ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
(OP)
Hello Forum,
I don't enjoy the circular process of turning my 2D concept sketches into 3D CAD geometry, to only revert it back to a 2D engineering drawings...seems wasteful. I don't see the point in entering data twice (i.e. once in during 3D CAD and again in the 2D drawing). I don't like having to update changes in two places. Hence, I'm very excited about moving to the new ASME Y14.41-2003 standard.
What does the forum think about using Adobe 3D as a standard exchange format for ASME Y14.41-2003 engineering control data?
The reader is free (i.e. Vendors don't have to pay for the ability to view 3D design information). Vendors can measure , section, and study the part to their hearts desire. And lastly, they can use the 3D PDF data to export a suitable IGES or STEP file for CAM import (we only need to send the vendor one small file) In addition, it lends to easy revision management using current PDM solutions...and the list goes on. Anyone agree?
Check out the feature demo:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat3d/
It seems like the biggest hurdle is affordable CMM inspection equipment. Here's to 2D drawingless world!
P.S. And no, I don't work for Adobe or its subsidiaries.
I don't enjoy the circular process of turning my 2D concept sketches into 3D CAD geometry, to only revert it back to a 2D engineering drawings...seems wasteful. I don't see the point in entering data twice (i.e. once in during 3D CAD and again in the 2D drawing). I don't like having to update changes in two places. Hence, I'm very excited about moving to the new ASME Y14.41-2003 standard.
What does the forum think about using Adobe 3D as a standard exchange format for ASME Y14.41-2003 engineering control data?
The reader is free (i.e. Vendors don't have to pay for the ability to view 3D design information). Vendors can measure , section, and study the part to their hearts desire. And lastly, they can use the 3D PDF data to export a suitable IGES or STEP file for CAM import (we only need to send the vendor one small file) In addition, it lends to easy revision management using current PDM solutions...and the list goes on. Anyone agree?
Check out the feature demo:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat3d/
It seems like the biggest hurdle is affordable CMM inspection equipment. Here's to 2D drawingless world!
P.S. And no, I don't work for Adobe or its subsidiaries.





RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
But to answer your question, it sounds like you answered your own question! :)
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
I think it will be awhile though before it is fully accepted, as their are too many old school fabricators who don't seem to want to fool with it. The same thing was said of CAD when it was first being used, and look where we are today.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
The question is just how far of is that future.
For some sectors it's here, and has been for a while.
For others it seems it's still a ways off.
I've looked into it a little and for my organization the leap to MBD is probably a ways off for various reasons.
Acrobat 3D is one option but I've also heard JT being pushed hard as well.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
One note regarding the job shop. I've spent days working on multi sheet drawings, twenty view drawings, with detailed 2D GD&T. I pass it off the the vendor to have him/her say "Theres to many dimension, just send an IGES and point out the critical tolerances."
Needless to say...some job shops are ready, but maybe not ready for a new standard they must formally learn.
FYI: Solidworks 2007
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Sure calculating the required tolerances, tolerance scheme etc takes time but...
With MBD surely you're just moving that effort from in the drawing to in the model.
Remember, a drawing (and hence presumably MBD) isn't just for manufacturing. It's for inspection too, it defines what you need/will accept.
If people are just using MBD because they think it means the don't need to worry about properly designing/detailing things, such as tolerances, then I see that as probably a bad thing.
thread1103-182896: Using 3D Model Geometry thread1103-182500: Detailing Complex Geometry
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
And to add to KENAT's comment, the drawing is an actual contract by its own right. I've not seen similar consideration given to a solid model. Reliance on solid models only suggests even higher reliance on P.O.'s to set the requirements of the product as being per the model. Any one else have a comment about this point?
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
The comment "Theres to many dimension, just send an IGES and point out the critical tolerances" is pure ignorance and laziness.
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
As to putting a higher reliance on PO's, this isn't necessarily so. The same toleranceing data that was present on a drawing would now be present in the model file, NOT just a solid body alone. CAD packages are evolving so that any GD&T notation will be tied to the model. Pick the notation, and the associated area of the solid will also highlight, and visa-versa. Notations will be oriented to the screen regardless of how you rotate the solid. There are packages out there now that will tell you if the GD&T that you want to use is valid or a pipe dream.
One downside will be in achieving the discipline necessary to segregate all of this info so that it is easily readable and retrievable, but that can be overcome, as it has with ever more complex solid models.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
I seem to remember someone saying they made screen shots of the PMI on the model. This just plain scares me, if you're going to do that surely a minimal drawing is better so you have config control over it.
As to
A few thoughts -
1. If they want to machine against the model fine. If they want to inspect against the model on CMM to find variation from the model OK. However, in your case the tolerance information on the drawing defines what this variation may be. If no one else inspection will need this. At places I've worked vendors are usually expected to 100% inspect at least the first article to prove their process etc. This report is then usually verified by the customers QA. Your scenario doesn't seem to support this.
2. I've seen some really bad, really complex drawings that have so much information displayed so poorly, especially if GD&T isn't used correctly, that I can imagine they might provoke that response. However, once redrawn by someone who knows what they're doing they're usually a lot simpler. Not saying this was the case with yours but I have seen it.
3. Assuming (2) above isn't the case then yes, you need to look at an alternative vendor. That is if you care about quality.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
As I understand it per 14.41, all of the tolerancing required to make an acceptable part has to be in the model file, on a drawing, or a combination of both. The rules for GD&T still apply. I have seen simplified drawings where only the datums and critical dimensions are shown, with a general note specifying a profile tolerance for the undimensioned features (which is how we document many of our parts).
As for configuration control, electronic approval for drawings has been around for years. Electronic approval for model files is no different. If someone prints a screenshot of PMI on a released model, it is really no different than doing the same of a released drawing. Once printed by unauthorized parties, it is considered "uncontrolled" and it's use can quickly get someone terminated. As with the type of configuration control that we are used to seeing with paper drawings, some discipline will be required.
I share your concerns though. The key is configuration CONTROL.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare. - Robert Hunter
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Adobe 3D may work better with other systems or for simpler objects but it has a long way to go before we will consider it useful, let alone a replacement for drawings.
I for one don't see how the model alone can ever convey as much information as drawings. Trying to shown all the dimensions, GD&T, material specs, notes, copyright, etc. on a model makes it hopelessly cluttered for anything more complex than a box. Using multiple layers to turn things on & off means that people could easily overlook vital information that is not visible. How do you show assembly stages, alternate configurations & many other common drawing constructs in a single model?
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."
Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
To me, a perfectly drafted engineering drawing is the Mona Lisa.
V
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
...and it's about as common. :)
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
V
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
This statement warms an old draftsman's heart.
The rarity is to find a master draftsman, that also has mastered modelling and drafting in a state-of-the-art parametric CAD system. Put those two together, and you get great drawings.
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Recently I spent some years working in the automotive industry where it was very rare that the drawing was up to date with the math data(CAD). I see some BIG time value in 3D dimensioning in this very fast paced environment.
---SW 2008 SP1.1---
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
---SolidWorks 2008 SP3.0---
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
ht
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
Thank you for all the feedback, both positive and negative. FYI: On a hot project, given the track record of that vendor, I sent an IGES file over, without a drawing, so he could start CNC programming early. Well I got a phone call, asking for...a drawing. This time, he claimed he couldn't start without a drawing.
So we're all smart and imaginative. Here is the future, as provided by a simple example from the past. Automotive and Aerospace have lead the way for engineering technology. Computerized 2D drafting, FEA, 3D CAD, CFD, PDM, and PLM are just a few of the technologies these industries have pioneered for larger engineering community. As several post on Eng-Tips have covered, Aero and Auto are nearly paperless now. Hence, it only a matter of time.
Currently we have a chicken and egg scenario regarding ASME Y14.41-2003. Design firms aren't using it because the vendors aren't using it, and vendors aren't using it because design firms aren't. Well, this scenario is easily broken by the the vendors customer (design firms). I'll be sending out MBD (PMI) in Adobe 3D in accordance with ASME Y14.5M and Y14.41. I'll work with my vendors to implement the system and train them is using the information provided, as Toyota would. This will help our small vendors lead the way into the future, provide a competitive edge, and possible keep manufacturing on these shores a bit longer.
The future will be paperless, MBD (PMI) will define the contract with vendors (its being done in Aero and Auto as I type), and all the supporting equipment; CAD workstation, CNC Workstation/Machines, CMM Workstation/Machine will use this information seamlessly. The trees and will thank us.
Thanks again for the feedback and cheers to a paperless future.
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
dmech, good luck.
From the little I've dealt with it I'm wondering if you realize what you've got yourself into.
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: ASME Y14.41-2003 & Adobe PDF....
I did write one letter to the 14.41 committee about some of the issues with it. I never got a response.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group