications and file the material certs from the material distributor. It's about creating a paper trail. But don't put the material spec revision on the print because then you're forced to buy material to that revision.

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 3.0 & Pro/E 2001
XP Pro SP2.0 P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

(In reference to David Beckham) "He can't kick with his left foot, he can't tackle, he can't head the ball and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right." -- George Best

 

[sbozy25]

I developed the drawing templates for my company and my preference is to imbed the "interperate" note into the title block some where in the lower right corner.

My philosophy has always been to "idiot" proof drawings as much as possible. you would be suprised what people will start assuming if you don't specify.

 

[fcsuper]

I don't work on military projects, so my perspective (above) is from a different POV. If a vendor doesn't understand the drawing, then they shouldn't have accepted the P.O. I've never had a vendor pull "You didn't specify how to interpret your drawings" arguement. Nor have I ever had a vendor ask for explanation as to which standard to apply. Also, the differences between standards of different years are generally that the current one is more explicit (as noted in the link I provided above).

So in regards to the standard requiring a reference to the standard on the drawing, my own experience is to leave it off all together, lest the vendor come back with one of the issues mentioned in that other thread. The more one specifies, the more one opens themselves up to loop holes. So, I would suggest this isn't a rule that can be applied universally.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[aardvarkdw]

Matt,

I disagree completely.

"I've never had a vendor pull "You didn't specify how to interpret your drawings" arguement. Nor have I ever had a vendor ask for explanation as to which standard to apply."
This would worry me! This means that your vendors can apply whichever standard they choose. Do you put a date on your drawings? Does the "current" standard mean the one that was current in the year the drawing was created, the year the drawing was last revised, or the current standard that the machine shop is working to?

"Also, the differences between standards of different years are generally that the current one is more explicit..."
So, what if they choose to use a standard that has a looser definition to define your part? You have no choice but to accept the parts regardless. Furthermore, it has been discussed repeatedly that ASME Y14.5M-1994 is actually looser in its wording than the previous standards. 1994 uses more "should" and "may" than "shall" and "will" than the 1982 standard.

In the thread you cite, you said " Besides that, the only criticism I have for the customer is to not use 1982 standards anymore. Vendor is responsible, but their out could be that the customer is using an outdated standard that doesn't address the issue...something like customer's fault for specifically employing a standard that doesn't address the issue. "
What if the dimensioning scheme on the drawing matches the 1982 standard? You cannot interpret the drawing to the 1994 standard just because it is the most current. The dimensioning practices have changed. Perhaps the drawing has not been rev'd since 1993, if you try to apply the 1994 standard to that drawing your interpretation may be wrong.



David

 

[ewh]

I agree with David completely. The vendor should be held to A standard, otherwise you won't legally have a leg to stand on if your parts arrive wrong (they may be right according to the vendors interpretation). The current standards are looser. If the drawing calls out an outdated standard, so what? That is what it is to be interpreted to, regardless, and their is no excuse in applying a different standard.
No standards may be fine for a mom & pop business content with their market share, but any worthwhile growth requires CONTROL, throughout the product life cycle.

 

[fcsuper]

Ewh and Aardvark,

Well, that works for you. This works for me. Besides that, there is a legal leg. ASME isn't a law, but governance of P.O. contracts is. It's not like the wild west out there.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[ewh]

No one claims it as a law, but as a standard to reach a common understanding. Good luck.

 

[KENAT]

My current place is not military.

Historically they didn't care less about standards and it showed. The drawings were poor to say the least and it did/does lead to problems. High reject rates, no come back to vendor, field failures, being tied to vendors who had some how figured out what we wanted and paying a premium because of it, I could go on.

I and my team have been brought in largely to introduce industry standards.

Note the phrase "Industry Standards". They are industry standards, they are no longer "just for the military'. This view shows a lack of understanding.

The newer standards have plenty of shoulds & mays if you don't want to be too strict but they are still a good start.

And if you don’t reference the standards on the drawing or other product definition then how will the vendor/shop whoever know that you want it invoked?

I put the following out at my place a while back and have posted part of it here before:

Industry Design & Drawing standards can be of significant advantage to an engineering company, they essentially define a standard "engineering language" and set of practices, customs, definitions etc.

Use of them reduces reliance on informal "tribal knowledge" since they allow any competent engineer (or related position) to understand the data without ambiguity. This allows any engineer to work on future revision of the data with less chance of errors based on misunderstanding, it also supports verification (checking) of the data with less chance of time-consuming misunderstanding thus producing better quality data. It allows manufacture of the item defined by the data to be outsourced with minimal chance of misunderstanding. This then supports increased outsourcing to increase through put without increasing manufacturing overhead. It also allows competitive tendering from a number of suppliers rather than relying on one supplier that has built up tribal knowledge of the item, leading to cost reductions.

While many of the standards have their origins with the military their aim was and still is to allow maximum rate of production for the best value using multi sourcing and competitive tendering (especially during war time). This is equally applicable to commercial companies and the standards have now been widely accepted by industry and in fact most are no longer controlled by the government but by industry bodies.

Now I’m not expecting to convince anyone just based on the above and this is starting to get off topc & I don’t want to get accused of “Standards Thumping” again. However, given this is the Drafting Standards, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis Forum I don’t think it’s that out of place.

 

[fcsuper]

KENAT, my standards thumping comment wasn't directed at you...just the collective body of statements in that thread previous thread.



Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[ewh]

The same message should have the same thumping!