Plate Thicknesses

[fcsuper]

I'm trying to compile a hopefully useful table on plating thicknesses. I've attached what I have so far. Please feel free to look it over and note any additions/corrections/comments needed. I hope others find this table useful, even in its current incomplete state.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[KENAT]

This may be where you got it from but if not take a look at

http://techplate.com/tpeprice.htm

What would be useful is if it told you whether the spec requires you to specify the thickness on the drawing or if it is given in the spec. This would help with several of the posts on Drafting Standards, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis lately.



KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[fcsuper]

Techplate is where I got some of it, but thanks for the link. I've actually been scouring for many sources.

It was those posts in Drafting standards forum that inspired me to start looking around for this info.

I'm not sure I understand your comming about specifying thicking on drawing vs in the spec. I'm working under the presumption that the information would be useful in the desing process and that a drawing can specify it either way (dim'd without or with the numbers taken into account). Can you clarify your comment? I would like to make this file as useful as possible.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[KENAT]

OK I'll try. I'm not talking about whether to detail the part before or after treatement if that helps.

Based on some of the specs I've looked at and relying purely on my memory...

Some specs explicitly state the thickness of treatment. For these the drawing need only reference the spec, no need to state thickness requirements on the drawing.

Some specs state that you should define the required thickness on the drawing but do have recomended thicknesses for different applications. So you go to the spec, look at the table, pick a thickness and put it in your treatment note.

I'm not sure if some specs neither give the thickness or give suggestions.

Does this clarify? I haven't worked with US specs as much, it may be that they all explicitly define the thickness but I got the impression that at least some don't.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[rb1957]

i'd agree with kenat (you're welcome) ...

i don't think it's a good idea to dimension a plating thickness. i think if most cases its process controlled to a minimum thickness.

certainly there have been incidents where too mcuh plating has been applied and created a problem on installation. certainly there are a few occassions when a designer might specify a maximum thickness. but this is experience !

i think the process spec is the place for this information, and that the designer should look up the info. when he/she needs it. bury this in a drawing table, and you'll have a problem keeping it up to date.

too damn'd much spoon-feeding going on these days !

 

[fcsuper]

KENAT,

Clear enough. The purpose of the spreadsheet is to provide a quick reference for this information, no really to tell someone how to detail a drawing. This is why I didn't post this in the Drafting forum. However, now that you mentioned it, that info would be useful.

rb1957,

I agree with you regarding the drafting portion of your comment, and that isn't the intent of the table. I recommend looking into the Drafting forum for discussions about this topic. As far as the design portion of your comment, I do disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with having quick references for information to get you in the ball park. Most of us don't have instant access to the thousands of standards out there.





Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[IRstuff]

Using anything other than the actual standard for design is not using an authoritative source, and as such, violates the intent ISO-9000, since the possibility of transcription errors and missing of updated information is greatly increased.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[KENAT]

IRstuff, you assume everyone is working iso-9000...

However, I basically agree but, having a list so that you at least know where to look is very useful.

Also, I'm discovering that areas outside of defense/aerospace aren't so keen on spending money getting the latest copies of standards & keeping them up to date etc. In this case, especially if you've been told not to work toward ISO-9000 by senior management, a list like this can be very useful.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[IRstuff]

I would NEVER assume that...


but for those that aspire to those lofty levels, then they need to be tread lightly.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[fcsuper]

BTW, KENAT, I'm working on fleshing the spreadsheet out to hopefully go into more detail about the actual specs in the standards. I don't have access to any of the standards at this moment, so I can going on second sources. I'm hoping that someone that does have primary sources can help with editing.

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group