Revision table order 1

[GreenMindmn]

Hello,
Based upon ASME/ANSI standards does the order (ascending/descending) matter in revision tables?
A vs C
B vs B
C vs A
If no what are some standard practices?

In the past my company had its revision start lowest(A) at top and ascend.(Note my companies revision block is in the lower edge of paper)
But recently my company switched to Autodesk Inventor and now with our new title block the revs start with highest and go down to A.

Is this a question of orientation (top or bottom) of the page?

 

[GreenMindmn]

To add on, the headings for the table are the lowest row in the table.
EX.

C
B
A
Heading

 

[ctopher]

I think it can work either way. Most common I've seen is:

Heading
A
B
C

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-13-07)

 

[KENAT]

ASME Y14.1-1995 says to have the rev block top right on the format.

Examples in Y14.35 section 6 appear to start with A at the top.

So:

HEADING
A
B
C

As Ctopher says.

 

[namdac]

That is dependent on several factors, for the purests who have ASME, ANSI, ISO9000. The simple fact is that regardless what these documents say it is up to the "companys" needs and wants First. The rule of thumb in Engineering and Drawing, by Thomas French 6th Addition, 1941. It depends on where is your title block is layed out. If it is located in the lower righthand corner then it is:
C
B
A
Title
If it is located in the upper righthand corner then it is:
Title
A
B
C
General with Title Sheets themselves you would place the revisions by the Project and Sheet No. location as:
R1
R2
R3
and so on.
Leave the books on the shelf. The boss does not care how you do it as long as it gets done. So Git 'R" Done.
Regards,
Namdac

 

[ctopher]

That's because the boss usually doesn't understand standards.
I vote for following the standards.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-13-07)

 

[KENAT]

Standards get my vote too.

The rule of thumb in Engineering and Drawing, by Thomas French 6th Addition, 1941, 1941??

Drawing standards have evolved since then. In fact back in 1941 GD&T barely existed, yet alone some of the other conventions now given in ASME Y 14.100 series.

If your company follows standards then you should generally follow the standards, not excessively pick and choose which parts to follow or you may as well not bother.

If your company doesn't follow standards then do whatever you like, just don't come crying when it leads to trouble ;-).

The OP asked about the standards, hence I referenced them.

I should say I didn't look at the hole of 14.1 or 14.38, just a couple of pages I happened to have handy so if someone wants to check the whole document for something I missed please do.

 

[fcsuper]

Well, dispite all this of the standard thumping going on, the actual anwser to your question is that it is correct to run the list of items from the bottom up if the table is anchored to the bottom. This is true for Revision Block, Notes, and BOM's or any other table anchored to the bottom of the drawing. The reason is that new additions do not require the moving or reordering of previously existing items. This was very important back in the pencil and paper days, but still is valid now, as it does get confusing as to what to look at if static items continously shift from revision to revision.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[KENAT]

Sorry if it was construed as ‘standard thumping’, we have battles daily at work over adherence to standards so I have kind of a short fuze on that kind of thing.

However, given that the OP referenced ASME/ANSI standards, and given that this post is in the DRAFTING STANDARDS, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis Forum I thought my posts were appropriate.

Back in the UK working to Defence Standards (Def Stan 05-10 if I recall correctly, which invoked BS308/BS8888) our format did have the rev block down toward the bottom as part of the title block. It had the headings at the bottom and was populated in ascending order

C
B
A
Heading

 

[JMirisola]

Ok, so I have a question about revision tables...
We don't use them where I work (a decision I made, based on what a former employer used). My reasoning was simple, they take up too much space. If you need to refer to an older rev, it's in the archives. While I understand that some people want to be able to see the 'history' of a part/assembly right on the front sheet, I've never seen it used consistantly. Personally, I've never had a use for it. Am I way off the mark here? My boss, who worked in Aerospace had no issue with my removing the rev table. I'm hoping to not get flamed here, just wanted some differing opinions...(ducking behind a chair)

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
CAD Administrator
SW '07 SP2.0, Dell M90, Intel 2 Duo Core, 2GB RAM, nVidia 2500M

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

 

[ctopher]

If you send a drawing out to a customer, shop or vendor ... how do they know what revision they are building/manufacturing to? How do you track your build against theirs?

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-13-07)

 

[JMirisola]

We have a revision block at both the bottom and top of the drawing. There is also a change description block at the bottom of the page. All a supplier has to do is look at his rev and compare it to the one sent to him.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
CAD Administrator
SW '07 SP2.0, Dell M90, Intel 2 Duo Core, 2GB RAM, nVidia 2500M

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

 

[ewh]

We lost our internet connection just as I was about to post this:

While referring to French is appropriate for a company that does not follow a stated national standard, all of the companies which I have worked with use Y14.5 as a minimum. If the company in the OP follows one of the accepted standards, it does make a difference (dependent on the standard). They don't have to be purists as long as they have their own manual which spells out any and all exceptions, and reference to that manual is noted on the drawings.
French (and Verrick [sp?]) are an excellent source for a drafting student learning the basics, but I would hesitate to use them as a company standard today. Their books are more of a textbook format than a standard manual format. When was the last time you had to use descriptive geometry?

"Leave the books on the shelf. The boss does not care how you do it as long as it gets done. So Git 'R" Done."
That statement would keep you out of many industries today. It is ok for a small shop with a limited business base, but would be suicide for a company that wants to grow and have a solid base in industry. Information needs to be exchanged and understood by several parties, and the best way to accomplish that is by FOLLOWING THE STANDARDS.

Sorry for the late soapbox speech!

 

[namdac]

As I have always said in the past as I do now all engineering and Arch students need to be exposed to manual drafting to understand the basic concepts instead of regurgitating the same standard that was printed 40 yrs. ago and revised to meet the lobbying industry wants and needs.
Regards,
Namdac
P.S. this is my soap box speech, cause I have earned it.

 

[fcsuper]

JM,

It sounds like you have a revision table of sorts even though you removed the formal table...just sounds like your system is less organized on the print. I would recommend maintaining a real rev table, but simply keep the latest revision in the table. If you are comfortable with having vendors and employee having to go back into history to see the changes, then there's little reason to keep a full list of all revisions on the print. However, I would advise against requiring people to go back into history unless you are on CAD with a good PLM.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA

http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php

 

[KENAT]

JMirisola

There has always had some kind of revision history table on all the drawings I've ever seen or worked.

Sometimes it just listed REV, ECO #, Approval Date and Approval initials. Other times it also had the Zone column and as well as the ECO number it gave some detail of the changes made.

The way I like most is just to have the ECO number listed and not try to detail the actual changes in the 'description'. If you need to know the detail of what changed at a certain rev you can go and look at the ECO. This helps stop the table getting too big. It is also permissible to current ASME standards.

I have almost always seen the actual ECO number listed, however as you imply, the level of detail of any additional description always seems a bit hit or miss.

I lost this fight at my current place and so they inconsistently put a description of the change in the rev history block, but it is still my preferred method to just list ECO #.

 

[JMirisola]

I have, at the bottom of my drawing template, a block for the ECO#, the rev of the drawing and room for a brief description of the change(s). It's not as disorganized as I made it sound, it's actually very easy to see/follow. None of our suppliers have had any issues with it thusfar. I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP
CAD Administrator
SW '07 SP2.0, Dell M90, Intel 2 Duo Core, 2GB RAM, nVidia 2500M

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

 

[KENAT]

Are you saying you only have the current Rev and the ECO that introduced it listed?

If so then I guess I'd disagree. I think that a list of previous revs (with in reason) should be on the drawing.

If it gets excessively long some of the previous revs details should be removed, with everything that gets removed explicitly detailed on the ECO. This is what we do at my place and we specify such in a company document.

Can't recall exactly what the ASME std says on this though.

 

[ctopher]

I have always done the same as Kenat. Some major companies require it of us. But, I think it is slowly changing to just show the ECO #.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-13-07)

 

[ewh]

With todays electronic data control, it isn't as useful as it used to be to list and describe every revision. Simply stating what revision it is often is enough, as the ECN can be easily found electronically.