Vertical Dimensions using ASME Y14.x std 3

[pdiletti]

I had to convert my drawings from ISO to ASME std.
In accordance with ASME Y14.5M standard
the "dimensions should be placed on drawing
to read from the bottom of drawing" ( section 1.7.5.2 ).
That means a vertical dimension is written in horizontal way .

But the standard uses "should" and not "shall" verb.
So , in your experience, for ASME std,
is it accetable that a vertical dimension is written in vertical way, parallel to dimension line ,
to be read from right ?

Thank you
Pier

 

[CheckerHater]

No, not yet.

On "horizontal" dimension you can place numbers above dimension line "ISO-style", but your vertical dimensions still have to have numbers positioned horizontally.


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

 

[pdiletti]

Thanks,
I really hoped in a different answer
Bye

 

[SeasonLee]

Drawing notes and dimensions shall be read from the bottom of the drawing(1.7.5.2 Fig.1-18), the only exception is that baseline dimensions may be read from the right side of the drawing(1.7.5.3 Fig.1-50).

Season

 

[CheckerHater]

Just out of curiosity, are you talking about CAD or paper-and-pencil drawings, because CAD may be surprisingly easy nowadays?

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

 

[ewh]

Per the standard (Y14.5-2009 ¶1.7.5.2), "Dimensions shown with dimension lines and arrowhweads should be placed to read from the bottom of the drawing."
This does leave other orientations as allowable, just not preferable. If it read "shall", this would not be the case.

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

 

[KENAT]

Generally I take 'should' in the standard to mean one of 2 things in the standard.

1. Do it unless there is a really, really, really good reason in your specific case not to.

2. Most on the committee thought 'shall' was appropriate but there was some hold out who didn't think they could mandate it for everyone all the time - or similar.

I generally comply with 'should' statements and very rarely do my own thing - for what it's worth.

In CAD getting the text orientation to change should be simple by changing dimension style or whatever your CAD system calls it. However, correcting the layout of the dimensions on the drawing could be problematic if changing text orientation messes things up. i.e. it may be necessary to space the dimensions further apart, or stagger the text etc. to avoid dimensions interfering with each other.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[dgallup]

While it is usually simple to change the text orientation in a CAD drawing, it creates an awful mess when the text is rotated as you now have a bunch of overlapping dimensions. I personally HATE the look of an ASME Y14.5 drawing, it does absolutely nothing to improve legibility. Stupidest drawing requirement ever. Since it says SHOULD and not SHALL, I would fight it tooth and nail.

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

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.

 

[JNieman]

I also detest the "horizontal-only" text-in-dimensions statement. It's ludicrous, impractical, and wasteful of precious real-estate, combined with a quite common precedent of reading text from either right OR bottom.

_________________________________________
NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD, Enovia V5

 

[CheckerHater]

It's a tie 3 : 3.

More opinions?

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

 

[ctopher]

Whichever orientation is used, it should be consistent throughout the drawing.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Belanger]

My opinion is that there's a difference between the words "should" and "shall." So if the standard says that they "should" be read horizontally, then I won't ding a print that has dims written vertically.

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

 

[pmarc]

If the real task is to convert ISO drawings to ASME, text orientation in case of vertical dimensions is one of the last things I would worry about (although I agree that the statement from para. 1.7.5.2 is rather a nice-to-have thing than a must). There are much more important differences between ISO and ASME that have to be thoroughly considered when one wants to jump from one system to another.

I hope OP realizes that such conversion is not just a matter of changing a text orientation or switching from comma to point in decimal mark.

 

[dgallup]

You are absolutely correct pmarc, that thought went through my head after I posted above. Many of the rules for drawing interpretation are different between ISO & ASME. Many years ago we converted from an obsolescent proprietary (British company) drawing manual and had to pick a system. A group of us combed through the standards and were able to come up with a subset of the ISO standards which with judicious stipulations (such as the envelope principal is always invoked by default) allowed us to not change any of the interpretations so we did not have to worry about redrawing thousands of existing prints. It's impossible to do that going from ISO to ASME. ASME is all or nothing, no freedom of choice.

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

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.

 

[pdiletti]

Thank you everybody.
I know that the difference in dimension orientation is not the worst problem in conversion to ASME drawings.
Anyway it could be the most "apparent" difference and, also in my opinion, it's not so practical.

I also know that the word "should" give me a chance, but I wonder if a "ASME quality responsible" could reject my drawings with vertical dimensions written with right oriented text or with different type of decimal mark.

 

[pdiletti]

I used a CAD system and , of course, it will be not so complex to change the orientation of dimensions, even if this will mean that I will have to change their positions to make drawing readable.

 

[KENAT]

pdiletti,

This requirement is probably one I'd put under my first definition "1. Do it unless there is a really, really, really good reason in your specific case not to."

I'm thinking you may have reasonable justification for exercising the lee way in should - any way you can check in advance with "ASME quality responsible" pointing out the relevant section of the standard says 'should'?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[Belanger]

I also know that the word "should" give me a chance, but I wonder if a "ASME quality responsible" could reject my drawings with vertical dimensions written with right oriented text or with different type of decimal mark.

In order for them to reject your drawings, they would have to point to the place in the standard where is says "shall." And that ain't possible.

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

 

[KENAT]

Of course, if I'm paying and someone breaks a 'should' then my viewpoint may be a bit different.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[Belanger]

Good point, Kenat. Contractually the drawing would be legal (per the standard, yada yada) but I suppose the customer is always right!

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