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

 

[drawoh]

Y14.5 has been handled like a poorly managed programming language...

ASME Y14.5 is not a programming language. It is something closer to a written language. If the symbols do not disappear outright, they can subtly change their meaning. If I prepare a drawing to ASME Y14.5M[‑]1994, I expect it to be interpreted to that version of the standard.

For fun, I just looked up the LET[ ]command in BASIC. This must have disappeared in the late sixties. I have never seen it used in code. I have no idea of what the author of my link was thinking. The code must be interpreted or compiled to whatever software you are running on your computer at the moment. Drawings are not as restricted.

--
JHG

 

[3DDave]

Is it mathematical? Does it create a linked list of dependencies? To verify the conditional statements doesn't it demand certain sequences on the part of the user? Does it depend on what language standard (ASME vs ISO) that is used as a basis? It's a programming language, albeit not Turing complete, one that usually relies on highly fallible humans for interpretation, humans who add rules just like they do for playing Monopoly. It's declarative rather than procedural. Were it not a programming language then VSA could not have written an interpreter to perform variation analysis.

"LET" is still valid in Microsoft VBA.

 

[ctopher]

chez311,
It's not good practice to list the latest year (version). The drawing needs to be dimensioned per the year listed.
If dimensioned per 1994 standards, and shown as 2018 in the notes, it should be fixed before released.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[chez311]

ctopher,

I agree. I don't think I was saying anything to the contrary.

 

[CWB1]

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...

Most standards listed on prints should be internal design standards, so referencing the latest is best practice bc it allows common control of minor details affecting fit/form/function. As to Y14.5 and other society "standards," iterative changes should have minimal impact. Every company should have their own drawing standard to control exceptions, so changes to Y14.5 should have ZERO impact on interpretation unless your employer deems it worthwhile as its really the internal standard controlling interpretation. I tell junior engineers regularly that society standards are a suggestion, corporate standards are the rule.

 

[3DDave]

CWB1 - the attachment method and location of datum feature symbols changed. What is used in the 1982 version is illegal for the 1994 version, as is the use of (S) in the feature control frame. That's a large effect on interpretation. Symmetry is no longer allowed, but that has come and gone depending on the version.

People are certainly allowed to assume what was intended, but it's not really a standard's compliant interpretation when the standard at question has REQUIRED the issuer and year of standard to be on the drawing to be compliant.

 

[ctopher]

We have people still calling out 1994, but dim/callouts/GD&T, etc are per 2009.
Only because they don't know the difference. I hear the same comments "We have always done it that way". Which means they simply don't know.
I was told there are in-house standards for this, of course they are not written down. Therefore, there are no in-house standards. I will continue with the latest standards.

ctopher, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[CWB1]

Dave, I fully understand that at face value changes to Y14.5 may be minor or drastic between revisions. Fortunately, corporate standards supersede society suggestions and moderate those changes. If the corporate standards board doesn't like the latest iteration then the changes simply get filed somewhere under "Exceptions to Y14.5" and "Additions to Y14.5," and print interpretation remains the same. Y14.5 DOES NOT require anyone to do anything.

JMO but leaving old dates on standards is silly, as-is expecting customers and suppliers to purchase multiple revisions to interpret your print. That's the sort of basic nonsense that costs companies their customer and supply base.