Cross-Referencing of Section 1

[Brian D]

Our company does not currently cross-reference sections across multiple sheets. Two or three sheet drawings this isn't really an issue. However, we have many drawings that exceed that by a bit. It gets... messy. I am attempting to introduce this concept (cross-referencing) to our engineering department. What ASME Y14.3 sect 8.1.3 says is "When sections are located on different sheets, the sheet number and zone of the cross-reference location shall be indicated." And also: "The sheet number and zone cross-reference may be in any format, provided that it is easily understood".

My question is this: have any of you worked anywhere where the sections/details/views were noted in a chart format and on what sheet(s) was the chart located? Sheet 1 seems logical but the question posed by a colleague is would it need to be on all sheets? I wouldn't think so.

Any input is appreciated. This group has proven to be a heck of a resource for me so far!

Brian

 

[pylfrm]

Brian D,

I'm not sure whether I've ever seen the chart format. Individual indications associated with each cutting plane and each section view are much more common in my experience.

If your CAD software has a feature for this built in, that might be the path of least resistance. SOLIDWORKS does it like this. It seems like spelling out "SHEET" and "ZONE" might be a good idea though.


pylfrm

 

[mk3223]

The references format may be different for Disciplines. One may refer the details to a specific drawing or sheet, while the other referent to a list of the common sectional details. IMO, a chart or table of the references could be a good reference, but may be a live document and require to be updated periodically.

 

[CheckerHater]

I will join the chorus
Haven't seen section/view reference as a separate chart.
Looks like additional headache in the time of revision - view being relocated by different person who may not be aware that there is a chart somewhere, etc.
Classical approach - callout and section referencing each other seems straightforward and reliable.

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[Brian D]

pylfrm: I agree with you 100% on the individual indications. That's what I've seen at my previous jobs and that's what we do here, just not with the sheet/zone indication. It would work here the majority of the time to add something like the SOLIDWORKS example. That could work for us - one of the guys here thinks Solid Edge has something similar built in.

mk3223: While we do have different disciplines, we are attempting (with success, so far!) to use the same drafting standards across the board. We are actually revising them to more closely align with ASME, with the blessing/backing of upper management... most of the time. Trying to get rid of as many "exceptions" as we can. I think I get the gist of what you're saying, possibly treating it as a live document. That might be a tough sell.

CheckerHater: Valid concerns, certainly. Especially since introducing new things at a company steeped in the tradition of "that ain't how we've always dunit" tends to go poorly, though it's been said that is no longer an excuse here. I was told recently of the attempt a few years back to make a push for using geotol - they trained engineering but not manufacturing. Turned into a pretty good cluster. That issue alone may be a good reason to try to adapt the classical approach somehow (similar to pylfrm's example).

Thanks for the input. Looks like I should have asked here before discussing with my boss. He really liked the idea so now I may not be able to dissuade him!