Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
New ASME Y14.5 2009 Std.
- Thread starter rmaki
- Start date
5 threads below this one...
thread1103-238042
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08; CATIA V5
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
thread1103-238042
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08; CATIA V5
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
It will depend on your contracts or what your management decides.
There are still sections of major aerospace/defense companies working to the 82 version.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
There are still sections of major aerospace/defense companies working to the 82 version.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies: What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
I agree that most companies will continue to use '94 (or '82) unless there are compelling reasons to change to the new one.
So the question is what might those reasons be?
Are there problems with the old standard that you just can't stand anymore? Some companies have already gone to the trouble of creating their own customized Y14.5 "addendum" to discontinue use of certain Y14.5 tools and add others.
Are there improvements in the new standard that you can't live without now that you know about them? There are new tolerancing tools such as continuous features and customized datum reference frames. There are new fundamental rules including the ever-popular implied basic zero. There are better definitions and explanations such as the behavior of tertiary datum features.
I suppose that the decision to change should be based on a combination of the above, in the particular company's context. Along with the costs involved with making the change, which might outweigh the potential improvements.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
So the question is what might those reasons be?
Are there problems with the old standard that you just can't stand anymore? Some companies have already gone to the trouble of creating their own customized Y14.5 "addendum" to discontinue use of certain Y14.5 tools and add others.
Are there improvements in the new standard that you can't live without now that you know about them? There are new tolerancing tools such as continuous features and customized datum reference frames. There are new fundamental rules including the ever-popular implied basic zero. There are better definitions and explanations such as the behavior of tertiary datum features.
I suppose that the decision to change should be based on a combination of the above, in the particular company's context. Along with the costs involved with making the change, which might outweigh the potential improvements.
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
I have been studying the new standard for a couple of weeks and will conclude that if one thinks that the 82 or even the 94 standard is somewhat complex, just go through datum section 4. Most companies will need consultants just to figure it out and there should be training only on this section to fully understand it. Good luck to the layman on the shop floor!
Dave D.
Dave D.
Evan,
Your comment re corporate addendums intrigues me. I'm not sure if you're saying they should or shouldn't move to '09 if they already have the content in their addendum. I see both sides of this one; why go thru the effort & cost of updating your addendum &/or drawing templates to reflect the new standard, right? On the other hand, just maintaining an addendum is costly beyond its original inception, so going to the new standard may be cost effective overall.
In some cases, I think people will migrate to '09 because of the (hopefully) eventual changes to CAD packages which really don't fully support even '94 at this point. Other software & hardware for inspection and such may also be factors.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
Your comment re corporate addendums intrigues me. I'm not sure if you're saying they should or shouldn't move to '09 if they already have the content in their addendum. I see both sides of this one; why go thru the effort & cost of updating your addendum &/or drawing templates to reflect the new standard, right? On the other hand, just maintaining an addendum is costly beyond its original inception, so going to the new standard may be cost effective overall.
In some cases, I think people will migrate to '09 because of the (hopefully) eventual changes to CAD packages which really don't fully support even '94 at this point. Other software & hardware for inspection and such may also be factors.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
Jim,
I'm not sure if I'm saying whether they should or shouldn't either! I actually hadn't thought about the issue of moving to '09 where there is already a corporate addendum in place. I was just stating that some companies have made their own addendums (addenda?) to '94, as evidence that it is not universally accepted as adequate. Good point though.
Regarding software, I would agree that a lack of '09 functionality in CAD systems and metrology software would definitely hinder migration. This must have happened before as well - how long did it take for '94 to become more popular than '82 for new designs?
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
I'm not sure if I'm saying whether they should or shouldn't either! I actually hadn't thought about the issue of moving to '09 where there is already a corporate addendum in place. I was just stating that some companies have made their own addendums (addenda?) to '94, as evidence that it is not universally accepted as adequate. Good point though.
Regarding software, I would agree that a lack of '09 functionality in CAD systems and metrology software would definitely hinder migration. This must have happened before as well - how long did it take for '94 to become more popular than '82 for new designs?
Evan Janeshewski
Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
Evan,
What makes you think '94 IS more popular than '82 for new designs? ;~}
Seriously though, the software still isn't really '94 compliant in all aspects from what I've seen, and it's distinctly deficient in Y14.41 functionality.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
What makes you think '94 IS more popular than '82 for new designs? ;~}
Seriously though, the software still isn't really '94 compliant in all aspects from what I've seen, and it's distinctly deficient in Y14.41 functionality.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
SolidWorks is mostly compliant with Y14.5-1994 these days, though I know of a few gaps. I personally don't know anyone using 82, or have I seen an 82 print in many years.
As far as Y14.41 goes, I consider it to be too deficient to be widely applicable right now. I hope they clean it up and make a new version that is more in line with the industry as a whole.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
As far as Y14.41 goes, I consider it to be too deficient to be widely applicable right now. I hope they clean it up and make a new version that is more in line with the industry as a whole.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
Matt,
We're starting work on Y14.41 revisions shortly. Now is the time to submit your comments to ASME.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
We're starting work on Y14.41 revisions shortly. Now is the time to submit your comments to ASME.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
MechNorth,
I wrote in about it and Y14.5 awhile back. Never got a response or anything though, not that I necessarily "deserved" one.
I may consider new specific points to comment on in a future communication. In my first communication, I think I mentioned the drawing requirement for a triad in each and every view. I'm not sure why a triad is necessary on a drawing from a 3D model, but not on drawings from non-3D sources. This seems like an abritary requirement that offers no value. It's not needed at all, and certainly shouldn't be a requirement.
Another point I don't think I mentioned was the PDM chart seems strangely unnecessary. Also, the rules about annotation planes needs work. Maybe I'll put together a new letter to address more of the issues.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
I wrote in about it and Y14.5 awhile back. Never got a response or anything though, not that I necessarily "deserved" one.
I may consider new specific points to comment on in a future communication. In my first communication, I think I mentioned the drawing requirement for a triad in each and every view. I'm not sure why a triad is necessary on a drawing from a 3D model, but not on drawings from non-3D sources. This seems like an abritary requirement that offers no value. It's not needed at all, and certainly shouldn't be a requirement.
Another point I don't think I mentioned was the PDM chart seems strangely unnecessary. Also, the rules about annotation planes needs work. Maybe I'll put together a new letter to address more of the issues.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
Oh, one thing I think needs to be addressed in Y14.41 is working with the 3D CAD software companies to come up with new ways to display content in the model that would've been on drawings in environments where 2D drawings are no longer used. In other words, a new standard for "3D drawings" needs to be developed. Y14.41 is very very far from this right now.
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group
From what I've seen (which means that I don't know all the inner workings of the sub-committees, but which I have gleaned from conversations & exposure), all the comments ARE collected and reviewed by the Section Chairs. Redundant submissions are pooled together and addressed as one, typically with a champion from the submitters who is already participating on the committee; this reduces time and costs for everyone involved. Sometimes it is decided that the comment is already included directly or indirectly in the text, so it's listed as addressed. Other times, it is determined that a similar submission has been declined in the past, and is therefore not considered further unless something substantially new is introduced as supporting material. It also happens on occasion that they can't reach an agreement on a contentious issue and decide to defer it to the next revision so that further work can be done on the idea to flesh it out.
The Y14.41 standard really addresses two separate issues; data management systems, and solid modelling requirements. Whether or not these two should be separate standards is a good question.
Again, pls submit your comments to the ASME Y14.41 S/C so that they can review & discuss them for the next revision. Don't be discouraged if they don't get back to you; if the comment is fully explained and supported, they may not need to get back to you.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
The Y14.41 standard really addresses two separate issues; data management systems, and solid modelling requirements. Whether or not these two should be separate standards is a good question.
Again, pls submit your comments to the ASME Y14.41 S/C so that they can review & discuss them for the next revision. Don't be discouraged if they don't get back to you; if the comment is fully explained and supported, they may not need to get back to you.
Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services TecEase, Inc.
Some interesting info here (Machine Design Magazine):
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08; CATIA V5
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08; CATIA V5
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
