Good example of engineering drawing

[ant77]

Hi all,

I'm looking for a good sample part drawing done to Y14.5M.

Can anybody supply a drawing, or show me where I can download one?

Thanks,

ant77

 

[swertel]

The ASME Y14.5 specification has example figures of applying the tolerance to parts. Isn't that suitable?

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[aardvarkdw]

That's a really general request. I can give you a drawing of a solid cylinder, it will have exactly 2 dimensions on it but it will be perfect to ASME Y14.5M-1994, or are you looking for something that correctly represents all aspects of ASME Y14.4M-1994 in a single drawing? If you are looking for a comprehensive drawing to base all other drawings off of, don't count on finding it. I have NEVER seen one that even comes close. You are better off just getting a copy of the standard. If you need to show someone what a Y14.5M drawing looks like, you will have better luck drawing one yourself.

Best of Luck,

David

 

[ewh]

The thing to consider before using only the standard is para 1.1.4 "The figures in this Standard are intended only as illustrations to aid the user in understanding the principals and methods of dimensioning and tolerancing described in the text. The absence of a figure illustrating the desired application is neither reason to assume inapplicability, nor basis for drawing rejection. In sime instances, figures show added detail for emphasis. In other instances, figures are incomplete by intent. Numerical values of dimensions and tolerances are illustrative only."

In other words, use the standard to understand the principals and methods, not as a bible for how a correct drawing will look.
I suggest checking out Tec-Ease or Genium for more valid examples, though they too will probably have similar limitations.

 

[ctopher]

I would be happy to help you out, but I'm not allowed to send out dwgs. Sorry.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[MintJulep]

I haven't seen a good drawing in ten years or so.

 

[MechNorth]

Ant77, you might be better off submitting a drawing that represents your best abilities at Y14.5 and have the group make comments / suggestions from there. It may be daunting to face that kind of feedback, but it's an amazing learning opportunity for you, and you'll appreciate how difficult it is to get everyone to agree on a "compliant" drawing.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[ant77]

Thanks all. As one of you pointed out, examples in standards can be quite detached. To get the full picture you really need to see, well, the full picture!

Yes, I would like to put a drawing before my other CAD managers and say "here is a drawing done to Y14.5M" and review it as a whole.

I have tried posting drawings here for critique before, but written feedback on a drawing has it's limitations - especially for visual people.

Perhaps somebody knows of a NASA, Boeing, automaker, or other institution's repository of drawings on the web (maybe parts that are put out to tender, or included in public specifications)?. Or maybe you have seen a drawing used in a course or presentation that is freely available on the web? Or do you have an old drawing you would be free to share?

Thanks,

Ant77

 

[ctopher]

Dwgs from NASA or Boeing are not downloadable unless you work for a specific project and have access to it. Those employees can lose their jobs if they do it.
Also, most people have their interpretation of Y14.5. You need to purchase the spec and read it. I suggest going for training.
For us to send you a dwg, IMO, is not a good way to learn 14.5.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[aardvarkdw]

Like Jim suggested, your best bet I think would be for you to post something and have someone redimension it. Are you working to another standard currently? Are you just trying to convince your boss to switch to the new standard? Unfortunately just showing someone a drawing that is produced to ASME Y14.5M-1994 is not a very good way to convince them to change, unless your current drawings are a REAL mess, and then the best way is to show them how much cleaner the drawing would be after applying the standard.

 

[MechNorth]

Along with aardvarkdw's comment, people (managers in particular) need to become educated about the value and impact of GD&T as a whole. Otherwise, it won't matter how clean the drawings look to them; pretty drawings don't sell product and they will reject the changes.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[ant77]

OK. So my biggest problem with our current office drawing standard is the way we dimension symmetrical parts. I have created a PDF document showing how we currently do it, and how I 'think' it could be done. How do I post the PDF to this group for review?

 

[aardvarkdw]

read this faq238-1161

 

[ant77]

Thanks aardvark. I've uploaded the files to tinypic.

Our current standard for dimensioning symmetrical details about a centreline is this:

One approach I'm considering is this:

I welcome your feedback everyone, thanks.

Ant77

 

[ctopher]

Why not use the standard symmetric symbol? I have never seen =40.00= before. I would have never guessed what it meant.
I suggest getting a copy of Y14.5.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[pdybeck]

I would advocate using a Datum to define your centerline. One could question what exactly sets up the centerline. Is it the holes 20 mm apart, holes 30 mm apart, holes 40 mm apart, the outside edges of the part, etc...? I would consider calling out the outside edges (this is what I assume your centerline is defined by) as a datum. Then place a true position tolerance on all the hole dimensions relative to the datum defined by the outside edges.

 

[ewh]

How can all dimensions be symmetrical about the centerline? What about the vertical dimensions.

 

[aardvarkdw]

This is how I would do this. The equal signs on the ends of the centerlines are as per ASME Y14.2-1992 sect. 2.7, and Fig.1 and are the approved method for denoting symmetry. This is referenced by ASME Y14.5M-1994 sect. 1.8.8 . There is no need for a note and there is no need to dimension both sides. You could get away with only showing one side of the part if you wanted.

David

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

aardvarkdw ... wouldn't that style of dimensioning effectively double up the tolerance of the hole positions?

​

Helpful SW websites faq559-520​

How to find answers ... faq559-1091​

SW2006-SP5 Basic ... No PDM​

 

[pdybeck]

Please read what I suggested, it would cover the positional tolerance issue nicely (I think) and make it obvious as to what establishes your centerline.