ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds 2

[dlloydks]

Are there other companies out there that have switched from Y14.5 to the ISO GTOl stds? If so, how did you manage to get people to switch their thinking from Envelope Requirement to Independency Principle?

Also, I have been using the term "basic" for 40 years and am having a hard time using "theoretically exact dimension". What term do you use for a TED?

 

[CheckerHater]

I apologize for the off-topic, but you made me very curious.

You are not supposed to disclose any personal info, but could you at least drop a hint: which industry is not happy with ANSI/ASME?

 

[dgallup]

We have been using ISO ever since the Brits sold us to the French. We have always invoked the envelope requirement in our drawing, dimensioning and tolerancing standard. This particularly applies to ISO 2692, 5458 & 8015. I see no reason to not use the term BASIC, my CAD software does.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[Belanger]

Yes, I've recently worked with a large automotive supplier that is making the switch from ASME to ISO. Regarding the hitch about Envelope vs. Independency, they simply have a general note in the title block stating that the circled "E" is implied for all size dims.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

http://www.gdtseminars.com

 

[MechNorth]

I don't know if it's "industry" so much as "ownership". There is always some migration between the standards, and a growing number of suppliers are implementing both standards so that they have a larger potential customer base to work with.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services

http://www.profileservices.ca

TecEase, Inc.

http://www.tec-ease.com

 

[dlloydks]

It is not that we are not happy with ASME/ANSI, CheckerHater. We have become a multinational company through acquisitions, and, as is a sign of the times, most of our locations are not in the US. Hence, we in the US are making a change.

As with the metric system and language, most of the non-US locations are comfortable with more than one system.

 

[pmarc]

I do not see any other way for switch in thinking than comprehensive ISO vs. ASME GD&T training. If your company does not have internal resources for that, there are companies in US that serve such kind of trainings.

But the worst thing that can happen is to have people working according to prints quasi-governed by both standards. This would be really bad path chosen.

 

[dlloydks]

I agree, pmarc, and I am that resource, brought out of retirement for this specific purpose. I first had to write a company GTOL standard based upon (a snapshot of) ISO. Don't know how or if we will try to keep up with changes. Our GTOL standard complies with ISO (at least that was the intent) but doesn't necessarily support all ISO concepts, particularly those that are not part of ASME/ANSI. For instance, I have made no mention of RPR, chosing to suggest, if you want to accomplish the same thing, to use zero tol at M.

Since this originated in the Engineering Department, the support for training there has been reasonable. However, other departments are another story. Age old struggle.

 

[fcsuper]

As a matter of ownership, the parent company can specify whatever they want on the child companies. This is happening in both directions with ISO and ASME. Most areas that work with both Europe and America have resources that understand both standards at some level. It's easy enough to get parts from China that are documented to ASME specs (or at least, it is just as easy as ISO).

As a side note, there's really nothing "international" about ISO. This is actually a falsehood. Each country still comes up with their own standards with the claim to be ISO compliant but actually ignore HUGH sections of the ISO standard. For example, JIS weld callouts are actually much closer related to ASME callouts than it is to ISO. GOST weld symbols are barely recognizable as actual symbols and are more a kin to hole callouts. Australia standard's datum feature symbols don't look like anyone elses and work a bit differently too.

In other words, contrary to popular beliefs about ISO, there really isn't a world standard. Heck, BSI didn't stop full scale support for the Envelop Priniciple until recently, and even now they have a special symbol to allow companies to continue to use it (and it's not "E", either).

Ok, enough of that rant.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[fsincox]

dlloydks,
RPR?
Frank

 

[Belanger]

reciprocity.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

http://www.gdtseminars.com

 

[CheckerHater]

Fscuper,

I understand your concern about Afghanistan or Uganda paying lip service to ISO adoption, but why not to start from places responsible for half of worlds GDP?

European Union is adopting ISO directly as European standards. Germany is discontinuing DIN standards and replacing them directly with ISO. American industries are adopting ISO standards. I am not familiar with JIS standards, but my copy of SolidWorks creates weld callout that looks much more like ISO rather than ASME. When it comes to GOST Russians never have enough money, but when it comes to welding standards, they already adopted ISO 17659, ISO 857-1 and ISO 5817, which are necessary prerequisites to adopting ISO 2553.
Guess what? Some countries cannot just "adopt" foreign standard, they have to translate the entire framework to native language. So, I am not surprised with Japan, India. or China not being "head-to-head: with Sweden or Belgium. But everybody is getting there.

Denial is not just river in Egypt.

 

[fcsuper]

Checkerhater, I'm not sure where your getting your information from, American companies aren't adopting ISO at any notable rate. In fact, ASME adoption has been going up drastically in the US in the past 20 - 30 years, and is getting even more attention now than ever.

The EU harmony in ISO isn't as united as the perception holds. DIN isn't going away. There is much within it that just isn't address by ISO. Exceptions within the BSI to the ISO are fewer today than a few years ago, but they are still there. Your rational about JIS, India, and GB standards are boardline at best. The suggestion that translation is an issue is, well, a bit of a stretch (as a kind way of saying that). I cannot even comment on your imappropriate reference to Russians.

BTW, Denial isn't a river anywhere.



Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[CheckerHater]

The Nile. It's an old American joke.

American companies aren't adopting ISO at any notable rate.

You may find some interesting reading there:

http://www.optstd.org/news.htm#ISO10110

This is not about company, this is about entire industry. The Optics - industry responsible for sniper scopes, night vision, lasers and other cool stuff built on Government money is not happy with ASME, because current standard is inadequate/outdated and ASME doesn't want to do anything about it - they will just happily kill Y14.18 and adopt ISO instead.

When it comes to Russians - they had to abandon several world-class and world-leading projects due to the lack of funding. They won't be offended. They know.

 

[fcsuper]

The example provided in the article is more of a sniper shot itself. Again, even with the adoption, they'll be making their own national version of it. Besides, the example is caused by ASME's withdrawal from the subject, not because of some thought that ISO is the defacto standard. In this case, ISO comes across as being the next best thing. There is the potential to read too much into this article and apply it across the board, when it is really an imperfect example of one industry being forced to make the change over due to lack of support from ASME. That's not an issue with ASME Y14.5-2009.

Besides that, I actually ran into the opposite case where I was actually refered to an ASME standard when seeking to find a standard for a particular topic from ISO. I cannot go into details, but it is in regards to a very substantial topic.



Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[CheckerHater]

In this case, ISO comes across as being the next best thing.

If you read the article, it's about ISO being the only thing, but who counts.
Well Matt, (if that's your real name); if you need another example, look at another major money-maker on American soil - the Petroleum industry. Apparently number of oil rigs rose 5 times recently. What else they need for success? They need ISO standards:
Link
Now about Russians you defend so fiercely:
ISO 5458 latest version exists since 1998. After translation and harmonizing with the existing paperwork Russian version was approved in 2008. And finally in 2011 ISO GD&T was adopted on the territory equal to 1/7 of whole landmass.
So, my theory of translation-related delay actually holds water.

 

[fcsuper]

CheckerHater,

So, it's interesting that you need to defend your position by dissing others.

Well, your personal comments about me being ignored (as personal comments are entirely unnecessary in this discussion), there is an overstatement being made regarding the adoption of ISO within the US. Adoption of both ASME and ISO have been growing in the past couple of decades within their respective regions. Harmonization of ISO across international boundaries is closer today than it was even a couple of years ago, but it's not close to being 100%.

As far as your "theory" about translation related issues regarding other nations. That is outright nonsense. Again, you are presuming conclusions that are unsupported by the specific sited cases. It didn't take a decade to translated a 30 page document into Russian. About your "1/7", that is not a statement regarding industry adoption (again, making conclusions not supported by the sited case). Landmass size as nothing to do with actual industrial adoption within that landmass.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

 

[dlloydks]

dgallup & Belanger, if you have a note that basically changes the default to the Envelope Requirement, do you ever want to invoke the Independency Principle? If so, how would you do it, since the I in a circle symbol is not recognized by ISO.

 

[pmarc]

dlloydks,
Before (I) modifier was introduced to ASME GD&T in 2009, the note "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQD" was used in such situations. (see 2.7.2 in Y14.5M-1994).

 

[dlloydks]

pmarc, I had forgotten about that. However, I think I would rather use a current ASME symbol than an obsolete ASME note on a drawing that is supposed to be to ISO standards.

Under the ISO system, how would you do it? I guess you could remove whatever note or spec invoked the Envelope Requirement and replace it with a note or spec that clearly invoked the Independency Principle, but with 99+% of the drawings on our title block using the Envelope Requirement, it will probably be missed.

I guess if you were using GTOL on ALL dimensions the Independency Principle as a default might make sense, but we are not. Basically we use it on dimensions, mostly on features of size that assemble to/with or are otherwise related to something else. That is were you would normally use the Envelope Principle.