Weld symbols on iso views 1

[txsmith]

We have done a contract design of a large welded frame and it includes a set of frame weldment drawings (several hundred sheets) that use multile arbitraily oriented views (done is NX3) with more multiple detail views pulled out to show the welded joints in "close-up" and then the weld symbols are applied to these detail views. The shop loves it. However, our customer has told us that the weld symbols on "isometric views" violate ANSI Y14.100 drafting practices and has refused to accept our drawing package. Does anyone have experience in this area and can anyone guide me to a standard the spells out what is and is not "legal" on a non-orthographic view? Many thanks!

 

[KENAT]

I'm guessing Y14.41 might allow it (never seen it) however, if you are relying primarily on 2D drafting Y14.5 etc then I'm inclined to think your customer is correct but I can't think of a definite rule to reference.

I'd look at Y14.100 and its references, especially 14.5 & 14.3. Maybe take a look at the weld symbol spec.

I asked a similar question before and never got a definitive answer.

thread1103-157995

 

[MintJulep]

No point in arguing with the customer. Much better to simply beat him at his own game.

Just add a simple note:

"Weld symbols in isometric views are for reference only."

 

[txsmith]

Thanks for your response. We are 3D, solid model only. As of late today, I had our standards guy order Y14.4 so will see what that says. I will follow your suggestion and get 14.3 & 14.5, too. So far, I am at a complete loss to find anything written/definitive about non-ortho views with annotations or weld symbols. Seems like the old drafting board mentaltiy is still around to haunt/limit us. Thanks again!

 

[txsmith]

MintJulep: I love it! Your note goes here. Thanks!

 

[KENAT]

Given the customers stance, saying they are for reference only will only work if they are given as 'non reference' in a traditional orthographic view.

By relying on 2D I mean the drawing is the master document, not the model or combination of model & drawing. We use 3D CAD however our drawing is the master and at present we stick to 14.5 and do not invoke 14.41.

 

[KENAT]

Should have been "are also given as 'non reference'...

i.e. in addition to the iso views.

 

[KENAT]

http://www.eng.uwo.ca/es050/detail_drawings.htm

says no.

To bolster the model and drawing method, Y14.41 accepts PMI in an isometric view. This was forbidden in the previous 2D drawing-only world.

From

http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=57173&strSite=MDSite&catId=0

 

[txsmith]

Hmmmm. Kenat, you obviously know more about this than I do. Why do we need "non-reference" in an orthoganal view before the "reference only" gambit will work....?

Our system uses the solid model as the "master" (part or assembly), the drawing file is seperate but references the model. The drawing updates (most of the time) when the master is changed. UG calls it the Master Model[ ;-) ] process.

 

[KENAT]

Any ‘reference’ dimension or information is just that, for reference. It doesn’t formally define the part and as such can’t really be inspected to etc. As such if you want to make the ones in iso views ‘reference’ then they need to be given as ‘non reference’ i.e. the controlling dimension/information, elsewhere, in your case probably on an ortho view.

With regards the drawing being the master I'm not talking about from a software point of view, I'm talking about from a configuration control point of view. What is the controlling document that you build to or send out to be built to, is it just the drawing, or is it the drawing + model or is it just the model? If it’s just the drawing then I’m not sure you can invoke 14.41 but as I said before I haven’t seen the spec, just some reviews and comments on this site so I could be wrong.

To me it sounds like a case where all your non-orthographic views would have been better in a separate ‘work instruction’ or similar internal document to make it easy for manufacture while the controlling document would have been a more conventional drawing.

Remember though anything I say is just my opinion from my (limited) knowledge and experience, not gospel.

 

[aardvarkdw]

Txsmith,

I'm not sure what their problem is, the only reference to weld symbols in ASME Y14.100 is section 4.19.6 which says,"4.19.6 Welding Symbols. Welding symbols shall be
in accordance with ANSI/AWS A2.4, together with
terms and definitions in accordance with ANSI/AWS
A3.0."

The only thing about Isometric veiws is section 4.10 which says, "Isometric and Pictorial Views
Isometric or pictorial views shall be in accordance
with ASME Y14.4M and may be shown on engineering
drawings provided that clarity is not degraded."

The reference to ASME Y14.4 is also not a problem becasue it says in section 3.8, "Symbols
Symbols for surface texture, welds, and other re-
quirements shall reflect their respective standards.
See Fig. 19."

I see no problem with weld symbols in an Isometric veiw unless it is not clear what you are trying to say.

David

 

[txsmith]

Friends,

My apologies for being off the air for so long and my thanks for the good input. I thought I would get back to y'all to describe the final (at least for now) solution to these issues.

First, I think MintJulep said to not argue with the customer. That's correct because they win; never-mind the facts.

Second, we have reviewed the standards every which way and are convinced that Aardvarkdw is correct - there are no standards that exclude the process we have followed.

So, third, we have agreed to do what Kenat suggested: supply the customer with one conventional drawing like they want, and use our isometeric/weld detail drawings as a Process Instruction Document that will be released and controlled in our system and used by our mfg shop, but not delivered to the customer.

We are discussing adding a small note to the General Notes of the conventional drawing that says something like "Manufacturing process details specified in PID # XXXX" or something to that effect.

We will then stand back and wait to see how soon the customer will decide that he wants a copy of our PID. That will be $$$ time for us.

So, thanks again for all your input. It was very helpful.

 

[ewh]

If this is regarding level 3 drawings, some good information is given in thread1103-170033. A welded assembly is still an assembly.
If you are using Y14.41 (MBD), then the view orientation is not critical, as the model will take precedence.

 

[KENAT]

Sounds to me like you've done the right thing, even if it takes a little extra effort. You've provided both your immediate customer (shop floor) and end customer (client) what they wanted.