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?
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
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
----------------------------------------
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
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services www.profileservices.ca
TecEase, Inc. www.tec-ease.com
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
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
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
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 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
RPR?
Frank
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems
http://www.gdtseminars.com
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
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.
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
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.
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
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
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
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
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Frank
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
----------------------------------------
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
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
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
Frank
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
An old quote, "Standards are great. Everyone has one [of their own]." :)
Matt Lorono, CSWP
Product Definition Specialist, DS SolidWorks Corp
Personal sites:
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
RE: ISO GTOL (GPS) Stds
Amen to that, thanks, I had not heard that one before. :)
Frank