Parent view for section view off of drawing 1

[rhmeng]

My coworker recently made a drawing that has a section view. The parent view for the section view however, he put off to the side of the page, so that it was not visible and that if you printed the drawing or saved a pdf it would not show up (see attachment). The reasoning behind this was to maintain drawing cleanliness. I was wondering if there is any standard that states whether or not this is acceptable. I see alot of info about where to place the views in ASME Y14.3 2003, but nothing about completely omitting the views. Thanks in advance.

 

[KENAT]

I don't like what your colleague did but, section 3.2.1 os Y14.3-2003 does say "The cutting plane may be omitted when its location is obvious..." whether you can extend that to the entire view is omitted I'm skeptical.

Section 1.7.3 "To relate the viewing plane or cutting plane to its removed view ..." implies you do need to show the original view.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[rhmeng]

I dont see an example in t Y14.3 where it has a completely omitted the parent view, although I am not sure what is happening in Figure 28... I am on board with it not being acceptable, per your Section 1.7.3 implication. Thanks for the input.

 

[CheckerHater]

Looks perfectly fine to me especially when it comes to assembly.

Parent view is completely useless.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[dgallup]

I agree with CH. No reason for parent view.

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

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.

 

[pylfrm]

I agree that the parent view isn't particularly useful here. However, it might add clarity to include a parent view with the assembly shown end-on instead.

Is the section view currently the only view on the drawing?


- pylfrm

 

[rhmeng]

there are a couple of more drawing views that I did not show. It is clear what is being looked at on the drawing, and the drawing/assembly is shown very clearly. I just was looking for input on legality of removing the parent view..

 

[CheckerHater]

@fhmeng:
Look no further than ASME Y14.24.
This is how layout / assembly drawings were done from the beginning of time.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[KENAT]

CH that's not quite the same thing. That's a Half Section to para 3.5 fig 33 of Y14.3-2003, or maybe a removed section para 3.8 figure 35

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ewh]

I'm with KENAT on this, at least until someone can show me where in the standard lone section view drawings are allowed.
I have seen it done frequently, and agree that the parent view is often a waste of space... but per the standard it seems not to be kosher.
Using Y14.3, there is only one view that does not need definition of source; all the other views have to lead back to that view in one way or another. By definition a section view comes from a parent view.

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

 

[drawoh]

rhmeng,

Leaving an unnecessary parent view off the drawing allows a larger drawing scale and/or a smaller sheet. On an 8.5[×]11 laser printout, the smaller sheet enlarges the scale too. Clarity is good.

--
JHG

 

[rhmeng]

We were thinking that it would allow for misinterpretation of the section view, lead to confusion of the machinist, and lead to time wasting of the machinist as they (whom are not familiar with the drawing at all and have never seen it before) now have to figure out what is going on. I agree some drawings do not need it, but it should be either required or not required, and not subjective right? Also why not require to err on the conservative side.

 

[CheckerHater]

We were thinking that it would allow for misinterpretation of the section view, lead to confusion of the machinist, and lead to time wasting of the machinist as they (whom are not familiar with the drawing at all and have never seen it before) now have to figure out what is going on.

Since when machinists are working from assembly drawings?

Also, couple references, not from standard, but from respectable interpretation of it.


"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[rhmeng]

yea this was done on a couple of our piece part drawings as well

 

[KENAT]

C'mon, there are no respectable sources outside of the actual standard.

That's like writing your English lit paper based on the cliff notes & the Hollywood movie.



Paper is cheap, screen space even more so, there's no good excuse for sticking to only A size drawings. With a tweak of the font size even E size prints are legible on tabloid.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CheckerHater]

there are no respectable sources outside of the actual standard

Absolutely. Unfortunately this assumption will immediately lead us to very sad conclusion.

The problem is, that sources you blatantly reject are written by people who are (or at some point, were) members of ASME Y14 commitee(s).

To say that their writings have no merit essentially means that even people who wrote the standard, don't know what it means.

This is perfectly fine with me, but please don't bother me with your "universally accepted, universally understood" marketing BS.

Because neither Alex Krulikowski, David P. Madsen, James D. Meadows, Bruce A. Wilson, Gene Cogorno, Robert H. Nickolaisen, none of them know what they are talking about.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[Tarmo]

In current situation half-section view would be proper or prefered to use, because it is symmetrical object and therefore both interior and exterior of the details can be indicated in the same view. Thus parent view is not neccessary.

 

[ewh]

A very good solution. Part will still be well defined and any questions regarding whether or not is per the standard can be avoided.

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