×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

(OP)
I need some advice and clarification about specifying surface roughness and finish.

I've spec'd out a simple Ø.125" pin from 302SS, grand total of 1.750" long, with simple corner breaks to take care of burrs. Along the center of the pin, I put a simple leader and the familiar "checkmark" and 16 in the “elbow” of the check, intending to denote a 16 ?-in finish. No units or anything else. The print has a standard note that all dims are English unless otherwise specified. Now, a producer, a fairly reputable one, has sent a message back asking "is that surface finish 16" or 16mm?"

This scares me.........I don't know if I want parts produced by somebody even capable of fathoming a 16mm RMS surface roughness.....much less 16"....although it'd be an interesting paradox to see on a Ø.125" pin.

My actual question is how I should properly specify a 16 ?-in finish so that nobody gets all confused. The old draftsman here seems to think what I have is proper and sufficient, as does what I can decipher of Machinery's Handbook. I just want to be sure there's a consensus and not something I've overlooked.

Materials department (responsible for the quoting of the parts) thinks I need to do a revision of the print and give some sort of clarifying notes for the convenience of this potential supplier, but it seems unnecessary to clarify something that appears to be an established drafting standard.

All help is appreciated.

SW2007 & NX4

RE: How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

Your supplier is an idiot.  This is an age-old marking and you are doing it correctly.  I've used and seen these markings for years and years.  If he sees a check mark with a 16 in it, he should know immediately what you meant.  It's a very common mark and it's intuitively obvious what you meant.

I'm guessing he wants to know if it's micro-inches or microns.  But if he used his head, he'd know that 16 microns would be basically the finish you'd get from cutting with an oxy-acetylene torch.

It might be his smart-ass way of telling you that he thinks that a 16 u-in finish is too fine.  That is pretty fine and would have to be ground or very-finely sanded on a lathe, but it's not a big deal.  I believe standard machine dowel pins come with at least that fine a finish.

Don
Kansas City

RE: How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

What you have should be OK.

We have an overal finish note "SURFACE ROUGHNESS TO BE ____ RMS PER ASME B46.1. " and then any surfaces with a different roughness have their own callout using the symbol.

You could always reference the ASME standard to cover yourself, in fact I'd be tempted to recomend it.

Many will argue that you don't need to reference the relevant standard on the drawing and that general industry practices are adequate etc but then you hit a situation like yours.

If you'd referenced the ASME standard there'd be less chance of misunderstanding.

RE: How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

Better is to call out "Interpret drawing per ASME Y14.5 1994"; this document includes by reference everything from threads (B18) and surface finishes to GD&T and drawing line and note interpretations (14.1, 14.2, etc.).

RE: How do I properly lable a surface roughness dimension?

Our first note is usually a ref to 14.5, however where we call upon a specific standard we normally specifically reference them.  

14.5 doesn't always lead directly to all the other related standards, Y14.100 is a bit better but still you're relying on the person reading the drawing to be familiar with the standars.

If you explicitly state the relevent industry standard for each aspect you're reducing the chance of error.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources