Referencing other drawings within a drawing

[RunningFree]

Hello all,

I am currently producing a drawing for a door handle in which a common lock is installed; the details for the housing, which this lock should fit into, are detailed on a master drawing.

I have produced two simplified example drawings, which I have attached to illustrate my question, what would be the correct way to reference features dimensioned on a master drawing?

Basically I need to locate the locking device “ledge” a set distance down from the top (compound curved) surface of the handle, it should be perpendicular to datum surface A and concentric with datum surface B but also aligned with datum feature C (rotation stop).
I think the position tolerance will deal with perpendicularity and concentricity but will this limit the rotation with respect to datum feature C (rotation stop)?

Any advise will be appreciated also any general comments on the drawings, by the way the part is a zinc die-casting.

Thank you in advance for the help,

Darren.

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...a6429e006354&file=MasterDeviceCoreDetails.tif

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...7-f84b-460c-bc4e-5feb9ff04cf4&file=Handle.tif

 

[SDETERS]

Usually we call out the The part number and or part identifier in the material section of our title block. So we know what we are starting with when we go to machine on the casting.

 

[KENAT]

About the closest I think I've come to doing what I think you're talking about is when we have custom screws. Rather than detailing the heads of the screws I'll have a note saying something like "SCREW HEAD SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME BXX.X.X"

I'm not sure you need those notes on the 8 dimension.

You don't currently explicitly control 'rotation' of the internal features to the external C. You need to add a control if this is required. If you're determined to leave the 'core' details on another drawing/document then maybe add a reference dimension to the internal 'slot' type feature in the top right drawing and add a position control to it.

I know you state it's incomplete but the drawing you have for the 'core' features is a bit confusing and I think incomplete. Among other things you appear to show a 'female' section projected from a 'male' view, this makes the tolerancing even more confusing. You also have no coaxiality control between the diameters.

Hope this helps.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[RunningFree]

Thanks KENAT,

Regarding the Master Device Core Details, it’s a simplified version/part of a drawing from about 1973, and now I have had a quick look again, I have left off a few items and probably made it a bit confusing. I didn’t post the originals for fear of a telling off from the boss for posting confidential information on the net!
The female section is from a female view but the isometric is indeed male and I included it to try to stop confusion, as this is the core on one half of the die-cast tooling (maybe this was a bad idea)!


There is also a note about concentricity (please note simplified version is in metric):

ALL DIAMETERS TO BE CONCENTRIC TO WITHIN 0.003”

The outside features of this part on the drawing are also not relevant as it goes into multiple shaped parts.

I will probably fully redraw this version and add some notes to avoid confusion.


Thanks for the advise on the reference dimension to the internal 'slot' type feature in the top right drawing and position control, not sure why I did not think of this, I think I was worried about adding profile of a surface control to the slot and ‘double dimensioning’ between both drawing and it must have confused me.

Thank you once again for your speedy response.

Darren

 

[KENAT]

RunningFree, to me it still looks like the image you posted has the cutting line shown in a view of the male part while the actual section is of the female. However, I appreciate this isn't a full drawing and don't want to nit pick irrelevant details as some on this site tend to. I only mentioned it because it confused me a bit initially.

If you redraw the core, you may want to reconsider that concentric note. I believe the meaning of concentric has evolved over the newer versions of the standard. If the requirement is just that the parts fit together you may be better using positional controls of the diameters, like shown in Appendix B of ASME Y14.5M-1994.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

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

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[drawoh]

RunningFree,

If your drawings are for fabrication in-house, I see no problems with multiple drawings and master drawings. If you have decent document control, production will find the drawings they need.

If fabrication is sub-contracted, your purchasing department needs to know what drawings to send out. The simple way is for all the information to be on one drawing, and for purchasing to send each and every page of the drawing to the sub-contractor. If some critical view must be repeated on several drawings, engineering can check the drawings carefully. Engineering can control the quality of their drawings. They cannot control purchasing, or the sub-contractor.

JHG