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!
Use of X by 1
- Thread starter jjrobert
- Start date
jjrobert,
ASME Y14.5M-1994 shows the quantity inside the basic dimension box on all the figures I just examined. If you are using SolidWorks, the quantity will wind up outside the basic box. I can still see that the dimension is basic.
Anything inside brackets, as per Figure[ ]1-54 is a reference dimension, and should not be boxed. Your [5.00] above is your real dimension. Your calculation of the total is a perfect illustration of why the figure in brackets is for reference only.
I screw up too sometimes.![[smile]](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif "[smile] [smile]")
JHG
ASME Y14.5M-1994 shows the quantity inside the basic dimension box on all the figures I just examined. If you are using SolidWorks, the quantity will wind up outside the basic box. I can still see that the dimension is basic.
Anything inside brackets, as per Figure[ ]1-54 is a reference dimension, and should not be boxed. Your [5.00] above is your real dimension. Your calculation of the total is a perfect illustration of why the figure in brackets is for reference only.
I screw up too sometimes.
JHG
-
1
- #3
I agree with drawoh, except I would have referred to them as parenthesis, since you used brackets to denote basic dimensions.
The form you are asking about is generally used to denote non-cumulative dimensions, and basic dimensions are non-cumulative by default, so all you really need is 5X [5.00] or [5X 5.00] (either of which is permissable per the standard , para 1.9.5).
If you do use that form, the = should also be in the parenthesis.
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - [small]Hunter S. Thompson[/small]
The form you are asking about is generally used to denote non-cumulative dimensions, and basic dimensions are non-cumulative by default, so all you really need is 5X [5.00] or [5X 5.00] (either of which is permissable per the standard , para 1.9.5).
If you do use that form, the = should also be in the parenthesis.
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - [small]Hunter S. Thompson[/small]
As drawoh says, 14.5 seems to show the X in the basic box.
However, there is nothing in there I'm aware of that says having out of the box is explicitly wrong so I will allow it on drawings I check.
In our CAD system you have to dig down into the settings to get it to be in the box but I've now set our default settings to be that way.
As regards your example, I agree with drawoh that I don't believe the 15 should be boxed.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
However, there is nothing in there I'm aware of that says having out of the box is explicitly wrong so I will allow it on drawings I check.
In our CAD system you have to dig down into the settings to get it to be in the box but I've now set our default settings to be that way.
As regards your example, I agree with drawoh that I don't believe the 15 should be boxed.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
Well spotted ewh
So I was a little off track.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
ASME Y14.5M-1994 said:
So I was a little off track.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
drawoh, back in the UK they were called brackets, square, round or curly. My first checker in the US used to pick on me calling them brackets.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
- Thread starter
- #9
They are both wrong for different reasons.
The bottom one is I believe more correct but it should be X not x. Also, while not explicitly stated as far as I can see, the figures show the = in the parenthesis.
5X [1.000](=5.000)
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
The bottom one is I believe more correct but it should be X not x. Also, while not explicitly stated as far as I can see, the figures show the = in the parenthesis.
5X [1.000](=5.000)
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
KENAT,
You are correct that X is uppercase:
5X [1.000].
But, here in the US, [] is usually meant to be the secondary units, () is meant as reference dim's.
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
You are correct that X is uppercase:
5X [1.000].
But, here in the US, [] is usually meant to be the secondary units, () is meant as reference dim's.
Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion
Chris,
I think that we are only using brackets to denote basic dimensions in this thread.
It should be "X", not "x". All upper case, except for certain abreviations such as mm. And yes, the = should be in parenthesis, because it makes no real sense outside of them. A dimension such as "= 5.00" makes little sense, so you shouldn't see "(5X 1.00)= 5.00" either.
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - [small]Hunter S. Thompson[/small]
I think that we are only using brackets to denote basic dimensions in this thread.
It should be "X", not "x". All upper case, except for certain abreviations such as mm. And yes, the = should be in parenthesis, because it makes no real sense outside of them. A dimension such as "= 5.00" makes little sense, so you shouldn't see "(5X 1.00)= 5.00" either.
The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. - [small]Hunter S. Thompson[/small]
Ctopher, as ewh says the [] were meant to represent the basic dimension frame (box).
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
ringster,
As I pointed out, above, there is an excellent reason why the total value is a reference dimension.
The term EQUALLY SPACED does not appear anywhere in ASME Y14.5M-1994. I think it is clearer and safer to provide an explicit count of features.
JHG
As I pointed out, above, there is an excellent reason why the total value is a reference dimension.
The term EQUALLY SPACED does not appear anywhere in ASME Y14.5M-1994. I think it is clearer and safer to provide an explicit count of features.
JHG
ringster, the OP made a typo that drawoh addressed in the first response. Get over it, the basic question is valid and picking on a little error like this does a disservice to the good information given by ewh above.
Also EQUALLY SPACED has been flogged to death in previous threads, why bring it up here. Equally spaced is not shown in 14.5 that I'm aware of but arguably may have use for bolt circles. However, its use on linear dimensions as in the OP is more problematic and I believe the approach shown in 14.5 is better.
As to your comment about tec-ease, while I believe their main instructor may be on the 14.5 committee, by himself he is not the standard. If I recall correctly he also pushes use of profile of a surface more than most other committee members/instructors.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
Also EQUALLY SPACED has been flogged to death in previous threads, why bring it up here. Equally spaced is not shown in 14.5 that I'm aware of but arguably may have use for bolt circles. However, its use on linear dimensions as in the OP is more problematic and I believe the approach shown in 14.5 is better.
As to your comment about tec-ease, while I believe their main instructor may be on the 14.5 committee, by himself he is not the standard. If I recall correctly he also pushes use of profile of a surface more than most other committee members/instructors.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
CheckerRon
Mechanical
You're right ringster. That is distrubing. I have been telling some of our designers (who are trying to use equally spaced on flange bolt circles along with BASIC and POSTION tolerancing) that "equally spaced" went out with leisure suits and has no place at all in Y14.5 dimensioning.
CheckerRon
Mechanical
Good point, Kenat. eq spaced has been beat to death in posts, but it still shows up on drawings for review, around here.
Maybe I am stretching it, but I hate to see Basic dimensions ever referred to parenthetically (in brackets, Ken), even duplicated on aux views on continuation sheets.
To me basic is basic, i.e. no tolerance, so put it in a box.
What say you all?
Maybe I am stretching it, but I hate to see Basic dimensions ever referred to parenthetically (in brackets, Ken), even duplicated on aux views on continuation sheets.
To me basic is basic, i.e. no tolerance, so put it in a box.
What say you all?
Didn't the topic of repeating basic dimensions come up a while ago?
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question