Visual inspection

[Rwelch9]

Hi

I wondering if anyone has had any past experience with problems with visual inspection of their components. We manufacture components to ASME Y 14.5 drawings.

Does anyone know with keeping to the standard what is deemed standard practice for visual inspection. For example if you had a customer complaint about small burs on the components which you could only see under a microscope. Should this been added into the drawing as a note. I have always worked to visual inspection just by eye. My feelings are leaning towards the customer is always correct attitude and would have the final say.

However if customers were going to extreme levels or scrutiny and magnifications would you feel this should be added to the print to allow the work to be carried out to an agreed level of inspection.

Thanks

 

[ctopher]

If you have some type of note that everything to be free of burrs, looking under a microscope would be part of a visual inspection.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Rwelch9]

Hi ctopher

There is notes on the prints stating remove all burrs and sharp edges. However burrs that are not visible to the naked eye could be picked up in 20x magnification microscope.

So if a customer says we are rejecting components due to burrs which can only be seen under a microscope should the use of microscope be stated on the notes within the print.

I would say if you keep magnifying you would always find smalls hairs and burrs which the eye would not see. My thoughts would be unless other wise stated a general visual by eye would be standard inspection.

Although I do not see online a general rule for this sort of inspection.

 

[MintJulep]

... allow the work to be carried out to an agreed level of inspection and acceptance criteria.

Yes.

 

[CWB1]

Inspection process is normally defined in a separate plan as its unrelated to part geometry. Regardless of process, the part should meet the print definition. The problem you have is that you're adding needless notes to the print. Remove the note about burrs and let the print define the part, including what burrs are acceptable in quantitative, not qualitative terms.

 

[Rwelch9]

CWB1

thanks for you input, I do not create the print we manufacture the parts to the print. Its we are having a dispute on the visual inspection with our customer.

There are burrs on the parts which are genuinely so small you cannot see them with the naked eye, however under the microscope you can see them.

I was looking to find out if there is anything within the standard about visual inspection. I Thought the aid of a microscope would be something that should have been in the notes of the print.

In my opinion if you cannot see burrs with your eye then the parts would be deemed as burr free.

However in most cases the customer is always correct.

 

[CWB1]

As mentioned, inspection is irrelevant to definition of the part so no, you won't find what you are looking for bc it doesnt belong on the print. Features are defined by quantifiable measurement, not arbitrary nonsense as your customer is suggesting. A burr by another name could be surface roughness, sharpness of an edge, or other geometrical feature which is perfectly fine to meet the print definition and fit, form, function. You need to see if the part meets the surface roughness, GD&T, and every other callout on the print. If it does then the part is good, if not then its bad.

Notes relevant to breaking edges, removing burrs, etc are unprofessional and embarrassing to be polite, kinda like calling out drill size on a tapped hole. I would recommend upcharging appropriately as many shops do.

 

[3DDave]

Even if it cannot be seen, it may be felt or otherwise detected, such as by snagging on fabric, and spoil its use.

Using a microscope should not be on the print, but specifying limits that need a microscope to verify are allowable. I cannot tell if that is your case or if the customer is wanting something they felt you would otherwise charge for if it was explicit.

Potentially, electropolishing can be used to eliminate such small features.

 

[mfgenggear]

Rwelch9

I am probably going to rile up the other posters. it does not matter what we think. if it is a customers print, and specifies removal of all burrs then it is part of the contract.
when quoting the part the estimator needs to add additional time and money to deburr and buff to the customers needs.
what this falls under is customer to manufacture requirements. unless it was stated on the quote your company is not responsible for burrs.
in my line of business burrs are a big deal as well, and have to be removed, if there is a note to remove all burrs and break all edges for example .005-.020
then it has to be done. there may be a rational where burrs are detrimental to their product.

now if it does not state the magnification value then it has to be hashed out with the customer.
all of my customers over the years had their own internal specifications to handle burr removal.

I don't agree with other posters that it should not be part of the print, but it probably depends on the product and it's
fit, form or function, Most drawing of machined, sheet metal have burr removal for as stated above. in sheet metal it can be a
hazard with sharp edges for handling, so it becomes a safety issue. and same with machined parts.

 

[sammcc]

when is a burr not a burr, if the drawing states it should be free from burrs and sharp edges then it should be.

 

[Bill B.]

There's a fine line between a sharp corner and one with a microscopic burr. Would a note stating "Break all sharp edges .005/.020" solve the issue?

 

[ewh]

Would a note stating "Break all sharp edges .005/.020" solve the issue?

That solution is difficult to effectively argue against and one I've seen taken most often (as long as "unless otherwise specified" is noted somewhere).

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

 

[mfgenggear]

yes because it will be a contract requirement that at what magnification parts are to be inspected.
and depending what field eg medical, aerospace , commercial, all have different requirements.
and should be stated on the drawing or on the purchase order.

 

[drawoh]

Is there an official definition of the word "sharp"? To me, a sharp thing is something I can cut myself on. If I can cut with the edge, it is sharp. If I cannot cut things, it is not sharp.

Drawings under my control state that there are to be no burrs or sharp edges. Apparently sharp inside and outside corners are to be R0.5mm[ ]MAX.

--
JHG

 

[dgallup]

Since we primarily make fuel injection equipment, burrs are a very large concern to us. Many of our drawings have a note that reads "NO BURRS VISIBLE AT 20x MAGNIFICATION". We have a very sharp eyed QA inspector who can see things I can't so it is somewhat subjective. We also typically have a general tolerance note "BREAKEDGE 0.2 max." That's 0.2 mm or 0.008". Very rarely will we have a requirement for both a sharp edge and no burrs as that will drive manufacturing and QC nuts. It can be done with the right design and tooling. SHARP means no breakedge, a sharp 90 degree corner is not gong to cut anything.

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

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.

 

[dik]

10x is often used as a criteria. Many "jeweller's" eyepieces are 10x.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Compositepro]

A sharp 90 degree corner can indeed cut skin very easily. It just typically will not cut deeply because the sides interfere with penetration. Score-cutting blades cut by pressing against a hard backing surface and crushing through things like paper and plastic. These blades will have 0.005" radius on the cutting edge so that the edge is strong enough to not roll over when pressed against a hard steel anvil roll.