Material Callout Sequence

[gbigpapa]

Hi All,
This is my first post to the board so please excuse me if this topic has been covered before.

I am working on a standard for our engineers in Aerospace and would like to provide some guidance on Material Callouts in order to create some consistency on the drawings. When specifying materials is there a convention for how the note is structured/sequenced?
Material Number| Heat Treat | Name | Form | Thickness | per | Specification Number

For example on an Aluminum part:

6061-T651 ALUMINUM ALLOY PLATE .250 THICK PER AMS4027
OR
ALUMINUM ALLOY 6061-T651 PLATE .250 THICK PER AMS4027

Thank you,
George

 

[debodine]

For our use, our company has adopted a variation of your first option.

Our database would look like this for two fields named Part Number and Description:

Part Number................Description
6061-T651...................6061-T651 ALUMINUM ALLOY PLATE .250 THICK PER AMS4027

Certainly this is not the only valid method but it works for us. It makes our database searching quite simple. This also allows our report generator to access these fields and control the format of our report, which avoids any manual manipulation of the Parts List.

 

[rb1957]

I reckon every 2nd company prefers one or other of your descriptions, and would "go to the mattresses" to defend their chosen description.

sort of like "big enders" and "little enders" … (Gulliver's Travels)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[Sparweb]

Name | Material Number| Heat Treat | Form | Thickness | per | Specification Number
Consider the name optional, the rest is good.
Is there any doubt that you would be talking about "aluminum alloy" after reading through "6061-T651 PLATE .250 THICK PER AMS4027"?
Do you handle any other types of materials that could be mistaken for others if you continue to use the combination of "alloying-temper-form-thickness-per-spec"?

In general, you will find that engineers with a few years' experience can read any combination and understand exactly what is meant.
On the other hand, people in purchasing and inventory can have difficulty with arbitrary expressions of material specifications.
Your effort to make a standard call-out is a great idea, and it's best if you consult with your purchasing people to make sure they can use it efficiently.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[WKTaylor]

Material callouts in flag-notes [FL-X], [X> vary depending on what type of material is specified.

Sheet/strip/plate
Extruded shape or bar
rolled/drawn wire or Bar
Tubing
Hand Forging
forged-block,
Forged-shape
Die Forging
Forged rings
Casting [sand, permanent mold, investment, etc]
Critical processing or inspections
Forge per AMS7190
Forge per AMS-A-22771
Cast per AMS-A-21180
Ultrasonic inspect per AMS-STD-2154 or ASTM B594
Inspect castings per AMS2175
As-Forged thickness [hand forgings, forged-block, etc]
As-rolled thickness [plate]
Allowed minimum up-to maximum dimensions for part fabrication, material planning.
Raw stock [descriptor, dimensions, etc]

Here is how I might specify Your material for critical applications...

6061-T651 BARE ALUMINUM PLATE, AMS4027, RAW STOCK 0.250 AS-ROLLED THICKNESS [MIN]. ULTRASONIC INSPECT RAW STOCK TO MEET/EXCEED ASTM B594 CLASS B

ANOTHER WAY IS...

6061-T651 BARE ALUMINUM PLATE AMS4027, RAW STOCK 0.250-TO-0.375-ST X 10.0-LT MIN X 40.0-L MIN. ULTRASONIC INSPECT RAW STOCK PER ASTM B594 CLASS B

A 'clearer, more descriptive/definitive/absolute version' might look thus...

6061-T651 BARE ALUMINUM PLATE AMS4027 [AMS-QQ-A-250/11], RAW STOCK 0.250-TO-0.375-ST [AS-ROLLED THICKNESS] X 10.0-LT [PLATE WIDTH] MINIMUM X 40.0-L [PLATE LENGTH, GRAIN] MINIMUM. ULTRASONIC INSPECT RAW STOCK TO MEET/EXCEED ASTM B594 CLASS B

An extrusion call-out might look like this...

EXTRUDED 'T' PROFILE AMS10136-1404, 6061-T6510 OR -T6511 AMS4173 [AMS-QQ-A-200/8], RAW STOCK 70.0-L MINIMUM



Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[WKTaylor]

BTW... anyone...

When any number is less than one, I [and many older guys] always lead the number with a integer '0' [Zero]. I have done this practice for years, contrary to corporate documents which mandate NO preceding zero. On older hand-drafted-drawings, with many years of wear/tear if you see a zero followed by numbers, then it is a simple clue that the 'tiny' decimal point was simply rubbed off or was otherwise lost during reproduction... as opposed to a crumbly/broken number.

One older famous engineer I knew NEVER used a period in sentence structure since most of his work interspersed fractional numbers through-out documents that demanded a 'clear decimal point'. In-lieu of a period in sentences 'he' used a tiny 'x' ... and reserved the period/decimal point for NUMBERS only.

Some engineers I have known... and I, when absolutely forced to use a decimal point with no leading zero... will ensure a double space in front of the number to clearly delineate it from words and other numbers in a 'string'.

Brevity is important, but so-also is accuracy and legibility.

NOTE. Since I add a leading zero [0] to less-than 'one' [1] numbers, it is somewhat easier [for me] to ID decimal point [number] inaccuracies... such as 0033 VS .0033 [SB this be 0.033 or 0.0033??].

Just sayin'...

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

 

[Sparweb]

Wil,
You just HAD to bring it up.
A respected and most senior designer at my office had accomplished standardization of the numerical formats of dimensions with no leading zero in drawing dimensions, long before my arrival at this office. Now that I'm there... well... in the interests of world peace and the sanctity of the great artistic tradition of draughting, I need to leave that one alone.
I hold my tongue, but secretly gnash my teeth.
Shhh, don't tell anyone, please.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[debodine]

SparWeb, our company is the same. Specifically stated in our drafting manual "no leading zeroes". I dislike it intensely but was told a decade and a half ago that is what the company wants and we will not change it. Every 3-4 years I ask again and get told to drop it. Oh well, as you do, I gnash my teeth (quietly) and obey the policy.

 

[ewh]

Blame it on ASME Y14.5... "A zero shall not be used before the decimal point for values less than 1 in."

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[WKTaylor]

ewh...DANG... You found the missing-link... a champagne toast to You...

ASME Y14.5 has different allowances... FOR or NOT... leading zeros for numbers less than 1, depending on millimeter or inches units, thus...

4.3.1 Millimeter Dimensioning
The following shall be observed when specifying millimeter
dimensions:
(a) Where the dimension is less than 1 mm, a zero shall
precede the decimal point. See Figure 4-2.
(b) Where the dimension is a whole number, neither
the decimal point nor a zero shall be shown. See
Figure 4-2.
(c) Where the dimension exceeds a whole number by a
decimal fraction of 1 mm, the last digit to the right of the
decimal point shall not be followed by a zero. See Figure 4-
2.
NOTE: This practice differs for tolerances expressed bilaterally
or as limits. See paras. 5.3.1(b) and 5.3.1(c).
(d) Neither commas nor spaces shall be used to separate
digits into groups in specifying millimeter dimensions
on drawings.

4.3.2 Decimal Inch Dimensioning
The following shall be observed when specifying
decimal inch dimensions on drawings:
(a) A zero shall not be used before the decimal point for
values less than 1 in. See Figure 4-3.
(b) A dimension shall be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as its tolerance. Zeros are added to the
right of the decimal point where necessary. See para. 5.3.2
and Figure 4-3.

I have really old drafting manuals [1940s] that apparently allow the individual draftsman or companies to decide this practice independently... but consistency was emphasized.

Interesting... though... when these same dimension were used in texts and raw calculations, a leading zero was always added.

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]