ASME Y14.5 vs ISO 1101 in Australia / internationally 4

[dGhost]

Hello,
I'm an Australian and I've been in the mechanical design and manufacturing industry for a few years now post-grad, and have been self-teaching GD&T fundamentals to improve my capability and understanding of mechanical design.
My only gripe is, from reading ASME Y14.5 and ISO 1101, I can recognise there are similarities but key differences between both standards.
I would ideally like to sign up for a course to cement home ideas and get feedback so I can feel more confident in not just reading GD&T but correctly applying it to drawings.
However, I don't have enough exposure to proficient GD&T drafting and the (while experienced) engineers at my work unfortunately focus more on structural work and have an annoyingly lax approach to tolerancing in general let alone for more critical machined components (which is primarily what I work with) so I have no guidance.
If I was to sign up for an in-person course for GD&T in Australia, would it be more pertinent for me to do so for ISO 1101 or ASME Y14.5? What is more typically seen in the broader industry where GD&T is applied?
I know our AS1100-101 drafting standard outlines basic GD&T principles but it does not have anywhere near the depth and breadth of the respective two standards.
Thank you in advance for any advice,
Daniel

 

[greenimi]

Daniel,
I would say depends on what standard YOUR company is using. Or what standards YOUR customers are using.
In the title block (or near) you should find the applicable standard --either ASME Y14.5--year (1973, 1982, 1994, 2009, 2018) or a relevant ISO standard such ISO1101-year (2012, 2017)
So the bottom line: take both classes (if available)

Quote: """""If I was to sign up for an in-person course for GD&T in Australia, would it be more pertinent for me to do so for ISO 1101 or ASME Y14.5? What is more typically seen in the broader industry where GD&T is applied?"""""""

 

[CheckerHater]

From Australian Standard AS 1100.101—1992 Technical drawing General principles:

This Standard is in agreement with the following International Standards:
ISO 128 Technical drawings — General principles of presentation
ISO 129 Technical drawings — Dimensioning — General principles, definitions, methods of execution and special indications
ISO 406 Technical drawing — Tolerancing of linear and angular dimensions
ISO 1101 Technical drawings — Geometrical tolerancing — Tolerancing of form orientation, location and run–out — Generalities, definitions, symbols, indications on drawings
ISO 1660 Technical drawings — Dimensioning and tolerancing of profiles
ISO 3040 Technical drawings — Dimensioning and tolerancing — Cones
ISO 3098/1 Technical drawings — Lettering, Part 1: Currently used characters
ISO 5455 Technical drawings — Scales
ISO 5459 Technical drawings — Geometrical tolerancing — Datums and datum–systems for geometrical tolerances
ISO 6410 Technical drawings — Conventional representation of threaded parts

Still, the company you work for may have its own view on what standards to use, so greenimi's suggestion is relevant.



"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[Doug Hunter]

You are right that there is a lot of common ground. I agree with Greenimi that it largely depends on (1) your company standard, (2) your customer requirements, (3) your local/national/legal requirements, and (4) your specific industry expectations. I come from the American Automotive industry where we used ANSI/ASME Y14.5. I worked with a lot of European customers (BMW, Porsche, Daimler-Mercedes, Audi, VW, Fiat, Peugeot, etc.) over my career and I don't recall ever coming across a significant problematic conflict, as there is so much common ground, so don't sweat it too much. The ideal course would be one that teaches both in parallel, or one that teaches one primarily but with a commentary on differences to the other, if you can find it.


Best regards,
Doug Hunter
Altarium Technical Consulting

https://www.altarium.us/

 

[dGhost]

In the title block (or near) you should find the applicable standard --either ASME Y14.5--year (1973, 1982, 1994, 2009, 2018) or a relevant ISO standard such ISO1101-year (2012, 2017)
So the bottom line: take both classes (if available)

Unfortunately, almost every drawing that has crossed my desk has generally only ever referenced AS1100! I have seen two companies reference ASME Y14.5 in their title block, but they are also run by a US parent company.

It's a mixture of us supplying a lot of old parts (we frequently work to scanned hand drawn Imperial US prints from the 60s for example), local companies supplying prints with no or little GD&T usage (which has perpetually annoyed me WRT ambiguity of expectations), or breakdown repairs where we issue our own drawings internally.

If I can manage to take a course on both I definitely will!

From Australian Standard AS 1100.101—1992 Technical drawing General principles: ...

Ahhh I can't believe with all the comparisons of content I didn't think to check if AS1100-101 references any appropriate ISO standards itself, thank you so much!

You are right that there is a lot of common ground. I agree with Greenimi that it largely depends on (1) your company standard, (2) your customer requirements, (3) your local/national/legal requirements, and (4) your specific industry expectations.

Thanks Doug! The company standard has always referenced our Australian drafting standards but doesn't go in depth into specifying further GD&T standard adherence. I'm as interested in learning for my own development as much as anything, from my time working none of our clients have demanded or required any specific GD&T standard adherence. Realistically it's probably ideal if I could take a course on both, but I would think one sets me up well enough to adequately interpret the differences rereading the standards.

Sorry for the long post, thank you for your responses, I really appreciate it!

 

[pmarc]

I'd just like to say that the two dimensioning and tolerancing systems - ISO and ASME - while appearing quite similar at first glance, are actually pretty different in many places. Some of the differences are details, but some are fundamental.

 

[greenimi]

I'd just like to say that the two dimensioning and tolerancing systems - ISO and ASME - while appearing quite similar at first glance, are actually pretty different in many places. Some of the differences are details, but some are fundamental.

I agree with that. And that's EXACTLY why I came here. To learn from you (and others) the differences between them....So Thank You!

 

[Ryan6338]

Daniel, if you're interested in learning ISO GPS I'd recommend reading "Technical Drawing for Product Design by Stefano Tornincasa". It contains - in my opinion - a great functional overview of the ISO system and also covers how it differs from ASME. It explains design intent and use cases behind different applications of GD&T which is something the standards don't typically do. It also acts as a good reference book in lieu of buying all the standards.

Ryan.

 

[dGhost]

Thank you Ryan, that's much appreciated. I'll have a look at that book. Having an overview of how the two standards differ would also be incredibly handy and was one of the things I wanted to get a better understanding of.