Degradation of Drawing Standards 13

[chancey]

Ok I am not old old school because I didn’t start on the board but has anyone else noticed the degradation of drawing standards? I think this really boils down to the use of CAD. Now that most packages have become easier to use (unlike the early versions of Pro E & MDT) I think more people are creating drawings. Things I see a lot of are missing hidden lines (I understand clarity reasons), lack of centerlines, dimensioning with disregard to intent (like not coming from datums), lack of tolerance consideration (like 3place decimals throughout), dimensioning to hidden lines, poor overall dimensioning & view layout, over crowding, etc. And god forbid they try to use GD & T.

I must just be getting older and grumpier…

 

[dingy2]

chancey:

I am in agreement with you totally.

I do a lot of training in GD&T and also Blue Print reading. I remember BP training a few years back in a automotive supplier company that I had trained many, many people in GD&T. All lines on the drawing were the same. There were no hidden lines, centre lines, phantom lines or chain lines. At least they had section lines. All lines were exactly the same width too. What a mess!

Maybe it is the cad systems used today but the result certainly doesn't help anyone using the drawing and could (and has) lead to a lot of misinterpretation. The person using a drawing is also a Customer and the product (drawing) should be clear and concise.



Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[MintJulep]

Every drawing I see from every vendor I deal with is crap.

Some are less crappy and some are more crappy - but all are crap.

 

[KENAT]

Chancey, I agree (well maybe not on the hidden line thing) and I too don't date back to using a drawing board in anger.

I was brought to this company as part of a team trying to improve this. It's been a long hard struggle and now it appears we may have finally lost.

Despite proving the benefit of higher quality drawings/checking by reduced ECO count on programs that were checked it appears we may have lost the fight.

We've been suffering in the current economy as well as some questionable management decisions and now managements big idea seems to be to give our vendors any old crap drawing and expect them to fill the voids because 'they're hungry'. How the #@$%#$%!#$% they're meant to know the design intent, required tolerances is beyond me & it's all tied in with wanting to outsource/offshore more and more work.

I think our CEO's wet dream would be him as the only US employee just having to phone the relevant subcontractor in whatever country he can find the cheapest sweat shop.3

Rant over..... for now.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[ctopher]

Drawing standards are not taught in school and managers that are not experienced in engineering or drafting don't care or don't know about them.
Therefore, a don't care or lazy attitude take precedence.
With jobs being global now, standards are mixed and some become overwhelmed or confused, sometimes raising costs for various reasons.
I don't see it getting better in the near future.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion

 

[TheTick]

The standards are the same. Compliance is dwindling.

 

[MadMango]

I agree with everyone else on this. Not sure how to enforce it though as many don't see the problem.

 

[ringster]

Amen, amen and AMEN. A mend is virtually imposssible.

 

[ewh]

This subject has been visited many times before on these fora, and it's true. With the advent of CAD, management figured that the engineers could now do their own drawings, as the required skilss for board work were no longer necessary. The only areas that this is true are maybe line work, lettering and descriptive geometry. They neglected to factor in the ability to put a lot of information in a small area, keeping it easy to understand and not open to varying interpretations.
I am currently checking a mold drawing and design created by a contract engineer. It is obvious he does not understand GD&T basics. He used first angle projection, odd scales, lower case lettering, included unnecessary fabrication instructions, used vertical text, unassociative dimensions, poor tolerancing, etc... and I have found this to be quite common.
The basic design, however, was good. The only thing I found that I would change is a #10-32 threaded hole he made 1" deep for a shear application.
I spent enough time on the board and had enough blood spilled on my drawings to have an appreciation of a GOOD drawing and you're right, they are becoming rarer than hens teeth.


"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]

 

[drawoh]

Was drafting ever rigorously taught in college? I recall being taught the basics. My present knowledge comes from reading all the literature I can get my hands on, including the standard itself, and taking extra courses.

How many companies and organizations have mechanical design and drafting as their primary expertise?

I suspect that many if not most companies were started by product experts or salespeople. Mechanical design got added later. A major problem with mechanical design is that it looks easy. Everybody understands what plates, gear and screws do. There is no need to start off your mechanical group by hiring someone experienced and competent. By the time someone experienced and competent gets into the office, standards have become low.

About twelve years ago, I was sent out for UNIX system administration training, so that I could manage the CAD[ ]stations. Once I got into the administration stuff, I was amazed at the complete lack of supervision. Everyone tried to micromanage my mechanical stuff, at which I had more than ten years of practical experience. My system administration was two weeks of training plus a month's experience, and I could not get supervised even if I wanted to.

JHG

 

[chancey]

Nothing like opening Pandoras box. It takes the sting off a bit knowing that others share in the pain!

 

[ctopher]

You can partly see now why jobs are outsourced. Managers don't know, it looks complicated, thus must be expensive. Turns out it is expensive because purchasing/marketing/etc don't understand...it's too technical for them. So, send it out. "Out of site/out of mind".
I have witnessed this at several companies.
My last company was managed by ex-Dot.com defunct company managers...managing an engineering company.
Half of the company was sent to China. Did they save cost? No.
To make up for it, they created their own standards. Then lost military contracts because they lost expertise in the standards arena.
Approx 3/4 of the employees were let go.
The few that are still around try to follow drawing standards, but they are never checked or approved...only that the drawings are done and parts are made. Most are scrapped or re-machined because of out of spec.

The only standard that I'm aware of now at a lot of companies, is "MIC-1000" (Make It Cheap, scrap the project after 1000 are shipped).

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion

 

[MadMango]

When I started out board drafting, if I screwed-up I would find my drawing sitting on my table bleeding like a stuck pig. There was no discussion. I took my lumps and corrected things until there was no more red on the sheet. If that endangered a project deadline, I found myself working very late into the early morning if needed. When I have tried this same approach recently I am lambasted for being too picky. I suppose it is just a change of the times.

 

[11echo]

I agree with most here CAD has alot to do with the problem ...both in training operators and also computer capabilities! Programs would "almost" make a drawing correctly, but never like what I was thought in school ...but it was accepted!
BUT the "other" problem is management! When they were coming up in the industry (engineering/design) it was in a turmoil (not that it isn't now) but they NEVER saw what "real" drawings were! So now when they look over project drawings and I point out issues I have with them I get ..."It's good enough!” Engineering firms seem to think they are here to sell an engineering idea or concept ...and they are, but that idea is carried by my drawings, like a $500 a plate dinner served on "used paper plates!" The customer that knows won't have good thoughts about what he's getting ...no matter how good it taste! AND the real kicker it's all preventable, if they only can recognize that good drawings help sells their engineering ideas, but I find it’s like explaining what the color red looks like to a blind person! They have not clue. …My $0.02!

 

[KENAT]

"The standards are the same. Compliance is dwindling. "

I'm not sure that's entirely true though.

A lot of the standards when they switched to ASME from MIL or ANSI dropped a lot of the 'shall' terminology and changed to should or even weaker.

I'm sure the intent was to allow flexibility when appropriate but this has arguably been abused in many cases.

Of course for those that don't know what a drawing standards is, the change of wording can't be blamed.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

 

[chancey]

I'm with you MadMango. They just don't make skin as thick as they used to. Mind you I'm proabably a babe in the woods at 40 but I actually appreciate the bloody drawings. To me it's all about what you know and I certainly don't want to send out prints that folks are going to gather around and have a good laugh over.

 

[ewh]

"MIC-1000"
I like that! If and when I ever think of moving on from where I am, I'll be tempted to slip that into the drawing format (if the standards are still followed as they are now).

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]

 

[ctopher]

Thanks ewh...I made it up
that would be funny to add it to the drawings. I have done similar acts in the past. Sometimes to see if the checker is really checking.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion

 

[fcsuper]

The value of drafting standardize is not understood by most who went straigth from school into an engineering position.

I know some engineering go on about 3D models making drawing no longer necessary. This is true to a point. The information that was originally put on the drawing still needs to appear in the 3D model if you don't do the drawing.

A lot of people don't seem to realize that a drawing is a legal document, on the same order of importance as a contract which is put together by a laywer.

Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group

 

[ewh]

While it is true that drawings may not be necessary if the fabricator has the correct software to view the model, tolerancing still has to be applied, thus any model used alone would have to be annotated. This will help do away with poor drafting practices, but will emphasize poor tolerancing.

Chris, I was thinking of adding it to all of the format templates. It would probably be years before it was noticed, if at all.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." - [small]George Bush, Washington DC, 27 October, 2003[/small]