×
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

1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"
3

1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

(OP)
I hope this is the right forum for this question.  My company is in the middle of a debate as to the proper way to call out material.  Some engineers have asked for the 'PLATE, 1/2"' or 'TUBE, 4" X 2" X 1/4"' style, while others want the size located before the shape...

To my knowledge, there is no standard, but what is more common?

Thanks in advance for your input!

John

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

I've always used the noun first, followed by adjective(s).  Much easier to sort that way.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

I believe that method is in an ASME spec, but mine aren't available to discern which one at the moment.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - Robert Hunter
 

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

My recollection of spec matches ewh, but I also don't have a spec handy to look it up just at the moment.

For what it's worth our company spec calls out noun, adjective(s) order explicitly.


 

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

I've always seen/used the "noun, adjective, adjective" nomenclature.

"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 these Forums?

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

(OP)
Thanks for the info -  Where in ASME Y14.100 are you looking?  I just took a quick look and didn't see it, but I didn't spend too long looking!

Thanks!

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

Everyone searches for parts in different ways. Many will do a sort on a column in a spreadsheet or database and hope that all of the screws or nuts or tubes group together. Using "noun, adjective, adjective" is user-friendly. Also, standardize on the terms. Don't allow scr and scw and screw and screws.

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

A good rule of thumb for names is to never abbreviate the noun/noun phrase, but use standard abbrevations for adjectives.

Also, putting the size (adj) before the name (noun) of the part doesn't make a lot of sense from an engineering perspective.  1/2" could be fore tubes, screws, plate, bar, etc.   

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

&

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

For machined parts, we rarely specify the size of the material on the detail drawings. However, for formed parts, it is important. Our methodology is as follows:
<Material Spec>, <Size> STK THK (<Descriptive Name>)
For example,
AMS5599, 1/2" STK THK (INCONEL 718)

The descriptive name is optional, but helps avoid confusion.
 

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

Your practice, Flash, might work well for your company and it might be the best approach for you. It does make me wonder, though, if your company over-uses acronyms. Acronyms makes it hard for new employees to come up to speed and sometimes generates a feeling of exclusivity where some folks are 'in the know' and others feel rejected. There may also be those who rarely see this information (such as bean counters) who will loose time trying to understand the terminology.

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

It's not so much an acronym as an abbreviation. STK THK stands for "stock thickness" (I think it's one of the standard ASME abbreviations, but I don't have the spec in front of me). It may be belts and suspenders, but it implies that you default to the tolerances in the material specification.
As for not specifying stock material thicknesses for machined parts, I believe that this is the best practice. The manufacturer (being knowledgeable about manufacturing) may wish to use a particular size of stock material for reasons important to the machining process, but unimportant to the functionality of the part.

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

I was just referring to AMS5599. I think many folks would suggest:

STEEL, 1/2" STK THK, AMS5599

I am a Standards violator, myself. I dislike ALL CAPS and would go with:

Steel, 1/2" Stk Thk, AMS5599

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

Eh... standards are important. There's no ambiguity about AMS5599. As far as the bean counters go, it's important to them as well (AMS certified materials generally cost more).

I've seen many drawings that only specify CRES or 300 SERIES SS, but if you're dealing with production parts, consistency matters; you want to be darn sure about your material properties if you're making 100,000 widgets. Hence, if I'm checking a drawing, the material spec should be on there (at very least).

RE: 1/2" PLATE vs PLATE, 1/2"

In my material note, I usually state the material and condition/temper, then state the standard to be applied.  

MATERIAL: 5052-H32 AL PER UNS A95052.

We don't have raw material in house, so I don't know how that would apply to naming a stock as its own item (standard first vs. general name and then standard)

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

&

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