【转帖】international drawing standard for new global org
 

international drawing standard for new global org.
hello,
i am writing from a small u.s. company that recently purchased a subsidiary in europe. the u.s. headquarters uses ansi drawing standards and the european division has their own homegrown "standard". i would like to find a standard that we can all use for global definition of our sourced parts and suspect that many large coroporations have succeeded in doing so.
can anyone point me in the right direction to a harmonized standard?
thanks.
check out our whitepaper library.
you will definitely want to use iso standards. the problem is that iso has a lot of individual standards, some of which may be unacceptable and/or mutually incompatible. frequently you have to stipulate that you are using a national standard that over rides the most screwed up parts of the iso standards. some of the ones we use are:
iso 128: 1982 technical drawings - general principles of presentation
iso 129: 1985 technical drawings - dimensioning - general principles, definitions, methods of execution and special indications
iso 1101: 1983 technical drawings - geometric tolerancing - tolerancing of form, orientation, location and run-out - generalities, definitions, symbols,indications on drawings
iso 1302: 1978 technical drawings - method of indicating surface texture on drawings
iso 1660: 1987 technical drawings - dimensioning and tolerancing of profiles
iso 2553: 1984 welds - symbolic representation on drawings
iso 2692: 1988 technical drawings - geometrical tolerancing - maximum materialprinciple
stipulation: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme y14.5m - 1994. therefore, any examples or explanations within this standard that do not comply with the envelope principle are invalid.
iso 3040: 1990 technical drawings - dimensioning and tolerancing - cones
iso 5455: 1979 technical drawings - scales
iso 5457: 1980 technical drawings - sizes and layouts of drawing sheets
iso 5458: 1987 technical drawings - geometrical tolerancing - positional tolerancing
stipulation: clause 4.1.1: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme y14.5 - 1994.
iso 5459: 1981 technical drawings - geometrical tolerancing - datums and datum systems for geometrical tolerances
iso 6410: 1981 technical drawings - conventional representation of threaded parts
iso 6428: 1982 technical drawings - requirements for microcopying.
iso 6433: 1981 technical drawings - item references
iso 7083: 1983 technical drawings - symbols for geometrical tolerancing - proportions and dimensions
iso 7200: 1984 technical drawings - title blocks
iso 7573: 1983 technical drawings - items list
iso 8015: 1985 technical drawings - fundamental tolerancing principle
stipulation: clause 5.1.1 linear tolerances: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the
envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme y14.5m - 1994.
stipulation: clause 6 mutual dependency of size and geometry: unless otherwise specified on the
drawing, the envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme 14.5m -1994.
stipulation: clause 6.1 envelope requirement: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the
envelope requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme 14.5m - 1994.
stipulation: clause 7.2 designation: unless otherwise specified on the drawing, the envelope
requirement is invoked for all drawings per ansi/asme 14.5m - 1994 from the american national
standards institute.
if that's the case, why bother using iso. the whole point of it was that it was some sort of international standard. if it is not, and there are conflicts between different articles, i would avoid it.
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
thanks dgallup for your response. i was similarly confused when looking through the iso standards. it seems to be peicemeal.
fcsuper, do you have a better solution?
vin
vgrumbles,
have you asked your us hq? they may want everyone to use ansi/asme, or split you up between ansi/asme & iso.
chris
solidworks/pdmworks 08 3.1
autocad 06/08
i recommend asme and particularly the gd&t as iso has many holes in it that are still being patched up. you will need at least 15 volumes of iso to get everything in 1 volume of the asme standard and then the iso is inferior with it's use of averages and permitting centerlines to be used as datums. actually i think that's finally been changed but it sure took a long time for them to do it.
powerhound, gdtp t-0419
production supervisor
inventor 2008
mastercam x2
smartcam 11.1
ssg, u.s. army
taji, iraq oif ii
i agree with powerhouse. asme y14.100 and its child asme y14.5m are much simplier and to the point. since you have a u.s. entity, it may be the natural choice.
sometimes i get the feeling that iso was written by people that just wanted things to be a certain way rather than working towards practicality.
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
thanks for all of your advice.
is there a standard way to include metric dimensions, tolerances & gd&t with asme y14.100? if not, do you know of any best practices?
vin
for starters, most if not all the relevant standards are no longer ansi. they are asme. if all your copies still say ansi i'm tempted to say you're a bit behind the times unless deliberately sticking to older versions for some reason.
if your subsidiary is in the uk they have bs8888 which basically is a compendium of the relevent iso standards. i think it makes a bit more sense than the iso alone.
"is there a standard way to include metric dimensions, tolerances & gd&t with asme y14.100? if not, do you know of any best practices?"
um, the main dimensioning standard is asme y14.5m-1994, the m stands for metric. there are also m versions of some of the other y14.100 specs that could be affected by dimensional units. so basically y14.100 series supports both metric and inch/imperial units. section 1.6.1 of 14.5 talks about some of the ground rules when using mm.
also check out the faq area of this forum, especially