Drawing standards only for Military work 6

[KENAT]

We have a number of Engineers here who seem to think that the ASME drawing standards etc are only for military work and have no place in a commercial organization.

How would you respond?

Also If people want to make this some kind of survey of "We use the standards and are/are not Defense/Defence" that would be great.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[ctopher]

No, they are not only for military. I have had commercial/military/medical/space customers require them.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[ewh]

Definitely not only for military work. The advantage of using them is (ideally) universal interpretation of drawing packages, and benefit commercial industry as well as military. Properly interpreted and applied, different parts of complex assemblies can be made anywhere and all function correctly.

 

[ewh]

Also, ASME does not stand for American Society of Military Engineers.

 

[ctopher]

The Marines think it does, although they fall under the Navy.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[ajack1]

“The advantage of using them is (ideally) universal interpretation of drawing packages, and benefit commercial industry as well as military.”

I think you will find that most of the universe uses ISO.

 

[ctopher]

Most projects I have worked on, are a mix of ASME and ISO.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[ewh]

ajack1,
Yes, we are in the minority, but it still provides for universal interpretation, provided the interpretation is per those standards.

 

[KENAT]

OK, change to the OP. Instead of specifically ASME then ASME Y14.100, ISOXXX, BS 8888 or equivalent industry standards.

Better?

By the way I have an opinion I just didnt' want to taint the discussion by putting it in the OP. I want to try and get a better idea of what people think/feel.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[ajack1]

Certainly for all the major European manufacturers in the automotive industry use ISO as do Ford owned companies like Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin.

 

[joebk]

I work for a multinational corporation (HQ in Germany) and none of our divisions have ever specified a standard to which they create or interpret drawings. So each division has their own opinion about each and every spec on a drawing - most of which do not conform to any standard.

So parts are not necessarily interchangeable and costs vary between divisions because everybody does things a bit differently. It is nuts and nobody within the corporation thinks it needs to be changed.

In the USA we have recently added a note to our title block indicating ASME Y14.5M-1994 and our own corporate addendum. Since most of our other divisions are European we probably should have indicated ISO but in the absence of any corporate guidance we picked what worked.

I am in support of ASME/ISO standardization in regards to drawings because it (ideally) facilitates communication of design intent. In the absence of some sort of standard, it is the wild west out there in regards to interpreting drawing (military or commercial).

We have had to deal with a lot of crazy nonsense because of everyone's opinions about GD&T rather than referencing a part of a standard.

 

[Guest0527211403]

KENAT

I'm curious as to why the engineers would think that. Do they want to use/create their own drawing standard for use only in your organization?

 

[JsTyLz]

I had an internship with Dana and GM, and have worked in the commercial trucking industry for two different companies. All used/use ASME Y14.5 - 1994, Excpet the year of the standard might have been different. Regardless it used for the same reason as for GD&T, universal interpretation.

Out

 

[KENAT]

I can't give a polite answer as to why they would think that, it would include words such as ignorant, uniformed, stupid, juvenile, immature, lazy...

Most of the Engineers don't want any standards, they want to do it however they want as standards ‘cramp their creativity’ and/or “take them longer”.

Historically this place didn’t have any real standards, a few CAD rules of use which were almost universally ignored and a few other procedures that were probably out of date before they were released because people didn’t’ work to them and didn’t update them to current practice.

Part of the reason my department was created was to improve the quality of documentation, we use adherence to Standards (both the ASME directly and where relevant our documented interpretation of them) as a cornerstone of this.

I bounced an assembly drawing for being a piece of **** on Friday. I used the term every self respecting draftsman fears “redraw”, along with some specific requests and tips for achieving them. It has blown up into a drawn out fight.

This is related to several of my recent posts.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[ewh]

It is in such situations that I wish I were a contractor again.

 

[ctopher]

Most of the Engineers don't want any standards, they want to do it however they want as standards ‘cramp their creativity’ and/or “take them longer”.

So true! I think you will find this at a lot of companies.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 04-21-07)

 

[fcsuper]

What does 14.100 say about the intent of the standard?

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[KENAT]

Nothing specific, the Forward is too long for me to type but:

... provide common engineering delineation standards to aid the increasing interchange of drawings between industry, government, and other users...

I posted the below a while back which is a summary of some of my opinion on drawing standards.

“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.”


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[fcsuper]

"...in fact most are no longer controlled by the government but by industry bodies." I'd say this sums it up. Of course, the audience here is friendly to your cause.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[vigildesign]

I would have them to look at any of the Y14 standards committee or subcommittee personnel in any of the Y14 standards and they will see where these people worked at when the individual standard was approved. Here are some companies: Dimensional Control Systems, Inc.,Boeing, Monroe Community College, Purdue University, Naval Surface Warfare Center, General Motors Corp., Ohio University, Caterpillar, U.S. Department of the Army, Sandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Department of the Navy, United Defense, National Security Agency, Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, United States Postal Service, Dupont, Fluor Federal Services, Oklaloosa-Walton Community College, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ABB Combustion Engineering, Inc., MTD Products, Inc., Gary Whitmire Associates, Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Eastman Kodak Co., Copeland Corporation, Steelcase, Inc., L. W. Foster Associates, Inc., Motorola, Pratt 8 Whitney CEB, ASEA Brown Boveri Combustion Engineering Systems, Rexnord Corp., Santa Cruz Technology Center, National Standards Educators Association, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Deere b Company, John Deere Dubuque Works, E-Systems, Inc., University of Cincinnati/GE Aircraft Engines, Polaroid Corp., Geometrics Consulting, Williams Creek Graphics, Ford Motor Co., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Garrett Turbine Engine Co., Shepherd Industries/Northern Illinois University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, McDonnell Douglas Corp., El Camino College, Texas Instuments, Harper College, Daimler Chrysler, National Systems Management Corporation, Logicon information Systems and Service, Illuminating Engineering Society, Gleason Works, Avondale Shipyards Inc., Cessna Aircraft Co., 3M Co., Xerox Corp., and Infrared Industries.