Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
(OP)
In SolidWorks and I believe other platforms they have this option to turn a dimension into an inspection dimension (see example below):

The problem is we can't find anything on this in a standard. We specifically follow ASME Y14 and can't find any coverage on this format.
Can anybody shed some light on this standard, where it comes from, and any links documenting it. We are worried that it's local to a CAD program and not a real, observed standard.
Thanks,
Jack

The problem is we can't find anything on this in a standard. We specifically follow ASME Y14 and can't find any coverage on this format.
Can anybody shed some light on this standard, where it comes from, and any links documenting it. We are worried that it's local to a CAD program and not a real, observed standard.
Thanks,
Jack
Jack Lapham, CSWP
Engr Sys Admin
Dell M6400 Covet (24 Season 8, Ep 22)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHZ 6M L2 Cache
8.0GB, DDR3-1066 SDRAM, 2 DIMM
1Gb nVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (8.17.12.5896)
W7x64 | sw-01: 55.92
SolidWorks x64sp4 in PDMWx





RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I'd really hesitate to call it an "inspection dimension" (does that mean that the other dimensions don't have to be checked?).
Having said all that, this symbol is not in the Y14.5 standard. Every company sort of does things differently when it comes to this designation for "critical" dimensions. Check out this earlier thread on the same topic:
http://www
I'm sure there are other threads like this; maybe do a search for the word "oval."
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
"5. INSPECTION DIMENSIONS ARE DENOTED BY THE ROUNDED OUTLINE, SIMILAR TO: "
I include an example of the symbol within the note. You can download the symbol for your SolidWorks here: Inspection symbols
Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
&
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
www.infotechpr.net
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I have worked at a number of large corporations that use various symbols to mean something specific to that company. What may be a specific identifier for company "A" may be something different for company "B".
My current employer uses the "race track" symbol for revisions. Belanger sees this as a "critical" dimension symbol; we use a diamond shape for "critical" dimensions here.
The important aspect of this is to define what your company intends the symbol to mean and put it in your standards; or sometimes a "legend" as part of the drawing format will do the job. I also agree with Belanger that calling this an "inspection dimension" probably isn't the best definition for the reasons he mentioned.
The following paragraph is found in the fundamental rules, pg 4 of the 1994 standard. I am not sure what use of the symbol your company intends to convey, however here is the rule which allows drawings to have processing information and other nonmandatory information. This information should be marked accordingly.
f) It is permissible to identify as nonmandatory
certain processing dimensions that provide for finish
allowance, shrink allowance, and other requirements,
provided the final dimensions are given on the drawing.
Nonmandatory processing dimensions shall be
identified by an appropriate note, such as NONMANDATORY
(MFG DATA).
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."
Ben Loosli
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
www.infotechpr.net
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
So, going once – going twice... the collective answer is that the race track can't be found in a major, recognized drafting standard like Y14?
Jack Lapham, CSWP
Engr Sys Admin
Dell M6400 Covet (24 Season 8, Ep 22)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHZ 6M L2 Cache
8.0GB, DDR3-1066 SDRAM, 2 DIMM
1Gb nVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (8.17.12.5896)
W7x64 | sw-01: 55.92
SolidWorks x64sp4 in PDMWx
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
TS16949 & ISO 9000 define special characteristic symbols but they are different depending on the customer. Not much of a "standard" IMHO. We use the customer symbols or our own if the customer does not have any. None of them is the "racetrack".
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
thread1103-165581: CRITICAL on drawings
thread286-189745: "Critical" or "Inspection" dimensions -- useful or waste of
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
www.infotechpr.net
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Can't open the file.
If there is a standard for this symbol, it should be the same regardless which CAD app uses it.
Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services
www.infotechpr.net
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
In NX (Unigraphics) this symbol is not specifically named but is one of a number of "ID" symbols. They include balloons, triangles, hexs, etc. If I recall correctly I used this symbol in piping at one time.
There is no standard for these type symbols that I have ever encountered, other than company specific.
Just because a particular software designates a symbol with a certain name, doesnt nessecarily mean much.
Software for modeling and drawing creation does cross disciplines. Mechanical drawings, piping, schematics, architecture, etc.
IMO I have experienced the improvements over the years for nomenclature, symbols, commands, etc; however in general I wouldnt bet the house because a particular symbol is called a certain name in any given software.
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
As noted, I'm not aware of it being in any formal standard. Heck, I can't recall the idea of critical dimensions or inspection dimensions etc. being indicated on drawings being in ASME Y14.5M-1994 or similar (I think statistical is mentioned though) and have issues with the concept of critical dimensions and what it implies to other dimensions.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Kenat's right; the closest that Y14.5 comes to this is the ST modifier, but at the very end of 2009's paragraph 2.17.2, it clearly states that other info is needed.
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
&
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I developed InspectionXpert for SolidWorks (http://www.inspectionxpert.com) many years ago to deal with inspection dimensions in SolidWorks. During that time, I was like a private investigator looking for some standard that spelled out the inspection dimension racetrack. I never found the smoking gun
My conclusion was that one of the CAD companies decided to implement this (probably for one big customer) and all the other companies followed suit.
Best regards,
Jeff Cope
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
That story sounds plausible and based on all this user feedback sounds the most likely.
Jack
Jack Lapham, CSWP
Engr Sys Admin
Dell M6400 Covet (24 Season 8, Ep 22)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHZ 6M L2 Cache
8.0GB, DDR3-1066 SDRAM, 2 DIMM
1Gb nVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (8.17.12.5896)
W7x64 | sw-01: 55.92
SolidWorks x64sp4 in PDMWx
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
The symbol should be submitted to both the ISO and ASME bodies for consideration. Since you are Mr. InspectionXpert, maybe you can send them letters? :)
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I'm new to this forum, but work with GD&T and ASME standards a lot.
I don't think encircling a dimension with race-track to designate it as an "inspection dimension", as Solidworks seems to imply should be a practice, is a good idea. With GD&T we don't inspect dimensions unless they're a size tolerance or the odd, or ambiguous, exceptions such as a radius or chamfer tolerance. On a typical drawing the tolerances being inspected will be size tolerances and those specified with feature control frames like Position, Profile, Runout, etc. I don't think anyone would propose to encircle a feature control frame with a race track shape, so I think a symbol placed beside the tolerance would be a better approach. In other words, we generally inspect tolerances, not dimensions, if using GD&T, and the entire concept of an "inspection dimension" is flawed, in my opinion.
I think Solidworks and others should delete the "inspection dimension" from their system.
Once a given tolerance is identified in a workable way as "special" then the next question would be in what way it should be special. Maybe statistical parameters like Cp or Cpk must meet certain criteria or maybe the given tolerance should be verified more frequently than others... This all sounds like measurement plan material to me. If all tolerances on a drawing have an ID number then those numbers can be referenced in a measurement report to designate how or when data should be gathered.
This may lead to a discussion about tolerance numbers on drawings... I think they're necessary if you want a clear way to match data in a report with the associated tolerance on the drawing. ASME Y14.45 will be a new standard for measurement data reporting practices that should be released within the next two years (maybe less). Y14.45 will include tolerance numbers in some way or another. It's obviously not completed yet, but I don't see how we can avoid having index numbers on tolerances, at least on an inspection drawing. Without them, we're left to the inspector adding numbers on a hard copy of a drawing as they go, which isn't the best approach for anything but very small operations.
Dean Watts
D3W Engineering LLC
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Dean, you may be over-thinking this. The fact that each dimension is actually a tolerence zone is a truism that is already understood by those using the process.
Each company has to decide for itself what is inspected on a regular basis. Quality control is a major factor in this. The more regulated the industry, the more control is necessary, and the more clarity required to establish that control.
The rounded box outlines clearly mark linear dimensions for regular inspection. This doesn't mean only these get inspected. It simply means that these much be inspected.
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
As a designer, I never want to say that anything be inspected at all. I see that as another issue. I present the design, not the process (including inspection), whenever possible. (I do make exceptions.) This gives the greatest flexibility to the organization and reduces the number of drawing changes. Inspection criteria is more likely to change than a robust design. Drawing changes cost money, introduce dangers such as financial risk, legal risk, and possibly safety risk.
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
You said "Dean, you may be over-thinking this. The fact that each dimension is actually a tolerence zone is a truism that is already understood by those using the process."
I don't mean this in an unfriendly way Matt, but I think that you're possibly under-thinking this. I am very much one of those using the process, and I don't agree with your statement. Nothing about basic dimensions creates a tolerance zone, or in your words "is actually a tolerance zone". The tolerance zone is created by the position, profile of a surface, etc call-out defined in a feature control frame, which then requires the aid of basic dimension(s) to obtain the shape/orientation/location of that tolerance zone. A basic dimension cannot be measured. The location, orientation, size, and/or form of a particular component (axis, surface, derived median line, etc) of a feature is determined and whether that component is within its tolerance zone is evaluated. That's not to say that providing data to describe where the controlled feature component is, relative to where it is supposed to be, isn't worthwhile and very common. Regarding those values, I've run across quite a few people that like to say that they're measuring and reporting the value for a basic dimension, but what they're doing is much better described as providing the location components for a feature with a position tolerance applied, or the surface deviations for all or selected points for a feature with a profile of a surface tolerance applied (surface deviations, either "+ material" or "- material" being the profile component reporting method that works the same for a feature of any shape, angle or location). A basic dimension is nothing more than a theoretically exact location, or orientation, or shape (radius of curvature for a profile zone on a curved feature, for instance). To say you can measure the value of a basic dimension would require setting aside its definition.
Do you mean that you prefer to say that the value of a basic dimension can be measured and reported, or are you referring to using directly tolerance dimensions to locate or orient a feature? I took your comment to mean the former, but if you mean the latter, then I'll still disagree, but with a different argument against
I don't intend any of this to be adversarial... Good discussions with good people are great and worthwhile expenditures of time IMHO. I'll do my best to be one of those good people while posting on what seems to be a very worthwhile forum.
Best Regards,
Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
The same could be said for using a quality control system where mfg engineering makes no statements about inspection. It just depends on the system in place. In an ISO environment, it is normal to have drawings contain some level of information to streamline inspection documentation. The last thing some companies want is their inspectors making decisions where they are unqualified about engineering matters. You want to talk about risk? Unqualified people making critical and undocumented decisions is far more risky than revising a formally controlled drawing once in awhile.
DeanD3W,
Not to seem too friendly, but it's simply. People are using these with great effectiveness. If someone is focused on the BASIC dim itself and not the FCF, then they are using GD&T incorrectly, and that is not applicable to this discussion (unless you want to make the case that reading GD&T incorrectly should be factored in to how inspections are conducted). Besides that, I've never seen an outline applied to a BASIC dim, nor a FCF. It's simply a shorthand that is applied to linear dims.
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I'll be standing by my position that the "inspection dimension" race-track that is placed around a dimension should be deleted from CAD systems. It's a poor practice that is based upon a +/- world, rather than upon a proper approach with GD&T.
Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I know the purists will insist that all dimensions are important & they all need to be met. While I agree with that in principal, the reality is no one is going to pay for the inspection of each & every dimension, even on things like safety critical jet engine parts. (See recent failures on RR engined AirBus planes).
I agree the racetrack symbol is flawed as it can not be applied to GD&T. ANSI should take the lead & come up with a standard for special characteristic symbols including but not necessarily limited to:
Safety/Regulatory
Fit/Form/Function
SPC
Inspection
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
I just want to chime in and thank you for a fantastic discussion.
Jack
Jack Lapham, CSWP
Engr Sys Admin
Dell M6400 Covet (24 Season 8, Ep 22)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800, 2.93GHz, 1066MHZ 6M L2 Cache
8.0GB, DDR3-1066 SDRAM, 2 DIMM
1Gb nVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M (8.17.12.5896)
W7x64 | sw-01: 55.92
SolidWorks x64sp4 in PDMWx
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
If this was 2001, I would've agreed with you. However, I've since been through the bureaucratic hell that results from forcing the process itself to carry the burden of determining minimal inspection requirements. I could (and maybe should) write a whole book on the topic.
DeanD3W,
I think you and I agree on the concept, but that you aren't OK with this particular solution. An alternative is the use of a flagnote (which might be too easy for an inspector to miss on a drawing with many different flagnotes) or creating one's own symbol supported by a general note (which I *have* already done for visual inspection points).
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
While the standard does set some precedent by mentioning indicating statistically toleranced dims/tolerances, in general I feel it falls under the fundamental rule of not normally specifying process on the drawing.
This goes for the related topic of 'critical dimensions' too.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
Peter Truitt
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
What is starting to happen is that the responsibility for inspection is moving out of the realm of Incoming Inspection and into the area of the vendor themselves, who then provide the inspetion data and a certificate of compliance or comformance or whatever. In other words, it is communicating information to the vendor that they need in order to fulfill their requirements with the product they make. I guess an even similar way to say it is that the requirement to inspect becomes part of the specification. From that perspective, it belongs on the drawing just the same as any other specification.
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter
RE: Inspection Dimension (SolidWorks drawings)
My issue with the racetrack frame is that it only works for directly toleranced dimensions and if inspection plan information is to be included on a drawing the method needs to be one that works equally well for a tolerance specified by a feature control frame. That method would likely be a symbol placed by the tolerance spec.
By the way, my "under thinking" comment in an earlier post was only used in direct response to what I take as a slightly less than super polite comment about me "over thinking" this topic. I would not normally make such a comment. If my comment is taken out of context then it would seem out of line, so I hope no one does take it out of context
Dean Watts
www.d3w-engineering.com