Assembly Drawing, LEVEL 3 5

[designmr]

I have a question on Level 3 assembly drawings. The company I work for is really not into creating level 3 drawings. So with a contract with a military customer, the customer request level 3 drawings.

The company I work for typically does their assembly drawings as isometric explosion view.

My question, does level 3 drawings prohibit the use of isometric explosion views to depict an acurate assembly type drawing. I do not think so, but not sure if there is a spec that specifies this.

Thanks.

 

[ctopher]

You can use exploded views as additional to the other views, but not alone.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-27-06)

 

[swertel]

The specs are now found in the appendix if ASME Y14.100. The appendix are a copy of what was MIL-STD-100 and MIL-DTL-31000.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[designmr]

Thanks ctopher and swertel.....I knew you could use it, but not alone, especially if this is a large assembly with many sub-assemblies fastened to it....Hard to explain to people who are not use to seeing that. ONLY some kind of spec will prove a point.

 

[KENAT]

An exploded view doesn't actually show the part assembled and as such shouldn't be used as the only view(s). It's kind of in 14.5 (or maybe a related document, can't remember) but you have to want to understand it if you catch my drift.

I tried looking in past threads as I thought the reference was there but couldn't find it, did come across this.

thread1103-157857

 

[designmr]

Also, swertel, you know of a site where I could look thru ASME Y14.100? This company will not spend the money to get a copy.
Thanks

 

[ctopher]

You can't look through ASME docs without purchasing them.
That's too bad. Every eng company should have a copy.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-27-06)

 

[designmr]

This company ONLY has short version, and unfortunately ASME Y14.100, it doesn't....

 

[designmr]

KENAT, read that forum...wow. But in a nut shell, seems depending on the customer requirement, so goes the drawings. USAF, wants level 3....to me, ONLY an ISOMETRIC assembly does not give them what they WANT, or paid for.

Thanks

 

[KENAT]

I've never worked level 3 as such (my defense work was back in the UK) but I'd doubt if just ISO would do them, especially just an exploded ISO.

Y14.24M-1989 (our current edition has gone walk-about) says at Requirements paragraph 4.3d

depiction of the items in the assembly relationship, using sufficient detail for identification and orientation of the items. Details of a subordinate assembly are not normally repeated on the assembly drawing of a higher order.[quote\]

I think is says the same in the newer version.

So certainly I would expect just an exploded iso not to be acceptable, it doesn’t show items in the assembly relationship and doesn’t rigidly define the orientation of the items.

I know a man who has checked level 3, I'll see if I can get him to chip in.

Ken

 

[KENAT]

Oops, make that

............

depiction of the items in the assembly relationship, using sufficient detail for identification and orientation of the items. Details of a subordinate assembly are not normally repeated on the assembly drawing of a higher order.

 

[designmr]

Kenat, thanks for the info...

 

[ctopher]

thread1103-106858


Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-27-06)

 

[swertel]

designmr,

The appendix of ASME Y14.100 is really a copy of MIL-STD-100 and MIL-DTL-31000. You can view the specs at

http://assist.daps.dla.mil/online/start/

Just click on quicksearch and type in 100 and 31000 in the document number field.

You'll see that MIL-STD-100 has been canceled and superseeded by the ASME specs, but you still have access to viewing Revision G.
MIL-DTL-31000 is still current at Revision C.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[designmr]

Thanks, swertel

 

[KENAT]

Spoke to my colleague and he mentioned that one of the main things to remember was that a level 3 drawing pack was of such a standard, and complete enough that it could be given to any competent engineering company and they could produce the equipment. As such it can reference no proprietary info, it must all be fully detailed SCD, VCD etc. This is to allow competitive tendering and/or second sourcing to increase production rate.

That may not directly affect the question you asked but the following may to some extent.

Usually the government will effectively own the drawing pack at the end of it so it has to fully meet all their standards. If this is the case then you are effectively being paid for the drawing pack as well as any hardware you may end up delivering. Contract should make this clear.

At my last place in the UK we had to frequently remind management & production of this. They’d want us to designate hardware etc by its MRP codes or leave something out of drawings to give us a competitive edge or put more unnecessary information on drawings to make their jobs easier. Any of this would have contravened the equivalent to level 3.

 

[designmr]

KENAT....I worked with an aerospace company for almost 19 years way BACK..Your right, the customer OWNS the drawings. And that all INFO, should be on the drawings.

This company I work for now, the owner is under the REALLY old school of "you can drawing it on a napkin and the shop will understand it".....Which is correct, maybe our shop, because they can come in and ask question, but other companies may not.

Thanks again

 

[ewh]

KENAT,
That is also what I understand level 3 to mean - the equipment could be made by any competent engineering company in the world.

 

[ctopher]

Yes. The drawings to be drawn so that if your company goes out of business, the product can be built anywhere.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-27-06)

 

[CheckerRon]

designmr: As my colleague KENAT and others have eluded to, level 3 Production Drawing packages were defined in DOD-D-1000B, which has been superseded by MIL-DTL-31000, and As I recall, the level 3 verbage is not in MIL DTL-31000 that made it clear that your drawing package had to be so complete that "a competent manufacturer could build the product, meet physical and performance characteristics, and maintain quality control of the product without additional data or recourse to the original design activity."
I would pay close attention to your contract verbage regarding level 3. This could reject your entire design package if not followed.
Regarding the exploded view issue, better to show the assembled product as primary view, then use details or exploded views to callout parts.