Dimension Identification for Quality Measurement 1

[T105]

Hi,

With the introduction of CMMs we now have the option of having very detailed measurements of the manufactured parts. However considering a complex part with many sheets in the drawing package, the CMM measurement report becomes very complex. The report is like a book and it is really very difficult to identify which dimension in the drawing was measured.

I would like to know whether there is a standard or practice of giving some type of identification info on every dimension, so that the measurement report also uses the same IDs.

Best regards

 

[ptruitt]

There is a long discussion on this already. Perhaps you should add further discussion to it rather than start a new thread:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=290024&page=2

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[dingy2]

It is quite simple. Personnel in Quality place a number by each dimension on a marked up print so that the CMM operator can identify each dimension by the number and also its location such as A 12 or sheet number.



Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[KENAT]

Or, you could go crazy and use the 'grid' that most drawings have as part of the format to help.

Of course, if you have 2 '1.00+-.02' dimensions in the same grid then it falls down.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[dingy2]

A little further on this subject - Whenever there is a feature control frame that has more than one feature involved such as positional tolerance, number the feature control frame and the size separately.

Let's say, for example, that there are 8 holes with a positional tolerance at RFS which is number 38. Each hole should be given a letter such as 38A, 38B, etc. In that manner, we can reflect the actual positional tolerance of each of the 8 holes.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[dgallup]

There is an interesting piece of software for generating inspection reports. We have not used it but it sounds good to me.

http://www.inspectionxpert.com/Products/ForPDFandTIFF/tabid/67/language/en-US/Default.aspx

 

[fcsuper]

I've not used InspectionXpert, but I've seen it demo'd. It is very good for generating inspection reports. It allows inspection criteria to be stored and changed directly in the drawing (at least in the SolidWorks version). It was created by someone that had prior experience in the inspection feld.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

 

[ak762]

+1 dingy2

I always wondering why someone try to invent strange new approach.
Design represent by drawing but fabrication by processes
Inspection is part of manufacturing process.
inspection document should be separate from component drawing.
It can be looks like or copy of drawing even but do not incorporate all info into design drawing.

 

[fcsuper]

There's nothing strange, nor new about using engineering drawings as the basis for inspection. The methods are fairly well established, though no standard fully details them at this time (nor is that needed).

Creating separate documents (copies of drawings or otherwise) can be a bureaucratic nightmare. I say this from experience.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

 

[ak762]

OK, then clarify how to identify patern holes with positional tolerance or other similar features at component drawing? My experience tell me that inspection documentation should be seperated from design drawing. But methodology of cost efficiency governing whole processes in company and it is very depends

 

[dingy2]

Interesting question - I came up with some quite a while ago and addresses the position question. You will find it on my web page

http://www.qmsi.ca/reportingpositional.html

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[ak762]

Score! Did you come up to situation when designer represent section view with depicted dimensions and after specify 4 places for example?

 

[ptruitt]

I have been designing since 1979 except for a short period when I was a quality manager. Early in my career, I had a reputation for resolving computer issues. It started to distract me from my core responsibility as a designer. When someone asks me if I can figure out their computer problem now, I might still do it, but I know that saying 'yes' may not be in the best interest of the company. Although I have a passion for quality, I see core competency at issue in this discussion. It is very important that designers have a level of expertise in metrology, materials, and fabrication methods. But to try to get the drawing to be everything for everyone will end up with quality being marginalized from the top down. Keep the design documents goal oriented if at all possible.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[DeanD3W]

While I don't think there is necessarily a need for a mandated tolerance numbering system, since many have their own numbering system already, it would be good if a standard existed that showed an example tolerance numbering method.

Within a year or two ASME Y14.45 should be released. Its title will be something like "Measurement Data Reporting Practices". This standard will use, but not mandate, a tolerance numbering method.

Whether these numbers are applied to the design drawing or a separate inspection drawing will depend upon the organization's preference. Some can't abide by inspection information on a design drawing while others can't abide by maintaining an additional drawing. In my opinion it should be considered a concurrent engineering drawing which is a one-stop source of all the needed information.

Dean

http://www.d3w-engineering.com