ASME - where to start?

[uGlay]

hi, i am interested in learning ASME GD&T Standards and obtaining a certification. What is the best and most efficient way of achieving this?

Any advice from people who have attained their certification would be highly appreciated.

 

[Heckler]

I would check with any local community colleges. Also, check with Technical Consultants Inc

http://geotol.com/

One more thing you should buy the specification for your reading pleasure.

Best Regards,

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 5.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.

 

[swertel]

ASME has a "conference" once or twice a year. This is to take the class and the test and get certified. I don't have the direct link or information, I just know that 2 of my coworkers are going next week or first week of December.

Look around at

http://www.asme.org

to see if you can find the seminar. You may still have time to register.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[MechNorth]

Tec-Ease (

http://www.tec-ease.com)

has an exam-prep course based on ASME's prep material. I did it a couple years ago. Basically it gives you a study process to follow wherein you track & follow each section link in the ASME Y14.5M-1994 standard text & figures. You will need a copy of the Y14.5M-1994 standard and also Y14.5.2 (

http://catalog.asme.org/Codes/PrintBook/Y1452_2000_Certification.cfm)

which lays out the body of knowledge that you will be tested for depending on whether you are taking the Technologist or Senior Level certification.

Follow Tec-Ease's process and study study study. Tec-Ease uses a mentoring process that I liked better than other trainers and training materials that I've used. It's a long exam.
Good luck!

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[dingy2]

I would suggest that you get trained through someone who is a GD & T Professional and I don't believe that the trainers in all colleges are certified. Also get someone who knows how each symbol is measured and the standard does not reflect this.

I have attached the web site that goes directly in ASME so that you might find a suitable trainer.

I think that this should help.

Dave D.

http://www.asme.org/Codes/CertifAccred/Personnel/Training_Resources_2.cfm

 

[MechNorth]

Dave raises an excellent point; don't assume you're instructor is qualified in GD&T just because they're teaching it. I've seen many college and "professional" instructors that aren't certified by ASME as GDTP or GDTP-S, and that leads to bad information.

One other point, you need to have 5 years of experience in GD&T before you can get certified. If you haven't had any training yet, get started...it's a steep learning curve.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[powerhound]

Relative to this discussion, I took the test a year ago and failed with a 73. I studied for months prior to the test using the body of knowledge as a guide and I really thought I was ready. I was deeply disappointed to discover that a large amount of the test was based on verbatim memorization of certain sections and things that I thought were inconsequential such as whether the datum "sucker" attached to the lower left or upper right. It seems that roughly half the test was actual practical application of GD&T and the rest was filler material. I spent way too much time trying to nail down the function of GD&T and not enough time on the minutiae that I didn't think mattered in the grand scheme of things. I remember one question that the 4 choices had 1 or 2 words different between them and none of them were a stretch to imagine being correct. It boiled down to whether or not I had memorized that paragraph or maybe I don't have enough of a grasp on the English language to know the difference between the words used even though I'm 100% American born and English speaking. It's been over a year since I took the test and I was pretty hacked off about it even when I thought I had passed because of the very reasons I have stated here. I wasn't about to re-take the test even at the discounted rate as if they were doing me a favor. Now that I've had time to cool off, I still don't think it's a very good test but getting my certification is something that I'll have to do whether I like it or not. Am I the only one that feels like the test was lacking in the assessment of real world practical application?

Powerhound
Production Supervisor
Inventor 11
Mastercam X
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[MechNorth]

The test definitely focuses on the theory and concepts, with little in the way of applications. From what I've seen in industry and what I've heard from veteran GD&T'ers, people hit a perception wall as soon as they see an application from outside of their specialty (e.g. a machinist may not know anything about bearings, and blanks out because of it). As I recall, the failure rate's over 80% of those writing the Senior-level exam.
While I empathize that many of the questions seem inconsequential to the "real world", keep in mind that those subtleties are important and the successful completion means a combination of practical and theoretical knowledge. I've worked with and debated with a number of veteran GD&T'ers, and mostly they are correct; the differences often come in the subtleties and the extension of principles that you get from knowing the standard.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[dingy2]

Yes the AMSE GD & T test is PURE theory and there is a high play upon words. YES there was very little practical application and absolutely nothing about measurement analysis just imaginary lines around planes, etc.

I needed the certification since I train in the subjecct so I wrote the Technologist level first, passed it and finally the Senior.

Powerhound - work on it. I went through the standard until I couldn't look at it any more and I after I wrote the exam, my brain was fried

Good Luck.

Dave

 

[MechNorth]

Dave, looking back from the Senior level perspective, was there value for you in writing the Technologist level first? i.e. did it help you significantly in preparing for the Senior level body of knowledge? I recall a bit of overlap, but the bok for the Senior level was far more extensive and in-depth.

Keep at it, PowerHound. I studied my butt off for the exam for a couple months, and did a number of practice exams too. Good luck.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca