Will Y14.5M-1994 become effectively obsolete with the new Y14.5?

[capeharleyguy]

All,

Will the ASME Y14.5-1994 standard be obsolete with the release of 2009 or can they still be used in conjunction with each other?

Thanks in advance!

 

[KENAT]

It wont become obsolete over night. Many places still use the 1982 ANSI Y14.5.

If you reference Y14.5M-1994 on your drawings that's the spec you work to.

If you reference Y14.5-2009 then that's what you work to.

Over time more and more people will probably move to 2009 but I suspect it will take a while. Certainly, for contracts started on one standard it's unusual to change which standard you refer to part way through. Plus it may take a while for the full implications of some of the changes to be understood.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[ewh]

It is similar to adopting new CAD software releases; some will do so quickly, others will wait awhile until the implications are better understood, and some will be contractually forced to update. In any event, previous releases are still legitimate as long as the version is clearly stated.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[MartinSr00]

It will be interesting to see how quickly the Y14.5-2009 will be adopted.

If you have a Y14.5M-1994 drawing, its interpretation would be almost no different though the new standard has clarified much.

The 2009 standard has some extra "goodies" such as movable datums, and some new symbology tools (e.g. continuous feature & spotface symbol).

The big advantage of the 2009 standard is that the spec is more clearly written, the nature of datums and their orientation has been clarified (related and unrelated actual mating envelopes), and composite tolerancing has been expanded.

If you read them both cover to cover (I have), the 2009 spec is a much clearer read, and what was fuzzy before (e.g. orientation of mating envelopes), is now often clearer.