ASME Standards for...
ASME Standards for...
(OP)
Per ASME Standard Y14.5M -1994, can you add the following note to the Drawing Title Block:
Interpret Drawing per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Y14.5M- 1994 Standard.
Also, what is the standard for notes: ?
NOTES:
or
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
Interpret Drawing per American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Y14.5M- 1994 Standard.
Also, what is the standard for notes: ?
NOTES:
or
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.





RE: ASME Standards for...
2) Your choice, though I have seen "NOTES:" used most often.
RE: ASME Standards for...
David
RE: ASME Standards for...
I have used "NOTES", but "NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED" has become more common.
Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-26-07)
RE: ASME Standards for...
http://www
It seems to me that it might not be advisable to list the current standard, but rather say something like, "Use current ASME standard to interpret this drawing". Or, say nothing at all, even.
On topic now: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED is recommended, per aardvarkdw's comment.
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: ASME Standards for...
Chris
SolidWorks 07 3.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 03-26-07)
RE: ASME Standards for...
At the very least, note the company drawing specification.
RE: ASME Standards for...
I must disagree with you. ASME Y14.5M-1994 states in section "1.1.3 Reference to this standard. Where drawings are based on this Standard, this fact shall be noted on the drawings or in a document referenced on the drawings. References to this Standard shall state ASME Y14.5M-1994."
I see no other interpretation of that then to state ASME Y14.5M-1994 on the print or in a company standard that is referenced on the print.
David
RE: ASME Standards for...
There are significant although minor variations between the different issues.
I believe this goes back like 25 years or more.
RE: ASME Standards for...
NOTES: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
1. DIMENSIONS AND TOLERANCES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.5M-1994.
2. INTERPRET DRAWING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME Y14.100.
I believe aardvarkdw is correct about 14.5, you need to put the date because there are major differences between revisions, and of course because it says to.
Generally though I don't put dates on the standards as normally you want the latest version invoked, 14.5 is an obvious exception.
I've also used NOTES: I think putting 'unless otherwise stated' in the note block 'title' just means you don't have to worry about wording each note to allow for exceptions when necessary. I quite like it.
I believe (with in reason) in listing all the relevant specs, for instance if you have unified threads on the drawing then somewhere you should reference ASME B1.1 either in the thread call out or a general note:
"3. SCREW THREADS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME B1.1."
The thread standard recomends you do this though most people don't seem to bother.
Back in the UK on defence they were really strict. For instance when specifying material you had to give the standard as well as the grade, e.g. you couldn't just say "Aluminium 6082-T6" you had to ref the releven BS/EN/ISO spec as well. This was a pain as different sheet/billet/bar sizes were sometimes different specs and always seemed to be changing with the move from BS to ISO specs.
RE: ASME Standards for...
Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 3.0 & Pro/E 2001
XP Pro SP2.0 P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)
(In reference to David Beckham) "He can't kick with his left foot, he can't tackle, he can't head the ball and he doesn't score many goals. Apart from that, he's all right." -- George Best
RE: ASME Standards for...
My philosophy has always been to "idiot" proof drawings as much as possible. you would be suprised what people will start assuming if you don't specify.
RE: ASME Standards for...
So in regards to the standard requiring a reference to the standard on the drawing, my own experience is to leave it off all together, lest the vendor come back with one of the issues mentioned in that other thread. The more one specifies, the more one opens themselves up to loop holes. So, I would suggest this isn't a rule that can be applied universally.
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: ASME Standards for...
I disagree completely.
"I've never had a vendor pull "You didn't specify how to interpret your drawings" arguement. Nor have I ever had a vendor ask for explanation as to which standard to apply."
This would worry me! This means that your vendors can apply whichever standard they choose. Do you put a date on your drawings? Does the "current" standard mean the one that was current in the year the drawing was created, the year the drawing was last revised, or the current standard that the machine shop is working to?
"Also, the differences between standards of different years are generally that the current one is more explicit..."
So, what if they choose to use a standard that has a looser definition to define your part? You have no choice but to accept the parts regardless. Furthermore, it has been discussed repeatedly that ASME Y14.5M-1994 is actually looser in its wording than the previous standards. 1994 uses more "should" and "may" than "shall" and "will" than the 1982 standard.
In the thread you cite, you said " Besides that, the only criticism I have for the customer is to not use 1982 standards anymore. Vendor is responsible, but their out could be that the customer is using an outdated standard that doesn't address the issue...something like customer's fault for specifically employing a standard that doesn't address the issue. "
What if the dimensioning scheme on the drawing matches the 1982 standard? You cannot interpret the drawing to the 1994 standard just because it is the most current. The dimensioning practices have changed. Perhaps the drawing has not been rev'd since 1993, if you try to apply the 1994 standard to that drawing your interpretation may be wrong.
David
RE: ASME Standards for...
No standards may be fine for a mom & pop business content with their market share, but any worthwhile growth requires CONTROL, throughout the product life cycle.
RE: ASME Standards for...
Well, that works for you. This works for me. :) Besides that, there is a legal leg. ASME isn't a law, but governance of P.O. contracts is. It's not like the wild west out there. :)
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: ASME Standards for...
RE: ASME Standards for...
Historically they didn't care less about standards and it showed. The drawings were poor to say the least and it did/does lead to problems. High reject rates, no come back to vendor, field failures, being tied to vendors who had some how figured out what we wanted and paying a premium because of it, I could go on.
I and my team have been brought in largely to introduce industry standards.
Note the phrase "Industry Standards". They are industry standards, they are no longer "just for the military'. This view shows a lack of understanding.
The newer standards have plenty of shoulds & mays if you don't want to be too strict but they are still a good start.
And if you don’t reference the standards on the drawing or other product definition then how will the vendor/shop whoever know that you want it invoked?
I put the following out at my place a while back and have posted part of it here before:
Now I’m not expecting to convince anyone just based on the above and this is starting to get off topc & I don’t want to get accused of “Standards Thumping” again. However, given this is the Drafting Standards, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis Forum I don’t think it’s that out of place.
RE: ASME Standards for...
Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
http://sw.fcsuper.com/index.php
RE: ASME Standards for...