When to change the ASME Y14.5 standard called out on the drawing 2

[Mikaea]

Our drawings state "Interpret drawing in accordance with ASME Y14.5-1994". Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to update the reference on the existing drawings to state ASME Y14.5-2009? Is there guidance on the subject?

 

[ctopher]

Use 1994 until your company has their own copy of 2009, and your vendors/customers have copies to adhere to your drawings.

http://www.asme.org/Codes/CertifAccred/Personnel/Y145_Geometric_Dimensioning.cfm

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[Belanger]

And you probably don't want to merely change the statement to say 2009 without understanding the conceptual changes made in 2009. There aren't many, but it's possible that simply invoking a different edition of the ASME standard could unwittingly impose changes in the interpretation of a callout that was not really intended.

So probably hold off until the engineering management is confident that everyone understands the standard, and even then 2009 should only be noted on new drawings or older parts that are revised and updated.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

 

[ewh]

I agree with the above posts.
Depending on the CAD system, you may have to archive the old format files and recreate them for new or updated parts.
The important thing is to understand how the different versions of the standard will affect the interpretation of the part requirements, and how that affects anyone that has to rely on that data. That said, it is probably not a good idea to update existing drawings.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[PeterStock]

Our customers use the 1994, 1982 and 1973 Y14 standards and a company specific GDT spec, it depends on when the drawing was created and in contractural requirements with their customers.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[KENAT]

When the contract says to? Probably only a useful answer for govt work though.

Like others, I wouldn't change old drawings for the reasons listed.

You may choose to create new drawings to the new standard.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[dingy2]

One of the larger changes to the 2009 standard is the meaning of MMB.

There are so many companies using the 94 standard referencing datums at MMC and the checking fixture is in RFS. They don't understand the 94 level to say nothing about the 2009 edition.

In the 2009 standard, a datum feature of size shown at MMC could mean that its MMB (maximum material boundary) is maximum material size even if it had a virtual condition qualifier. It could also mean its refinement if it had a GD&T qualifier and then a refinement. It could also be the virtual condition size. It all depends on whether the datum feature of size is a primary, secondary or tertiary datum. Kind of confusing.

I would suggest keeping to the 94 standard as long as possible and then make sure all personnel involve know and understand the changes to the 2009 level.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[fcsuper]

I think the answer is, if you aren't using GD&T, change it whenever you want. If you are using GD&T, then you'll have to evaluate each and every callout. Callouts may need to be changed as a result. Best bet is not to pursue a path of default switch over. New drawings are on 2009, and old drawings on older which are only updated on an as needed basis.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[PeterStock]

In any case be sure your drawing specifies the year of the standard you are using for that drawing. If your current format used ASME Y14.5-2009 and you redraw an older drawing, you should line it out in the format and add a note refering to the one used on the drawing before the revision. Otherwise you may have unintended changes.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net