GD&T Training Recommendations?

[Jste]

I'm looking for any suggestions / experiences with online GD&T training. I want to take a course alongside a younger designer I'm mentoring, he has very little GD&T and I would be somewhere in the intermediate range.

I'm hoping for a course that can give both the basic definitions and some examples on appropriate use. I have come across these two offerings that seem promising:

https://geotol.com/core-programs/pro-fundamentals/

https://www.sigmetrix.com/services/gdt-training-courses/

Anyone taken these courses? Or do you have a different suggestion?

 

[3DDave]

Buy and read the standard(s) you are likely to use. It will likely be painful, but most of what people have heartburn over is that the words in the standard(s) often have meanings assigned that are far different from typical vocabulary - the sooner you can be a parrot and reproduce the exact words and phrases the better.

Not only will having the actual standards help insulate you from 3rd parties making their own interpretations, it gives you a direct reference and a head start on any classes you might take.

Other than that it's simple enough - pick what the desired basis is to make measurements relative to, tell what the nominal geometry is like, tell what deviation from the nominal geometry is allowed. The main breakthrough is being able to relate the location of a feature to the volume/"size" of a feature and, as required, to other features in a way that may depend on the volume/"size" of those other features.

 

[Jste]

3DDave,

I do own the 14.5-2018 standard and use it on a regular basis, the vocabulary contained therein is extremely important so we all have a starting point. But I think there is also a reason people will pay to attend schools instead of simply reading through a textbook. A good instructor can consolidate a wealth of information and give relevant and common examples. The pictures in the standard are helpful as some basic examples to visualize the effect of the callouts, but the standards also tell you not to trust the images and that the text is king!

That text is pretty beefy and at my company we tend to work a bit too quickly for our own good, I don't always have the ability to pause the design effort while I search for the relevant section and reread the content. A good class with accurate (hopefully real world) examples sticks with people a lot better than a wall of text. The standard is there for me to reference when I need specific clarity instead of being a perfect prep for future components.

I appreciate your input!

 

[3DDave]

The main reason is that the book is $360 and the company won't pay for everyone to have a copy, but the company can deduct the cost of training from their taxes so it costs them much less.

You make my point for me - you are supposed to memorize the entire thing not be digging through it to create or interpret drawings. The "digging" is reserved for those who think you are making something up, so you will certainly need it then. If you don't do that then a short training session won't make up for it.

Dimensioning and tolerancing is like a programming languages. Using them is setting out a series of steps to be followed to generate acceptable answers. Unfortunately, unlike programming languages, it seems like everyone wants to just sprinkle some pictures on the page and -poof- some assembly or functional problem will disappear. Also, unlike programming languages, there isn't an unbiased bit of software that has been checked for validity to go through those steps and generate that expected output.

Imagine "Learn Python (or C) (or Haskell) in 3 days with PowerPoint presentations and then everyone goes and discusses what they think a program would do, but they never compile it and run it. Then the program is sent to an inspector who reads the program and decides if what a third party said were answers they did by hand were right. Seems like that would not work well.

Trainers are useful if the company has made a mess of the whole thing and they need someone from the outside to come in and essentially disinfect the place, but people who aren't interested enough to do the work on their own aren't much affected by having someone tell them a few things.

 

[greenimi]

I'm looking for any suggestions / experiences with online GD&T training

One of the best is AGI Applied Geometrics, Inc.

https://gdandt.com

(There are many others on the market)



AGI offer in-person as well as virtual training

COPY-PASTE


GD&T Training - Registration Open for Classes in April-August 2022
Fundamentals of GD&T
IN-PERSON (Schaumburg, IL–near Chicago) June 8-10
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) — NEW FORMAT!
3 Consecutive Mondays: July 18, July 25, & August 1, 2022
Advanced GD&T
IN-PERSON (Schaumburg, IL–near Chicago) June 13-15
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) — NEW FORMAT!
3 Consecutive Tuesdays–July 19, July 26, & August 2, 2022
Tolerance Stack-Up Analysis
IN-PERSON (Schaumburg, IL–near Chicago) June 16-17
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) — NEW FORMAT!
2 Consecutive Thursdays–July 21 & July 28
GD&T for Inspectors/CMM Programmers
IN-PERSON (Sharonville, OH–near Cincinnati) June 7-9
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) — NEW FORMAT!
3 Consecutive Wednesdays–July 20, July 27, & August 3, 2022
Functional Gaging
IN-PERSON (Schaumburg, IL–near Chicago) June 23-24
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) — NEW FORMAT!
2 Consecutive Fridays–July 22 & July 29
GDTP Certification Prep Course
IN-PERSON (Schaumburg, IL–near Chicago) June 20-22 2022
VIRTUAL (via Zoom) August 9-11

 

[jmeeh]

I've taken the classes from GeoTol. Scott and Al are amazing, go for it.

 

[ctopher]

I have had machine shops no bid, or high bid, because they don't know how to read GD&T. I have been asked sometimes to leave it off so we can have low cost.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '19
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Jste]

greenimi and jmeeh,

Thanks for the votes, I'll do some comparisons between the two.

 

[3DDave]

Most any trainer will be amazing - the majority have been doing this for 20 years or more.

You can identify those because they appear in the list of committee members for the Y14.5 standard.

Bryan Fischer, for example - now with:

https://www.prweb.com/releases/sigmetrix/gdt-training/prweb13969403.htm

 

[geesaman.d]

In my experience as an engineer making my own drawings, my use cases at my company comprise a small portion of the defined GD&T standard as well as a small portion of the class content. The generic GD&T classes I've had here spent too little on the important stuff and way too much on irrelevant content.

If that's your situation, do as much as possible to avoid spending time on irrelevant things and focus on the relevant things. In an ideal world, I would pay a consultant to do the following:
1) review your drawings for current GD&T practice
2) review your components, inspection capabilities, and even vendor capabilities
3) discuss the tolerances and drawing methods with your most senior technical people
4) produce training that is limited to the tolerances you already use and tolerances they recommend you should start using.

In my experience there is a lot to gain with all of these things. Existing drawings are at least out of date and often wrong or the datums are poorly structured. There are often better ways to use GD&T with payoffs that are worth the effort to make the change. Your senior designers might be missing some things or upon review, the situations that make the drawings tolerance what they are today, really aren't the risk anymore. And irrelevant training is an agonizing waste.

If this is just for personal development, take a class with good ratings and a reputed instructor. Ignore what I said above.

 

[greenimi]

3DDave,

Bryan Fischer, for example - now with:

https://www.prweb.com/releases/sigmetrix/gdt-train...

Bryan F. was with Sigmetrix 5 years ago..... I think now he is with ITI....

https://www.iti-global.com/iti-announces-new-mbe-consulting-practice

 

[TheTick]

Not sure if such a thing exists, but if there is a course available with live instructors/consultants to confer with, I would choose that.

Anyone can teach the simple parts of GD&T. But every place has special problems that require a closer look by an expert.

 

[3DDave]

greenimi - thanks for the update - Bryan gets around and is one of the best people I can think of to handle training, et al.

 

[metrologic]

Dimensioning and tolerancing is like a programming languages. Using them is setting out a series of steps to be followed to generate acceptable answers. Unfortunately, unlike programming languages, it seems like everyone wants to just sprinkle some pictures on the page and -poof- some assembly or functional problem will disappear. Also, unlike programming languages, there isn't an unbiased bit of software that has been checked for validity to go through those steps and generate that expected output.

Imagine "Learn Python (or C) (or Haskell) in 3 days with PowerPoint presentations and then everyone goes and discusses what they think a program would do, but they never compile it and run it. Then the program is sent to an inspector who reads the program and decides if what a third party said were answers they did by hand were right. Seems like that would not work well.

I've been saying something similar to my colleagues for years. 95% of the drawings I see would fail to 'compile', let alone execute without some kind of runtime error. It's too easy to kick the can down the road.

 

[CWB1]

Effective Training Inc is owned by SAE and has published a healthy chunk of the GD&T materials you'll find commercially sold. When I see an ad for a GD&T class its usually theirs, so I'd contact them first.