Proper callout of view for multiple locations. 1

[dragonfire613]

Hey guys,

A question has come up with my drawing reviewer at work, and I've never had this questioned before. I have a drawing that installs 16 nutplates, 2 rivets per nutplate. Thus I have one detail, and in the view title I have a second line under "Detail A" that reads "16X" to indicate the same detail is used for each nutplate location. The view itself calls out the hole diameters and the two rivets used to install the nutplate. So within the view, I have the diameter called out with "2X", and the rivets called out with "2X". Thus to me, this means that you drill two holes and use the two rivets at each of the 16 locations of the detail. This is how I've always done it and never had any questions.

My new reviewer is trying to tell me that, in the detail view, I need to call out "32X" with the hole diameters and rivet callouts, which to me seems incorrect and means you drill 32 holes and install 32 rivets at each of the 16 locations.

I pointed out a dozen or so released prints that use the same method as what I am doing, but I want to look it up in the actual ASME Y14 and I'm not having any luck finding info on this scenario. The closes I've come to is in ASME Y14.5M-1994, Section 1.9 which deals with individual repeated features, not repeated views. Can anyone point me to the spec that would cover repeated views (if it exists?)

 

[KENAT]

I don't think you'll find anything, you could try 14.3 but a quick flick through and it didn't jump out at me.

Similar has been discussed before, maybe you can find the related threads, but I don't think we came to a truly ASME Y14 mandated way of doing it.

I do similar to you, though instead of 16X it's the one time I tend to write out 16 PLACES (but use X within the detail) as to me it helps make the distinction between repetition within the detail and repetition of the detail - but that's just my opinion and if you look at it too closely falls apart as by definition X & 'PLACES' means the same thing.

You could turn it around on your reviewer, ask them to tell you where in ASME their preferred method is dictated. As a checker I tried hard not to just impose my personal preference on others if what they had didn't violate the standards and was clear/unambiguous. I'd sometimes suggest my preferred way of doing things for future reference if I really thought it was better but would rarely make them change an otherwise complete drawing to suit my whims.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[Tunalover]

dragonfire613,
You're doing it fine. I'm sure the Genium Publishing Drafting Manual (or other equivalent) will say to do it that way if you can't find where in the Y14 standards it says to do it that way. I'd be careful about jumping through too many hoops for this guy. He sounds pretty unorthodox.





Tunalover

 

[pmarc]

Check out fig. 7-37 in Y14.5-2009.

 

[dragonfire613]

Thanks everyone for the info and backup. My reviewer came around once I sat him down and explained it in detail. His argument was that the qty called out in the BOM needed to match the number of callouts on the print. I explained that it did, you just had to do some simple multiplication to get there. He came over from different responsibilities in a different department and seems rather ill-equipped to be reviewing prints, but whatever.

Thanks pmarc for that figure! It was exactly what I was looking for.

 

[ctopher]

I do the same, also I'm with KENAT. I have done it this way for over 30 years without question (except from one checker that had never looked at a drawing before, another story).

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[KENAT]

pmarc - is there an equivalent in teh 94 edition?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[fsincox]

pmarc,
Good job I was looking for that yesterday when I saw this thread, and could not find it, I thought I had seen it, somewhere.
Frank

 

[Belanger]

Kenat -- if I recall, that picture was new for 2009.

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

 

[pmarc]

Kenat,
No equivalent in the '94.

 

[KENAT]

OK, so is there text that goes with the figure that pertains to this - or is it one these where it's not the explicit purpose of the figure, the figure just happens to show it?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[pmarc]

I would say the figure just happens to show it.

 

[lwealing]

Paragraph 7.4.8 in the Y14.5-2009 standard does provide some explanation for using Position on an individual basis, but provides no clear direction on the use of 6X Detail A in my opinion.