Duplicating Section Arrows

Can you show an example?

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

The pertinent standard would be ASME Y14.3-2003 (assuming you're in the US). I only have the 1994 version of that standard in front of me, but it doesn't seem to say anything about how many times the "cutting plane line" should be shown (in the 1994 version this is all detailed in Section 3).

Offhand, I would say your colleague is not wrong in showing the cutting plane more than once, but it's not an absolute requirement.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

I agree that what your coworker is doing probably isn't technically wrong, but unless it is a very complex part where confusion may exist as to where such views apply, I would only use the arrows once and state how many instances it applies to. If the other instances are at different orientations, that also has to be noted if using multiple arrow sets. You may end up needlessly cluttering the drawing.

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

One concern would be, are all the duplicate section lines associative? If not, could the definition vary one view from another?

There is no way to make duplicate section views associative. And that was a point that was already brought up. Not being associative means that the views will have to be actively managed, and may cause unnecessary errors on future changes.

As I stated before, the sections (TYP (X) PLACES) differ slightly, but the same hardware is being shown. It's an installation section, rather than an identical parts section. (if you can understand what I am saying) As also mentioned, there is no confusion, as the BOM readily gives up the used quantities, and there can be no confusion. (as they are also reference bubbled elsewhere in other views)


-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

Quote:
"We have a co-worker who insists on duplicating section arrows that point to a common view."

I never seen this done as I "think" you have described.

The following companies and generally accepted standards do NOT use this practice:
GE Aircraft, GE Energy; GM, Cummins Engine; Proctor and Gamble; SDRC; Cint Milacron; Rolls Royce; Pratt and Whittney; Delphi; Allison Transmission; Zimmer; Federal Mogal; DOD 100; MIL-STD-130;

One section line.... one view....

For exactly the same feature in multiple locations notation under the section view label is commonly done as follows:

"Notation" of note under section view :
Note under section view: e.g. " 7X LOCATIONS MARKED 'Z' "
Note with leader pointing to the featurs: 'Z'

It sounds as if you are saying that a section line / cutting plane goes thru one feature that is used in various places. If I am understanding this correctly, then I would say it is definetly "illegal" to do what the co-worker suggests. If these same features are used in other positions through out the part, then it would require a notation as stated above or a different section letter for every section line shown on the drawing.

Basic drafting; one section cutting plane, one view behind the section cutting line.

In this case (IMO) what is being attempted for "clarity" would more than likely cause "confusion".

"...the sections (TYP (X) PLACES) differ slightly..."

I would argue this is a reason for both your and your co-worker's choice of view development to be wrong. Labeling two non-identical things as identical is begging for somebody to be confused.

Right. So if that is the position you take, 2 sections are the correct way to go. Not 2 section callouts with the same letter. 2 unique views.

Job over, no resolve. We went with the 2 identical callouts (secion plane) for the same view.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Catia Design|Catia Design News|Catia V5 blog

It's funny, but from your post I have a feeling I know who your customer is. We did a design last year and were specifically requested to repeat section views.