Title Block Question 1

[kislyak]

Need your help.
We have a dispute with our local drawing checkers. They claim that if an area in a title block is intended to be blank then per the national standards you MUST have a horizontal line in lieu of text. In this example it’s a project number, and for this particular drawing project number does not apply.
Does anyone know where in our national standards it talks about that? I did look at ASME Y14.1 Section 6 where it talks about title blocks and did not find that info there.
Any ideas?

 

[fcsuper]

In an ISO-9001 (whatever the latest version), all fields must have something in them. If a field is left blank, it is assumed by auditors that a task was left incomplete. It's a compliance issue.

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

 

[KENAT]

kislyak, as dgallup suggests, is this a case where the checkers don't understand how your CAD package/template are set up?

Has it been demonstrated/explained to them what the problem is?

Honestly, I dont' think I could be bothered to argue this much, I'd just spend the 5 seconds to draw the line on each drawing. However, maybe I'm missing something.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[kislyak]

There 2 checkers do understand now our CAD works. We have a homemade software that populates the title block in our CAD software, and the default for not-applicable boxes is - - - - -. For years this has not been an issue, until recently they (just 2 checkers out of 10) started rejecting drawings just for that! My take on this is “if it’s not broken then don’t try to change/fix it!” They have been checking for more than 2 years, and they were fine with it before, but not anymore for some odd reason. It does not seem lean to delete something that is populated automatically (and is per the acceptable standards), and then draw a solid line after the fast. This seems redundant and it has no value to the end product. Of course just to have the drawings move along we (not just me another 4 drafters) did what they required (in this case delete - - - - - and draw an actual solid horizontal line). So I am just doing my own homework and trying to see what is actually required in our national standards. At this point I see that - - - - or - is acceptable.

<img src="

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/hangar/gifa/combi/f1416_1.gif">

 

[ewh]

Perhaps you could talk with them about their reasoning. If they changed their procedures, there is probably a reason.

Technically, the glass is always full.

 

[kislyak]

Thanks ewh for the response. But yes the conversation took place with the checker about this matter before. Its just that even the checkers among them self cannot agree about putting a solid line or putting a - - -. Some say - - - - it is per the standard and some of the checkers say it is not.

<img src="

http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/hangar/gifa/combi/f1416_1.gif">

 

[KENAT]

So what does your company standard say?

To get hung up on stuff like this surely your employer cares enough to have a company 'addendum' or standard to clarify points where the ASME specs allow too much leeway for their liking?

;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[fcsuper]

Only "something" is needed to fill an empty field, whether that is a dotted line or a dash doesn't matter. I'm of the camp that this is not a reason to reject a drawing. KENAT has a good comment about company standards.

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

 

[CheckerHater]

even the checkers among them self cannot agree about putting a solid line or putting a - - -. Some say - - - - it is per the standard and some of the checkers say it is not...

And yet they fail to produce actual book they are sticking to?

Fascinating.

 

[ewh]

Yes, fascinating...
I would be less than popular there.
I tend to get very stubborn about such issues when there is documentation to support my position, but I will gladly back down and accept opposing arguments when shown the documentation and how it relates to the issue at hand. If there is no documentation to support an argument, it becomes more a matter of opinion. If your checkers can't even agree among themselves about an issue as trivial as this, and management does not care one way or the other, I think I would have to shrug my shoulders and be the good cartoonist that they are paying for, looking for my next chance of escape ASAP.

Technically, the glass is always full.