×
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 GTOL (GPS) Stds
2

ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
Are there other companies out there that have switched from Y14.5 to the ISO GTOl stds?  If so, how did you manage to get people to switch their thinking from Envelope Requirement to Independency Principle?

Also, I have been using the term "basic" for 40 years and am having a hard time using "theoretically exact dimension".  What term do you use for a TED?

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

I apologize for the off-topic, but you made me very curious.

You are not supposed to disclose any personal info, but could you at least drop a hint: which industry is not happy with ANSI/ASME?

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

We have been using ISO ever since the Brits sold us to the French.  We have always invoked the envelope requirement in our drawing, dimensioning and tolerancing standard. This particularly applies to ISO 2692, 5458 & 8015.  I see no reason to not use the term BASIC, my CAD software does.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Yes, I've recently worked with a large automotive supplier that is making the switch from ASME to ISO.  Regarding the hitch about Envelope vs. Independency, they simply have a general note in the title block stating that the circled "E" is implied for all size dims.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

I don't know if it's "industry" so much as "ownership".  There is always some migration between the standards, and a growing number of suppliers are implementing both standards so that they have a larger potential customer base to work with.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services  www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc.  www.tec-ease.com

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
It is not that we are not happy with ASME/ANSI, CheckerHater.  We have become a multinational company through acquisitions, and, as is a sign of the times, most of our locations are not in the US.  Hence, we in the US are making a change.

As with the metric system and language, most of the non-US locations are comfortable with more than one system.   

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

I do not see any other way for switch in thinking than comprehensive ISO vs. ASME GD&T training. If your company does not have internal resources for that, there are companies in US that serve such kind of trainings.

But the worst thing that can happen is to have people working according to prints quasi-governed by both standards. This would be really bad path chosen.  

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
I agree, pmarc, and I am that resource, brought out of retirement for this specific purpose.  I first had to write a company GTOL standard based upon (a snapshot of) ISO.  Don't know how or if we will try to keep up with changes.  Our GTOL standard complies with ISO (at least that was the intent) but doesn't necessarily support all ISO concepts, particularly those that are not part of ASME/ANSI.  For instance, I have made no mention of RPR, chosing to suggest, if you want to accomplish the same thing, to use zero tol at M.

Since this originated in the Engineering Department, the support for training there has been reasonable.  However, other departments are another story.  Age old struggle.

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

As a matter of ownership, the parent company can specify whatever they want on the child companies.  This is happening in both directions with ISO and ASME.  Most areas that work with both Europe and America have resources that understand both standards at some level.  It's easy enough to get parts from China that are documented to ASME specs (or at least, it is just as easy as ISO).  

As a side note, there's really nothing "international" about ISO.  This is actually a falsehood.  Each country still comes up with their own standards with the claim to be ISO compliant but actually ignore HUGH sections of the ISO standard.  For example, JIS weld callouts are actually much closer related to ASME callouts than it is to ISO.  GOST weld symbols are barely recognizable as actual symbols and are more a kin to hole callouts.  Australia standard's datum feature symbols don't look like anyone elses and work a bit differently too.

In other words, contrary to popular beliefs about ISO, there really isn't a world standard.  Heck, BSI didn't stop full scale support for the Envelop Priniciple until recently, and even now they have a special symbol to allow companies to continue to use it (and it's not "E", either).

Ok, enough of that rant. :)  

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

dlloydks,
RPR?
Frank  

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

reciprocity.   

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Fscuper,

I understand your concern about Afghanistan or Uganda paying lip service to ISO adoption, but why not to start from places responsible for half of worlds GDP?

European Union is adopting ISO directly as European standards. Germany is discontinuing DIN standards and replacing them directly with ISO. American industries are adopting ISO standards. I am not familiar with JIS standards, but my copy of SolidWorks creates weld callout that looks much more like ISO rather than ASME. When it comes to GOST Russians never have enough money, but when it comes to welding standards, they already adopted ISO 17659, ISO 857-1 and ISO 5817, which are necessary prerequisites to adopting ISO 2553.
Guess what? Some countries cannot just "adopt" foreign standard, they have to translate the entire framework to native language. So, I am not surprised with Japan, India. or China not being "head-to-head: with Sweden or Belgium. But everybody is getting there.

Denial is not just river in Egypt. smile
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Checkerhater, I'm not sure where your getting your information from, American companies aren't adopting ISO at any notable rate.  In fact, ASME adoption has been going up drastically in the US in the past 20  - 30 years, and is getting even more attention now than ever.

The EU harmony in ISO isn't as united as the perception holds.  DIN isn't going away.  There is much within it that just isn't address by ISO.  Exceptions within the BSI to the ISO are fewer today than a few years ago, but they are still there.  Your rational about JIS, India, and GB standards are boardline at best.  The suggestion that translation is an issue is, well, a bit of a stretch (as a kind way of saying that).  I cannot even comment on your imappropriate reference to Russians.

BTW, Denial isn't a river anywhere.

 

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds


The Nile. It's an old American  joke.

Quote:

American companies aren't adopting ISO at any notable rate.

You may find some interesting reading there:

http://www.optstd.org/news.htm#ISO10110

This is not about company, this is about entire industry. The Optics - industry responsible for sniper scopes, night vision, lasers and other cool stuff built on Government money is not happy with ASME, because current standard is inadequate/outdated and ASME doesn't want to do anything about it - they will just happily kill Y14.18 and adopt ISO instead.

When it comes to Russians - they had to abandon several world-class and world-leading projects due to the lack of funding. They won't be offended. They know.
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

The example provided in the article is more of a sniper shot itself.  Again, even with the adoption, they'll be making their own national version of it.  Besides, the example is caused by ASME's withdrawal from the subject, not because of some thought that ISO is the defacto standard.  In this case, ISO comes across as being the next best thing.  There is the potential to read too much into this article and apply it across the board, when it is really an imperfect example of one industry being forced to make the change over due to lack of support from ASME.  That's not an issue with ASME Y14.5-2009.

Besides that, I actually ran into the opposite case where I was actually refered to an ASME standard when seeking to find a standard for a particular topic from ISO.  I cannot go into details, but it is in regards to a very substantial topic.

 

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Quote:

In this case, ISO comes across as being the next best thing.
If you read the article, it's about ISO being the only thing, but who counts.
Well Matt, (if that's your real name); if you need another example, look at another major money-maker on American soil - the Petroleum industry. Apparently number of oil rigs rose 5 times recently. What else they need for success? They need ISO standards:
Link
Now about Russians you defend so fiercely:
ISO 5458 latest version exists since  1998. After translation and harmonizing with the existing paperwork Russian version was approved in 2008. And finally in 2011 ISO GD&T was adopted on the territory equal to 1/7 of whole landmass.
So, my theory of translation-related delay actually holds water.
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

CheckerHater,

So, it's interesting that you need to defend your position by dissing others.

Well, your personal comments about me being ignored (as personal comments are entirely unnecessary in this discussion), there is an overstatement being made regarding the adoption of ISO within the US.  Adoption of both ASME and ISO have been growing in the past couple of decades within their respective regions.  Harmonization of ISO across international boundaries is closer today than it was even a couple of years ago, but it's not close to being 100%.  

As far as your "theory" about translation related issues regarding other nations.  That is outright nonsense.  Again, you are presuming conclusions that are unsupported by the specific sited cases.  It didn't take a decade to translated a 30 page document into Russian.  About your "1/7", that is not a statement regarding industry adoption (again, making conclusions not supported by the sited case).  Landmass size as nothing to do with actual industrial adoption within that landmass.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
dgallup & Belanger, if you have a note that basically changes the default to the Envelope Requirement, do you ever want to invoke the Independency Principle?  If so, how would you do it, since the I in a circle symbol is not recognized by ISO.

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

dlloydks,
Before (I) modifier was introduced to ASME GD&T in 2009, the note  "PERFECT FORM AT MMC NOT REQD" was used in such situations. (see 2.7.2 in Y14.5M-1994).

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
pmarc, I had forgotten about that.  However, I think I would rather use a current ASME symbol than an obsolete ASME note on a drawing that is supposed to be to ISO standards.

Under the ISO system, how would you do it?  I guess you could remove whatever note or spec invoked the Envelope Requirement and replace it with a note or spec that clearly invoked the Independency Principle, but with 99+% of the drawings on our title block using the Envelope Requirement, it will probably be missed.

I guess if you were using GTOL on ALL dimensions the Independency Principle as a default might make sense, but we are not.  Basically we use it on dimensions, mostly on features of size that assemble to/with or are otherwise related to something else.  That is were you would normally use the Envelope Principle.

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Well, not going too much into details, there is ISO modifier that would bring Independency Principle back into play for features that do not need to be controlled by print-default Envelope Principle.

It is LP abbreviation enclosed within elongated circle. It stands for two-point measurement, so makes Independency Principle in charge again for particular feature of size if any other default principle governs the print (like Envelope Rule in your case). It was introduced in 2010 by ISO 14405-1 standard which specified tons of other modifiers that could be also used in conjuction with size dimension.

But in my opinion you do not really need this. I guess general notes on a print like below would work sufficiently.
- UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ENVELOPE PRINCIPLE IS INVOKED;
- FOR DIMENSIONS MARKED <any symbol> ENVELOPE PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLY.    

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

To fscuper:

I am sorry if all you could extract from my posts was "dissing". You went on the limb defending Russians; that justifies a pat-down. smile I expected person who called Metric system un-American activity to be more thick-skinned. But I promise in the future to  threat you with respect you deserve.

I am person coming from the real world.
I see our European partners sending us drawings that invoke 2768, I do my little research. I see standard that is useful and well-written. I try to find American counterpart and I find none.
I see drawings going to China, I do my little research and see possibility that China may be leaning towards ISO. Link The article is big, so I attached little "snippet".
I see someone spreading rumors about set of relevant ISO standards costing several thousand dollars, I do my little research and find all you need for about $400.
I hear that Russian drafting standards are non-ISO, I do my little research and find them being very ISO-leaning. And you do realize that "translation" doesn't mean doing foreign language homework for tomorrow, but creating necessary reference frame to several existing or developing standards throughout big bureaucracy.
And to give credit where credit is due: there are American industries leading the world in innovation; and to lead the write their own ISO standards to spread the message: Link

May I suggest we end this discussion and switch to more productive topic?
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

I have found this interesting myself. Unfortunately I have little experience with ISO, actually, and therefore am not able to contribute much.
Language seems a big barrier to me. I became interested in the DIN standards long ago; the machine tool company I was working for had a German subsidiary.  I saw some of their DIN standards before they were ISO and I will tell you I could read the numbers but not any of the words, it was very tough. I got enough to see they were doing things I wanted to know about and that is about it.
 I also saw the transition of the US auto industry to metric from the inside; it was not really what I would call voluntary. The real reason ASME is king is because America is king, as more is manufactured elsewhere this is changing. I think that is obvious simply by the existence of this thread. I am a late comer to the metric system myself, but, I do feel it is better for doing the kind of work we do. I was surprised and disappointed when I found my segment of the aerospace industry was still all inch.
Frank
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

(OP)
To all those suggesting notes:

When we design a part, we do not know where (in what country) the product will be built or whether a particular part will be built in one of facilities or outsourced to anywhere in the world.  Therefore, notes are absolutely the last resort.  Notes on a drawing will have to be translated to at least 2 and maybe more languages.  Much prefer a symbol that is part of some international or national standard.

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Invoke the "E" only on the size dimensions you need it on and not in the general title block notes.
Frank

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

We invoked the "E" through our drafting spec because we were coming from a proprietary (British) company set of drafting standards that included the envelope principal and we did not want to change the interpretation of existing drawings.  Also, every one on shop floor and in QA were used to using the envelope principal.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
 

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Commentary in BS 8888:2008 about the removal of the envelop principle from the default position of the standard is interesting.  They also have a special symbol for the use the principle for the whole drawing; which is actually different than the circled E.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Checkerhater,

It's good that you are from the real world.  So is everyone else on this forum. However, you do drew exteremly broad conclusions from specific examples that are not even supported by those examples.  

Anyway, the world isn't so black and white, cut and dry.  There's plenty of examples of industries in Europe, Canada and elsewhere where adoption of the ISO standard is far come complete (or not even attempted).  There's plenty of examples of that in the US too.  There certainly isn't an unstoppable march to ISO standardization that you seem to have characterized.  ISO is not supplanting ASME on a massive scale.  In fact, there are significant areas where ISO will point you to the "national standard".  That their euphemism for "we don't have it, so use ASME".  I know this, because they've told this to me, quite recently.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

I am sorry I missed the part where you said you invoked it at a dimensioning and tolerancing standard level. I thought you were doing it like the ISO recommends as part of the general tolerances on the drawing sheet level, itself. Have you ever noticed people always want a standard way of going something as long as it is their "standard" way and not someone else's.
Frank

RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds

Matt,
Amen to that, thanks, I had not heard that one before. :)
Frank

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