Year of specs on dwg notes 2

[ctopher]

Anyone know where I can find if the year is to be called out of specs on dwgs.
ie: ASME-Y14.5M-2009

It is being now questioned here at work. I need to show proof where it indicated if it needs to be called out.

Thanks.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[3DDave]

The Y14.5 standards themselves specify that to use them in a compliant manner one needs to specify the appropriate version on the related drawings. Mostly this is a requirement because the Y14.5 committee changes interpretations and adds and deletes portions in a way that would otherwise be confusing.

Most other standards are incremental and inclusive of previous information. If there is a significant change they create some new branch - either a new standard or new descriptor while leaving the old information in place - such that anyone getting the latest version will have a compatible interpretation. Sometimes they do this by so generalizing that almost anything is acceptable (looking at the evisceration of Mil-specs).

The typical practice is that whatever version is current at the time the referencing document is created is the governing one for any case there is a question about it.

I would have expected specific revisioning of standards on drawings to come up in dealing with military contracts with four or five different governments, a half-dozen different agencies within the US DoD or dealing with the USPTO (an even more strict bunch), but it never did.

 

[ctopher]

3DDave,
Thanks. I agree with you, but I need to find the paragraph in a spec that indicates this. The higher-ups want to see it.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[ctopher]

I found it, thanks.
ASME Y14.5-2018, SECT 1, 1.3

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[3DDave]

Oh - sorry, thought you meant specs in general, not Y14.5 in particular.

 

[ctopher]

Yes, I meant in general. But, the one in question here is Y14.5.
I did mention Y14.5 as example.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[rothers]

BS 8888 has an excellent clause to cover situations where the year of a spec is not specified on the drawing, does ASME have anything similar ?

3.1.3 Date of issue principle
A TPS shall always be interpreted according to those versions of standards which
governed its interpretation on its date of issue.
NOTE What is not specified in a TPS at the date of issue cannot be required.

 

[CheckerHater]

In fact, even if no standard specified on the face of the drawing at all, ANSI/ASME may be implied based on symbology used and "The relevant dimensioning and tolerancing standard(s) shall be determined by the approval date in the drawing title block"

The spec: ASME PDS-1.1–2013

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

 

[greenimi]

CheckerHater,

Do you agree that the statement from ASME PDS-1.1-2013 (the one you mentioned above) has been added to counteract the Invocation Principle provided by ISO 8015-2011?

In other words to not let ISO to drive the show.

5.1 Invocation principle
Once a portion of the ISO GPS system is invoked in a mechanical engineering product documentation, the
entire ISO GPS system is invoked, unless otherwise indicated on the documentation, e.g. by reference to a
relevant document.
“Unless otherwise indicated on the documentation” means e.g. that if it is indicated on the documentation that
it has been prepared in accordance with a regional, national or company standard, then that standard and not
the ISO GPS system shall be used to interpret those elements of the specification that are covered by that
standard.

 

[CheckerHater]

greenimi,

Yes, it does look a bit like power grab.

I think your question better to be addressed to the Committee members here.

As a humble occasional user of both systems, I think ISO approach is usually more robust and makes more sense, just like (in my opinion) <CZ> makes more sense than <CF>

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

 

[ctopher]

rothers,
I'm not familiar with BS 8888. I'll look it up, I'm curious. Thanks.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[looslib]

I get a lot of pushback when I se documents that only state the spec and no year. The engineers usually cover themselves with a statement like "Specifications shall be the latest version unless otherwise stated". I have to remind them with Y14.5 that we are only following the 2009 spec and not the latest 2018 spec, yet.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[3DDave]

That does seem like a power grab. Basically saying - if the preparer of the documentation made an incompetent contract, instead of declaring it void, the users get to take out the tea leaves and guess what it should have meant.

Of course, this means that everyone involved will have to try to buy whatever specification products that the leaves say they should.

Park Avenue rent isn't cheap.

 

[drawoh]

ctopher,

I assume that you are attaching a note that states that the drawing is to be interpreted to some version of ASME[&nbsp;]Y14.5. The standard changes from version to version. You need to state which version applies.

NOTES
...
3. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE INTERPRETED TO THE STANDARD ASME Y14.5-2009.

 

[ctopher]

drawoh,
Yes, I have called out the note exactly how you show. It's others here that want to suddenly remove the date.
I told them no.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[drawoh]

ctopher,

You are right. They are wrong.[&nbsp;]

--
JHG

 

[CheckerHater]

From ASME Y14.100-2004 ENGINEERING DRAWING PRACTICES:

"4.12 Dimensioning and Tolerancing
Dimensioning and tolerancing shall be in accordance with ASME Y14.5M.
4.12.1 Application.
Reference to ASME Y14.5M on drawings shall always include the year of issue (e.g., ASME Y14.5M-1994)."

I am quite sure latest edition of Y14.100 has similar paragraph(s).

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

 

[CWB1]

I get a lot of pushback when I se documents that only state the spec and no year. The engineers usually cover themselves with a statement like "Specifications shall be the latest version unless otherwise stated".

This is another great example of society standards not being aligned/useful as they differ from most corporate standards. Default should always be to use the latest standard, otherwise you're ignoring the purpose of standards/specs and creating endless revisions. If your PLM autogenerates revisions for minor changes then at best you're adding needless risk to the process, if you have to manually generate new prints for every part to update a finish or other minor spec then you are needlessly wasting a mountain of money/time.

 

[3DDave]

CWB1 - most creators of standards make them compatible with previous versions so that any previous use of the standard would be 100% compatible with the latest one.

Y14.5 has been handled like a poorly managed programming language where certain features are re-defined and incompatible, so knowing the exact version is required to understand the inspection and interpretation software that is encoded on the drawing.

Example: Any '1982 version based drawing could be invalid for not using the toilet plunger symbol for datum features.

 

[chez311]

Default should always be to use the latest standard, otherwise you're ignoring the purpose of standards/specs and creating endless revisions.

This isn't always best practice. In your example with finish specs oftentimes the changes can be acceptable (or even an improvement, if they contain the latest knowledge on materials and processes)* however with GD&T standards can change interpretations between revisions which can change the meaning of specifications contained in a drawing - or in some cases remove them entirely so they cannot be interpreted per the latest revision. For a recent example, in Y14.5-2018 they removed both concentricity and symmetry - while these are not commonly used controls, its an example of where defaulting to the latest standard presents issues in downstream interpretation.

*Though I would not say necessarily across the board if for example you have to meet a stringent test/performance requirement where a change to the coating standard could impact adherence to that test/performance requirement.