ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
(OP)
I have read in ASME Y14.5M-1982 that trailing zeroes are supposed to be suppressed on a drawing dimension. I was told that this also applies to ASME Y14.5M-1994, but I cannot find such a reference in that version.
Are trailing zeroes still covered by the 1994 GD&T standard?
Thanks,
Jeff
Are trailing zeroes still covered by the 1994 GD&T standard?
Thanks,
Jeff





RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
"All limits are absolute. Dimensional limits, regardless of the number of decimal places, are used as if they were continued with zeros.
EXAMPLES:
12.2 means 12.20.....0
12.0 means 12.00.....0
12.01 means 12.010....0
To determine conformance within limits, the measured value is compared directly with the specified value and any deviation outside the specified limiting value signifies nonconformance with the limits."
Hope this is helpful
GDTGUY
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I discovered I was comparing Y14.5M-1982 to Y14.5.1M-1994. I was supposed to look in section 1.6 of Y14.5M-1994. But I'm good now that I have figured it out.
Thanks,
Jeff
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
Metric dimensions do not use trailing zeros to hold decimal places for tolerancing, English dimensions do. This has caused us a lot of problems with the default tolerance block on our drawings. There is an exception when using bi-lateral or limit tolerancing.
Metric dimensions less than 1, use a leading zero, English dimensions do not.
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
gearguru
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
How do you tell the difference in a metric drawing and an inch drawing if they all have trailing zeros?
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
1.6.1(a) Where the dimensions is less hthan one millimeter, a zero precedres the decimal point.
1.6.1(b) Where the dimension is a whole number, neither the decimal point nor a zero is shown.
1.6.2(a) A zero is not used before the decimal point for values of less than one inch.
1.6.2(b) A dimension is expressed to the sam number of decimal places as its tolerance.
On English or metric drawings, you can have a note indicating a tolerance for a given number of decimals. It is the note on the drawing that makes the decimals significant.
JHG
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
You have to use the zero before the decimal point with mm dimensions. Your example has only one correct answer: 2.35+/-0.01
optech is right, standard does not ask for trailing zeroes.
But as I mentioned, some car makers insist on it. I still believe that it does not make sense. We do not make shafts 50 inches diameter for cars here; we also dutifuly state in the title block, that the drawing is metric (which is the standard for the US auto industry) so there can be no mistake if we do not use nothing meaning zeroes.
gearguru
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
Prior to the 1994 revision it was common to list default tolerances in the title block of a drawing or at least a reference to some company document/mil or sae std showing these references. ie: x.xx = +-0.01 x.xx =-0.005
etc.
I've been back in the aerospace (NASA Contractor) field for 4 weeks and -1994 has made it very messy.
Using the -1994 std and Proe software there are NO TRAILING ZEROES.
The title block has a multiple tolerancing area with a designation of fine, medium and coarse. The engineer is supposed to pick one of these and note it on the drawing.
This is hopefully the worst example.
Coming from a machining/manufacturing background and an ME and 25 years in the business I still cannot understand any benefits. If anything, this section of -1994 has made it more difficult to state individual tolerances.
The only other option is specifying a tolerance on each dim whether by +- symmetricaly or by limits. Both of these options lead to further errors and do not contribute to a clean drawing. (This stands true for 3D models as well.)
I can offer no suggestions or remedies.
Until I see other evidence my opinion of this section of -1994 was rather poorly researched and does not add to ease of manifacturing or engineering.
I will be happy if someone has a better answer.
procadman2
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I compared section 1.6 Types of Dimensioning in both the 1982 and 1994 standards and they are worded the same.
Maybe if you go back to the 1978, I think it was, standard, section 1.6 might be worded differently.
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
With -1994 and no trailing zeroes how do you establish simple dimensional tolerances? ie: +-0.01 +-0.001 +-0.0001 etc
procadman2
Proe Design & Admin
Mechanical & Aerospace
"You can't build a reputation on something you haven't done."
H Ford
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
If I have a tolerance block that says:
X/X.x +/-3
.xx +/-1.5
.xxx +/-.8
and I have the following dimensions:
12 5 5.5 4.25 5.135
These all fall under the tolerance block tolerance allowance (except hole diameters, which is another story.)
If I want the 5.5 to be tighter I have to specify it as
5.5 +/-.8 or 6.3/4.7.
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I see this as yet another reason for people, stuck in 1942, to not use metric.
But, for the rest of us, I assume we are stuck with either adhering to or ignoring this section of -1994.
I am currently talking to Paul Drake, author of Dim & Tol Handbook (McGraw Hill) about this issue.
I will post my findings.
Thanks for the help.
procadman2
Proe Design & Admin
Mechanical & Aerospace
"You can't build a reputation on something you haven't done."
H Ford
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I talked with Paul Drake (author of Dim & Tol Handbook (McGraw Hill)).
His suggestion is to use the same general tolerancing method as we always have and ignore the trailing zero rule.
He is going to attempt to get this clarified in the next ANSI Dim & Tol edition. (Due out soon). Hopefully this rule will either be omitted or they will have a method of general tolerancing other than limiting every dim on the dwg.
procadman2
Proe Design & Admin
Mechanical & Aerospace
"You can't build a reputation on something you haven't done."
H Ford
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
Ben Loosli
CAD/CAM System Analyst
Ingersoll-Rand
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I am in the same boat. (and it's starting to sink.)
I was told that after the switch from Autocad to Proe the designs took 3 times longer to do.
This is just one of the many reasons. It has nothing to do with the ease of use of the software package. It is mostly caused by standards being in place before they are completely thought out. Because you cannot fudge things in a parametric document it takes several times longer to complete.
Hopefully this will change soon.
procadman2
Proe Design & Admin
Mechanical & Aerospace
"You can't build a reputation on something you haven't done."
H Ford
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
First, our current tolerance block is to my opinion inapropriate. We state a default tolerance for too many cases and features (which is not the goal of a default tolerance block I think). Meaning:
Radius = +/-.015
Chamfer = +/-.015
Weld location = +/-.25
Bend radius = +/-.020
C'sk dia = +/-.015
Flat Pattern = +/-.007 (for sheet metal)
Dim .X = +/-.030
Dim .XX = +/-.015
Dim .XXX = +/-.005
Angle = +/-.5 deg
This has lead us to many interpretations (which is very wrong!) of a dimension tolerance. For example what is the tolerance applied to a Radius (R.375) specified on a Flat pattern, +/-.015 or +/-.007 or +/-.005?? Which one prevails over the other? This system was put in place by manufacturing in the past to compensate for the lack of proper tolerancing done by the engineering department. Have they re-discovered good drafting practices or just applied a quick fix but never solved the real problem? I have never seen such a tolerance block nowhere! Anyone...
Second, we are sometimes using dual dimensioning for our european customers and we know it is not covered in ASME Y14.5M-1994. If we want to be able to use decimal places for tolerancing, is it right to say we have no choice but to use "INCHES [mm]" format where metric dimensions would only be used for reference and this way follow the non-trailing zeros rule for metric dimensions? Ex.: ".197 [5]" where the tolerance would be .XXX = +/-.005 (from the tolerance block).
Third, if we say on our drawings: "Dimensioning and tolerancing as per ASME Y14.5M-1994" can we still use INCHES only?? The standard does state Metric...
Lots of questions. I will appreciate your comments.
Thanks all.
YG, mechanical designer
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
In most cases the feature is important, so you take the time to specify a tolerance...the generic block is only there for those dimensions that are not part-to-part issues (i.e. is the radii of the cute bump on the hood of my car 100% inspected at three significant digits?)
It also gives inspection dept warm fuzzy to know ALL dimensions have a tolerance to which they can inspect parts.
Alex
RE: ASME Y14.5M - 1994 - Trailing Zeroes?
I strongly disagree with using dual dimensions on a fabrication drawing. Your drawing determines the acception or rejection of your part, and there can be no ambiguity. ASME Y14.5M-1994 allows for millimeters or inches as your dimension system.
I have no objection to dual reference dimensions. I have even stooped to things liks 4.76 [3/16"], when the metric dimension was a round English number.
Our fabrication block is an add-on to a standard, very simple title block. We can select a millimeter block or an inch block. This keeps things fairly simple, and it allows us to use tolerances that are approximately equivlent to each other -- .005" ~ .01mm.
I see nothing wrong with a set of standard tolerance notes. It is allowed by the standard. The effect of this is that you do not have to explicitly attach tolerances to each of your dimensions, and you save time. This is not necessarily good, since some people use the opportunity to not think about what they are doing. I am getting tired of seeing welding and sheet metal bending specified to +/-.005".
JHG