TYPICAL or TYP notation on drawings 4

[josewong]

Anyone know the exact definition for the notation: TYPICAL or TYP? I have some old drawing that use them. I'm not sure where or when to use them, or if it is even a standard. Any info is appreciated.

 

[ewh]

No problem with that, especially if you include the number. You are right, however, that many of us work in an environment where our drawings have to be easily and universally interpreted, which is why we follow those standards. It very much depends on the kind of industry you are working in.

 

[fcsuper]

In addition to Mark's comment, dispite whatever standard applied, Company or ANSI, it is always ok to state whatever one needs to in order to make the drawing clear and concise. The standard provides an insiders shorthand that reduces the amount of annotation required, but it doesn't mean written language is prohibited if it is actually make the drawing more useful (to the user and the creator both). I use "TYP" rarely, but when I do, it's in instanstances where counting a feature's specific occurances is just completely pointless. Use of "TYP" should be encouraged when it's not reasonable to be waisting time trying to figure pit the qty when the results will be the same regardless of however the quantity is called out.

 

[ctopher]

Good points.
My argument is, if everyone followed the same standards, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[ringman]

fcsuper,

If you don't have the time to verify the specific number of times the feature is required, how or why should anyone else subsequently involved with the manufacture or inspection be expected to verify the same information.

 

[KENAT]

fcsuper, won't most 3D cad systems work out the qty for you?

Otherwise you need to verify it manually so it's a good cross check.

That said I used to say TYP but now no longer do.

 

[fcsuper]

ringman, it could be suggested there is an over simplification by the point made in that statement.

KENAT, Depends on the scenario.

The general thing is that TYP is understood by those who use it (creator and fabricator), whether it is specifically listed in a particular standard or not. Misusing it would create confusion, but misusing any annotation does that. The whole discussion on this is just academic.

 

[KENAT]

I was thinking TYP on assembly drawings but I usually used it on parts drawings with hindsight for things like chamfer in which case the CAD probably wouldn't work it out for you, so ignore that bit.

I'd debate about it being academic, the first post was asking what TYP meant so obviously it's not universaly understood.

If something is defined in a standard and you reference that standard most confusion should be removed.

 

[Randy1111]

"My argument is, if everyone followed the same standards, we wouldn't be having these discussions. "

When i went to school the use of 'TYP.' was the standard and it was taught. My problem with the so called 'standards' is that if its all kept a secret unless you spend $1000, then it isnt really a universal standard. Its a standard only to those who subscribe to it.

Of the 6 companies I've worked for, only 1 has purchased the standards. And they dont update it, cause that costs more money. So if a standard changes, it goes unknown.

If standards are truely meant to be used by the masses as a universaly accepted standard, they need to be made available to the masses. The cost of publication and running the burocracy behind it should come from other sources.

Just my $.02

-------------

Randy

 

[namdac]

Gee Wiz can we quit beating this horse to death. I mean come on, if you can't find a copy of ansi 14.5, go to the library or have them send you a copy.
Namdac

 

[ctopher]

That would be ASME Y14.5 1994

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[namdac]

Chris,
Your sir are a pip. Funny too.
Namdac

 

[ctopher]

namdac,


Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[jintag]

I use TYP on a drawing to indicate a rough dimension. Such as a radius or chamfer which acts as relief and I am not concerned with having the dimension be exact or even fall within the given tolerances. For example, I might call out 1/8"TYP, meaning 'approximately' 1/8".

 

[ctopher]

'approximately' can mean anything to different machinist, especially if converting from fractions.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[KENAT]

So if you had a number of radii that had to be approximately 1/8 would the call out be:

.125 TYP TYP

It's this kind of mixed/different use that makes you wish there were standards for this kind of thing.

 

[ctopher]

Why TYP twice??
If I wanted a dim of .125, approximately, I would show a loose tolerance. I always show a tolerance on all dim's. This way there is never a question and everyone knows the range the dim should fall in.

Chris
Systems Analyst, I.S.
SolidWorks 06 4.1/PDMWorks 06
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 06-21-06)

 

[KENAT]

My point was that we seem to have at least 2 definitions of TYP being proposed and that it is possible that you might want to use both in the same note/callout.

Hence my callout was saying.

.125 Approximately, in a number of locations.

I wouldn't use it that way I'm just saying that's where you could end up.

 

[fcsuper]

Jintag,

Your use of TYP actually falls under REF, generally denoted by parenthesis these days. Never heard of anyone using TYP in the way you mentioned, nor would that be clear to anyone who reads your drawing.