×
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

ISO 8015
6

ISO 8015

ISO 8015

(OP)
I would like to open new thread in continue to thread1103-196260: Tolerance analysis ISO2768: Tolerance analysis ISO2768
When I have read previous thread there was concerns about how to use ISO 2768-mK in correct way.
From my opinion it is sort of alternative solution to well known tolerance system x.x - x.xxx  with nominal dimensions.

But ISO 8015 Technical drawings - Fundamental tolerancing principle. more cause anxiety to me.
It is stated: Each specified dimensional or geometrical requirement on a drawing shall be met independently, unless a particular relationship is specified.
As I understood from my background this standard destroy all engineering practice regarding to application limits and fits.
Designer apply fits by engineering calculation or recommendation from proved design.
If I will take into consideration fit for mating features of components I can not be sure with fit due to independently.

Are someone represent drawing under governing ISO 8015. How you overcome above mention situation?

RE: ISO 8015

2
Isn't that the worst spec ever?  Even worse than ISO 1302 on surface roughness that states something like 14% of the surface can be above the requirement!

We have our own standard called out on all our drawings stating exactly what ISO standards we use any exceptions.  We did this when we were sold from one company/country to another company/country and we had to come up with a system that would not change the interpretation of all our existing drawings.  This is what our standard has to say about ISO 8015:

ISO 8015: 1985 Technical drawings - Fundamental tolerancing principle

Stipulation: Clause 5.1.1 Linear tolerances: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ANSI/ASME Y14.5M - 1994.

Stipulation: Clause 6 Mutual dependency of size and geometry: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ANSI/ASME 14.5M -1994.

Stipulation: Clause 6.1 Envelope requirement: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ANSI/ASME 14.5M - 1994.

Stipulation: Clause 7.2 Designation: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ANSI/ASME 14.5M - 1994 from the American National
Standards Institute.

This is totally legit, there is a clause somewhere in ISO 8015 that says you can invoke national standards.

RE: ISO 8015

2
Answering shortly to your last question - to overcome this situation envelope requirement (E in the circle) has to be specified in conjuction with limit values. This will basically do the same thing as Rule #1 in GD&T according to ASME Y14.5, so it will bring dependency rule into play.

RE: ISO 8015

(OP)
I gave star to dgallup for sharing info. In two last answers was offered clever solution and obviously for me as engineer but I am in front of drawings where stated ISO 8015 without any exceptions. In one company department there is strong decision step out from Rule #1 and follow by ISO 8015.
They produce validated product. Anyway there is cooperation among other vendors which components have been installed and equipment have long lifecycle.
Unfortunately for me raised topic going outside of GD&T points. It is regarding to potential  troubles what I see.
Do not wish to be fired with my review for chief because I predict at final stage we will come to what is primary governing design or manufacturing.
I would appreciate from local community pros&cons for come back to normal practice.( from design point of view )
 

RE: ISO 8015

ak762,
As you already mentioned ISO 8015 says that "each specified dimensional or geometrical requirement on a drawing shall be met independently, unless a particular relationship is specified". Putting E in the circle next to the limit dimension or invoke envelope reuirement by general note is exactly what "unless a particular relationship is specified" means. Envelope requirement is not an exception to ISO 8015. It is allowable and recommended practice clearly legitimized by the standard (see paragraph 6.1 of 8015).

I would even say it is necessary when assembly of two features is considered. Putting only dimensional limits for these features, without invoking envelope requirement, does not assure mating at all.

RE: ISO 8015

(OP)
pmarc,
Well input with last sentence and I have the same opinion in this matter. Personally in mechanical engineering I can not recall any component without incorporation into assembly.
But there is another interpretation and understanding of "unless a particular relationship is specified" with ISO 8015 let say (manufacturing point of view)
At component drawing designer/drafter do not specify relationship between mating features he can keep in mind it only or do not depends from input data.
"Therefore, where no relationship is specified, the geometrical tolerance applies regardless of feature size, and the two requirements are treated as being unrelated".
Manufacturing wish to interpret Principle of independency such way and delegate  assure mating with secure functionality to designers only. They see cost efficiency from this concept.
I would not say it is impossible with stuck up calculations but this approach generate huge headache to engineers and anyway do not allow to achieve cost down

For example.
I am going to design steam for hydraulic valve. I chose seals. Rod diameter is recommended with h9 limit by vendor catalog.
What I will do if I go with manufacturing interpretation of ISO 8015. I have to recalculate fit for meet independency and secure functionality.
Instead h9 it can be specify h8 of finer even. Cost of part grow with precisions and at end with this approach I do not achieve any effect with cost.

Just my thought after reread several times and speculation about ISO 8015
I am wondered sometimes how wise someone who composed standards.
You can interpret information different way and it will be always right. Decision up to user without observation behind of it.
There is stated emergency exit with envelope principle even if you wish to represent drawing with Rule #1.
But may be better to clarify what is mean "unless a particular relationship is specified" or do not publish such document.
 

RE: ISO 8015

ak762,

I understand your standpoint and I am not an advocate of ISO 8015. I am just trying to tell that being in line with ISO 8015 does not always mean you have to tighten tolerances as you described in the example. If you tie form and size of a rod together by applying envelope requirement, your functional requirements will be met by h9 fit. ISO 286-1:2010 "Basis of tolerances, deviations and fits" actually recommends envelope requirement every time when it is needed.

ISO 8015 is based on completely opposite philosophy than ASME Y14.5 and it is almost impossible to change it. ISO experts have their own arguments to make independency rule as default condition for dimensioning and tolerancing. I heard a lot of opinions on this topics and actually most of them say that Rule #1 is inpractical and increases production and inspection costs. I know it seems to be in total contradiction to ASME's approach, but believe me, they did a lot of different industrial studies to satisfy that thesis. If you take a look for instance to G.Henzold "Geometrical Dimensioning and Tolerancing for Design, Manufacturing and Inspection", chapter 17.3, you will see something like this:
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=3c6c6601-de9b-4af7-a2c9-b52dc16833d2&;file=Henzold_excerpt_17-3.JPG

We can agree with this or not, but there is no better evidence of the way how ISO is approaching dimensioning and tolerancing issue.

P.S. IMO ISO 8015 is very clear on "unless a particular relationship is specified" statement. In the last part of chapter 4 it is said:
"Consequently, if a particular relationship of
- size and form, or
- size and orientation, or
- size and location
is required, it shall be specified on the drawing (see clause 6)."
And clause 6 states:
"Mutual dependency of size and geometry may be called for by
- the envelope requirement (see 6.1);
- the maximum material principle (see 6.2)."
Additional explanatory pictures follow this statement.

I have seen different ISO standards on GD&T and I can tell you that 8015 is one of the clearest ones.  

RE: ISO 8015

To some extent this can be summarized by ASME (and historically the English system as I understood it) seeming to be more from the point of view of designers/engineers ensuring fit/function of parts at the expense of potentially causing higher reject rates.

ISO on the other hand seems to come from a manufacturing point of view of trying to allow as many parts through as possible.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: ISO 8015

ASME's Y14.5 approach is formed from an ongoing series of lawsuits that helped define the rules that are now within it. In my uneducated opinion, the ISO approach will be the one that changes over time as more lawsuits come out of relying too heavily on the loose rules in the ISO system in Europe and Asia.

The ASME standard was born in fire as an industry struggled to find a place for accountability.  The ISO standard was born out of European contempt for anything with the word "American" in the title.  :)  

To address another point:
I see use of the ASME standard growing in the US.  The growth has exposed the lack of GD&T training in the schools.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

RE: ISO 8015

To summarize, ISO is based on Real world assumptions, and ASME based on Imaginary one.
Also, majority of manufacturers in US (even those aware of GD&T) are actually measuring their parts according to Independence principle without even knowing that.
 

RE: ISO 8015

Quote:

In my uneducated opinion, the ISO approach will be the one that changes over time as more lawsuits come out of relying too heavily on the loose rules in the ISO system in Europe and Asia.

I am not so sure about this, at least in terms of independency as a default condition. In fact it rather seems to be that ASME is leaning towards giving more freedom to usage of independency rule by introducing (I) symbol instead of note: "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQD" in Y14.5-2009.

CheckerHater,
You pointed to very important issue. It would be really interesting to investigate how often Rule#1 is verified in industry. I think results could be quite surprising.   

RE: ISO 8015

(OP)

Quote:

In fact it rather seems to be that ASME is leaning towards giving more freedom to usage of independency rule by introducing (I) symbol instead of note: "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQD" in Y14.5-2009.

I proceed from old engineering practice drawing for simple part should not be complicated.
It is why I am leaning to ASME 14.5M with Rule #1 but seems this time is over and drawings will looks like illuminated X-mas tree with bubbles according any standards.
Could someone reference to Independence principle regarding to DIN
 

RE: ISO 8015


I am posting from work, so I don't have much time.

But I don't want to look like a troll, so I will explain my point in short "installments"

First, take a look at the enclosed part picture.
To satisfy Envelope requirements part has to be checked with gauges, that are economically not feasible or even physically impossible to produce with today's technology.

So, like it or not, someone will take micrometer to measure diameter ("local", no matter in how many places you take the measurement), and then check the straightness with set of "vees" and indicator.

And ISO does reasonable, real-life thing. It sais: If you take two different measurements with two different instruments, let's specify them on the drawing INDEPENDENTLY from each other.

(more to follow (maybe))

Link:

 

RE: ISO 8015

(OP)
Thanks for sample but I have opposite opinion regarding your words.
Precision is more related to equipment and fabrication method with your sample then to inspection tools.
If it would be crucial for this component you must to use right tool for qualify part according to depicted dimension.
Up to buy advanced tool even (scan for example)

ISO 8015 allow to make a compromise. Instead of it I would revise design of part if it is not so important for function.
Combination design and manufacturing do the best product with cost efficiency. ISO 8015 slow down this process
What I like from ASME 14.5M with Rule #1 that it is pull us to progress at least.

BTW I finished my review based on this discussion. Wait feedback from chief :)

RE: ISO 8015

CheckerHater,
The "no-go" gage you show is a "no-go".  To use that gage would imply that there is a perfect form boundary at LMC, which for the case you show, there is not.  The requirement at LMC is to measure a sufficient quantity of local sizes, with all required to be 9.9 or greater (leaving measurement uncertainty for another discussion).

ISO may be attempting to address real-life, but it is not the best approach.  Unless circle "e" appears on all size tolerances there is positively inadequate control on the feature geometry.  Relying on manufacturing process capability is the only savior without a perfect form boundary and mating envelope measurement.  With a perfect form MMC boundary, fit can be guaranteed, or with a perfect form LMC boundary (when an L modifier is placed after the tolerance value in an associated feature control frame) the presence of material for post measurement machining or thin wall concerns can be guaranteed.  Without a perfect form boundary you really have nothing...  Your data is instead just a bunch of numbers that cannot predict whether a part will function or not.

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: ISO 8015

In fairness to ISO though they're probably presuming you'll invoke something like iso 2768 which to some extent addresses some of the 'missing tol spec info'.

However, I still have my issues with that standard including that it essentially washes it's hands of the idea of using the drawing to detail what is an acceptable part or to reject parts.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: ISO 8015

If we want to discuss about ISO GD&T in details we have to keep in mind a fact that even if there is no (E) modifier next to dimension value, it does not have to necessarily mean that the geometry (shape) of a feature is not controlled. In fact - according to ISO - it might be perfectly defined.

There is something like general geometrical tolerances concept which is quite common in ISO world, but little known in US. It assumes that as long as there is a reference to appropriate standard about general geometrical tolerances on a drawing there might be no need for specifying particular geometrical tolerance.

There are at the moment two standards about general tolerances:
- ISO 2768-1:1989 - "Tolerances for linear and angular dimensions without individual tolerance indications";
- ISO 2768-2:1989 - "Geometrical tolerances for features without individual tolerance indications".

As their titles suggest first part is dealing with linear and angular general tolerances and the second one with geometrical tolerances like: straightess, flatness, circularity, parallelism, perpendicularity, symmetry, circular run-out. Both documents define tolerance classes which generally depend on size of dimension. So if for instance a drawing contains a note like: "GENERAL TOLERANCES ACCORDING TO ISO 2768-mH", it will mean that tolerance class for linear/angular dims. is medium (m) and for geometrical tolerance is H. Then looking at the tables in abovementioned standards one can say what are the exact values of allowable linear and geometrical tolerances.

There is also an option to invoke envelope principle as a default condition to a drawing. Note like "GENERAL TOLERANCES ACCORDING TO ISO 2768-mH-E" will do a thing, so 'the ocean' of bubbles does not have to happen.

I have attached one example directly from ISO 2768-2:1989 that shows extreme case when very simple part does not have any geometrical tolerance applied to it and the geometry is yet fully defined.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=14d97f03-6333-4375-9ba5-0664d30cc77c&file=gen_tol.JPG

I am not saying I agree with this approach. In fact I see a lot potential problems. I just wanted to give a brighter picture of how the situation with ISO standards looks like in reality.
 

RE: ISO 8015

OK, I will continue.

To AK (is 762 a caliber?): will you buy advanced/custom tool to verify every dimension for every part, or will you at some point, make a "compromise"?

To Dean: You are hair-splitting. You understand this is not real part, and you are steering away from giving the answer – exactly how will you measure envelope requirement - program million points into CMM and you get million of local measurements still.

"ISO may be attempting to address real-life, but it is not the best approach" – love it. GD&T used to be about real world (and AK, I am with you – things have to be simple), now it's about self-preservation.

But let's go back to cylindrical parts.
Now imagine two of them – one very short, say 30mm and another very long, 1000mm. Both still 10mm dia.

The short part will work as a dowel. As we try to hammer it into mating part we realize that variation in shape is as important as variation in size, so Envelope requirement is absolute must. In ISO world you can specify Envelope requirement on single dimension or on the entire drawing – I am beating the dead horse here.
 
The long part is sort of a rail. I buy pre-machined (TG&P) shaft and cut off piece of it. (To Dean – there will be some more machining and maybe heat treatment involved). When I am done I want to make sure I didn't make it worse, so I check the specks. Original shafting was +0.00/-0.05, still good, and 1.5mm per every 1.5m straight. I cut it shorter, so I can demand 1mm straightness. Oops! Now I am in violation of ASME Y14.5. Because of the Envelope principle straightness can only be smaller than the size tolerance. Luckily, ASME now allows use of (I) sign to invoke Independence principle.

I am trying to make myself obvious: Neither (E) or (I) is good, or bad, or un-American. Both are simply tools  that you apply to describe how parts are manufactured / inspected .

(more to follow (maybe))

RE: ISO 8015

CheckerHater - I guess there will be more. smile  No offense is intended and this forum serving a very useful purpose, considering all the disagreements regarding GD&T.  You and others posting are clearly very knowledgeable.  My interest is to participate when I think I can help someone else (though maybe not the poster I respond to directly) or when a discussion might lead to learning something myself (which is always).

Yes, I realized that the part you depicted was not a real part.  Regardless, the no-go gage you show is not a meaningful or valid gage.  I'm not sure how pointing that out has anything to do with splitting hairs.  Yes, GD&T is about the real world, did I say otherwise?  I like simple too.  As simple as possible while still addressing what "Mother nature" presents for us to control.

Yes, there are ways to specify what is needed with both ASME and ISO.  In my opinion the ASME standard has selected the better default and ASME Y14.5 provides much more in one standard which requires something like 20 standards in the ISO system.  I think ASME's approach is simpler.

Per Y14.5M-1982 section 6.4.1.2 and Y14.5M-1994 section 6.4.1.2, and also in y14.5-2009, a straightness tolerance value has been allowed to be larger than the feature's size tolerance.  Independency just provides a way to separate size and form in the absence of such a tolerance.

pmarc & KENAT - Thank you for the ISO 2768 information.  All of these different standards...  This illustrates why buying ISO 1101 plus the other standards you need costs something like $1800..?  So, am I correct if I say that there is a choice between using circle E or citing 2768, if using ISO standards?  Maybe the major point of this thread is that 2768 (either mH or mH-E) should always be referenced if 8015 is referenced?  I see that circle E is only shown in table 2 of ISO 1101, with reference to 8015 for explanation...  Can 8015 be "safely" referenced by itself, with no accompanying reference to 2768?

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: ISO 8015

I don't think that's quite the intent of 2768, it essentially replaces the 'block tolerance'.

The first section assigns different +- dimensions based on the tolerance class you specify on the drawing & the size of the dimension.  So a sort of direct replacement for the typical block tol.

The second section assigns certain controls again based on class and I think size but I can't recall for sure.  This goes a bit further than most title block tolls and begins to address the otherwise apparently missing controls.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: ISO 8015

Dean,

Answering to your questions one by one:

"This illustrates why buying ISO 1101 plus the other standards you need costs something like $1800..?"
Yes, I agree. ISO 1101 as a stand alone standard is not enough for complete definition of dimensioning and tolerancing rules. If you take a look at annex C to ISO 1101, you will find general GPS standards matrix and you will see how many cells are not covered by the standard. Saying very briefly ISO's approach for the future is that every cell in the matrix will be covered by appropriate standard(s). Unfortunately this will not be done by a single standard so it is easy to imagine how much money would have to be spent if somebody is willing to have a complete set of documents.

So, am I correct if I say that there is a choice between using circle E or citing 2768, if using ISO standards?
You do not have to cite ISO 2768 to omit necessity of using E in the circle for every dimension. To invoke Envelope Requirement you can simply put a statement in general notes somewhere on a drawing - something like lot of ASME folks do while instead of putting hundreds basic dimension symbols a note "UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ALL DIMENSIONS ARE BASIC" is placed.

Maybe the major point of this thread is that 2768 (either mH or mH-E) should always be referenced if 8015 is referenced?
This can not and should not always happen. The reason is that 2768 applies only "to the dimensions of parts that are produced by metal removal or parts that are formed from sheet metal". So tolerances for any other manufacturing methods are not covered by this spec. There are other standards that deal with tolerances for castings for instance, but of course it will be like an utopia to think that every manufacturing method will have its corresponding standard in the future.

Can 8015 be "safely" referenced by itself, with no accompanying reference to 2768?
Yes, it can under certain conditions. As long as a drawing somehow defines mutual relationship between size and shape of features and there are linear/angular tolerances clearly defined, I would say referencing to 2768 is not always needed - especially if we are aware of limited applicability of 2768.

From my experience -- if a drawing deals with a metal part and general tolerance approach is used together with envelope requirement as a default condition -- following notes are sufficient for definition of at least fundamental rules for GD&T:
- DIMENSIONING AND TOLERANCING ACCORDING TO:
  - ISO 8015
  - ISO 1101
- GENERAL TOLERANCES ACCORDING TO:
  - ISO 2768-mH-E

I think it is a subject for other discussion whether the general tolerances according to 2768 are clear, unambiguous and really helpful. Huge can of worms might be opened.  

RE: ISO 8015

(OP)

Quote (pmarc):

There is something like general geometrical tolerances concept which is quite common in ISO world, but little known in US. It assumes that as long as there is a reference to appropriate standard about general geometrical tolerances on a drawing there might be no need for specifying particular geometrical tolerance.
I know several systems of general tolerance representation what can be noted in drawing.
x.x - x.xxx  with nominal dimensions
GENERAL TOLERANCES ACCORDING TO ISO 2768-mH
GENERAL TOLERANCES ACCORDING TO: hole H14, shaft H14, others +/-IT14/2

If I correct understand any of them can be use both with ASME 14.5M and with ISO 8015.

To CheckerHater Yes, I like this caliber
Regarding to buy or not advanced tool. At least I would analyze everything in detail. If I understand I can not provide technical requirements then better refuse from bargain instead to make scrap.

Quote (CheckerHater):

But let's go back to cylindrical parts.Now imagine two of them – one very short, say 30mm and another very long, 1000mm. Both still 10mm dia.
Good sample from real business.
If short part satisfy to assembly function with current drawing but cut off from long rail do not it is mean you should revise business process instead adjust standard.
Both GD&T and ISO 8015 are part of system (code) only what try to describe real life in virtual reality.
When I listen arguments from production staff I am wondering do they know how engineering requirements for product appear.
I believe it is well known chain Science->R&D->Design->Manufacturing

KENAT well input here thread1103-196260: Tolerance analysis ISO2768

Quote (KENAT):


In fact I think I have an issue with this standard overall, it seems more concerned about suiting manufacturing than ensuring functionality!  Sure manufacturability is very important, but not at the expense of function!

RE: ISO 8015

AKS, because of that apparent discrepancy in view point and the effect it has on the spec, I'd be very hesitant to try and claim my drawings were to Y14.100 series/ASME Y14.5M-1994 but reference 2768 for tolerances.  I think there would be clashes in some fundamental principles which would lead to confusion and could result in legal ambiguity in the worst case.

As to "Science->R&D->Design->Manufacturing" being the chain, it may be well known but not necessarily well followed.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: ISO 8015

I ditto KENAT's concerns on this topic.  Even changing a drawing from ASME Y14.5M-1994 to ASME Y14.5-2009 can create interpretation issues.  The problems are compounded when trying to change it from ASME to ISO.  I would recommend a general push back with the argument that changing the referenced standard could jeopardize design intent.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

RE: ISO 8015

Remember the "K" in -mK does cover form, orientation and location to some extent, it is just not the "perfect" envelope that we are comfortable with. The envelope can be envoked as noted above. On the other hand, we do not cover orientation and coaxiality as defaults in our tolerancing standard.
Frank

RE: ISO 8015

"Could someone reference to Independence principle regarding to DIN",
this is the independancy principle we are talking about. DIN was where it cam from as far as I know, I am not an ISO historian, but I do have some old german standards in english.
Frank

RE: ISO 8015

Quote (ak762):

Could someone reference to Independence principle regarding to DIN?

DIN 7167:1987 - Relationship between tolerances of size, form, and parallelism; envelope requirement without individual indication on the drawing.

my take after reading this standard: if the drawing is based on DIN standards and contains no reference to ISO 8015, then the envelope requirement shall apply.  (ASME rule #1, Taylor Principle)  But only for straightness, flatness and concentricity.

Quote (DeanD3W):

This illustrates why buying ISO 1101 plus the other standards you need costs something like $1800..?

ISO Standards collection - Technical Product Specification (TPS)
http://www.iso.org/iso/publications_and_e-products/handbooks_paper_cd.htm

it contains quite a few, if not most of the standards a design engineer would use on a semi-regular basis. the main highlights:
ISO 128, ISO 286, ISO 1101, ISO 1302, ISO 2768, ISO 5458, ISO 5459, ISO 8015, ISO 8062, ISO/TR 14638 + many more.

costs 366,00 CHF  ~410USD

While not quite being a completely equivalent, I look at it as this single handbook containing the ISO versions of most from the ASME Y14 standards.  What would buying all of the ASME Y14.x standards cost?

RE: ISO 8015

GMIracing: "What would buying all of the ASME Y14.x standards cost?"

Approximately $2000. They used to offer discount if you buy the entire package, but not anymore. Even then still about $1800.

Don't take my word for it - make your own shopping list. You may probably need:

ASME B46.1 Surface Texture (Surface Roughness, Waviness and Lay)
ASME Y14.1 Decimal Inch Drawing Sheet Sizes and Format
ASME Y14.1M Metric Drawing Sheet Sizes and Format
ASME Y14.2M Line Conventions and Lettering
ASME Y14.3M Multiview and Sectional View Drawing
ASME Y14.4M Pictorial Drawings
ASME Y14.5M Dimensioning and Tolerancing
ASME Y14.6 Screw Thread Representation
ANSI Y14.7.1 Gear Drawing Standards, Part 1 for Spur, Helical, Double Helical and Rack
ANSI Y14.7.2 Gear and Spline Drawing Standards, Part 2 for Bevel and Hypoid Gears
ASME Y14.8M Castings and Forgings
ASME Y14.13M Mechanical Spring Representation
ASME Y14.18 Optical Parts
ASME Y14.24 Types and Applications of Engineering Drawings
ASME Y14.34M Associated Lists
ASME Y14.35M Revision of Engineering Drawings and Associated Documents
ASME Y14.36M Surface Texture Symbols
ASME Y14.38 Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASME Y32.2.6 Graphic Symbols for Heat–Power Apparatus
ANSI Y32.10 Graphic Symbols for Fluid Power Diagrams

The list will vary depending on the industry, so you may add various ASTM / IEEE / SAE / Government, etc. to taste.

Good Luck!

RE: ISO 8015

The pamplet I have from ASME lists the price of ASME Y14.5-2009 as $169.00 alone.
Frank

RE: ISO 8015

Ken,
I agree, the point is they are all "pricey". IMHO, These are more than an individual would want to spend of his own money, just to stay up to date in their profession, so we wait for the company to do it. After a certain amount of time it should become public property, at least the old versions, part of the public historic record.
Frank

RE: ISO 8015

Something like, any registered US company can get one copy of the ASME specs at a discount price or something like that would be nice, though since ASME isn't ANSI and hence isn't actually a govt body I doubt that'll happen.

In the UK my company had access to an online site for BS specs where you could access almost all of them (except for some old ones that hadn't been scanned yet).  They also had an agreement with the public library system for borrowing standards.

Maybe some companies have similar here, mine sure doesn't though.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: ISO 8015

The 100% commitment for ASME or ISO is very pricey.  I think ISO bets ASME in terms of overall cost for the complete standard.  The other problem is the ISO varies by country anyway, as each region implements its own variation on it.  Though it is an international standard, it's not a world standard.  IF they would take the world "American" out of the ASME name, I would think it would more likely to be be considered as international.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

RE: ISO 8015

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it would cost at least 10X the Y14.5 price to purchase the 15 or so ISO standards it takes to assemble a rough equivalent.

With Y14.5, much more is covered in one standard than with ISO's approach.

Dean
www.d3w-engineering.com
 

RE: ISO 8015

I think that's the kicker, most of the day to day drafting stuff that I have to look to the standards for guidance on is in 14.5.  I look at the other Y14 standards much less often.

To get the equivalent ISO information, you need multiple standards.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

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