yang686526

use of typ. on a drawing
hello - my company, which has no drawing standards except what is made up on the fly, has just denounced the use of "typ." on a drawing - we must now show each dimension no matter how many of the same there are for fear of being fired - also we now can no longer use "as shown" for views along w/ "opposite hand" - we must draw each part & each view - somehow this seems abit much to me any thoughts??
we do all our manufacturing overseas & i somehow think we have alot of people that cannot read drawings - very frustrating!!!
check out our whitepaper library.
see
hello again - if my company would just adapt to a set of standards & inform all who use them we just might get somewhere - i have tried many many times to have this done even using my ge drafting manual but no one will listen -
i just asked this a.m. to have an edict sent to everyone about this change which i heard at the water cooler!!
we have nor will we employ a checker & we designers are responsible for checking our overseas temp workers drawings
of the parts we send them - after someone does not like a drawing or a drawing practice we all suffer - sometimes i wish gorden ramsey worked in engineering - we sure could use a kick in the ass here - sorry about the vent & the bad word!!
you may use 5x, or the number of times used with the "x". also a note may be used such as all outside radii 5, all bend radii 10, or unless otherwise specified all fillets radii 3. you may even use typ 5 places as a local note (make sure you call out the number of pl)as long as it is clear.
it is a good practice to have seperate drawings for l.h. & r.h. to document say tooling changes on one that may not be needed on both drawings ,(tool hole etc.)it just gives you better control of drawings. plus you have geometry for assembly drawing. just as a side note some of the worl uses other terms than symm opp such as std & mirror.
duk, like the linked thread says, use of typ actually probably isn't very good practice. use of 5x or similar is preferable, or in long hand 5 places or similar.
however, having to show each duplicated dimension is ridiculous as ewh points out and has its own disadvantages.
given your place doesn't have any standard drawing practices then whatever the boss makes up goes by the sound of it. no point saying asme y14.100 doesn't support it or something if your place doesn't care about following asme standards.
as for the left/right thing. all the places i've worked we've had to do that, i actually prefer it especially with 3d cad however for old 2d drawings i can see the larger benefit in only describing one.
when i started my place was in a similar state, although no one would have cared enough to ban typ! my group was started in part to improve drawings standards and we've made some progress but it's been slow, painfull and we have a long way to go. interesting thing is that operations/manufacturing now highly value having drawings checked and are pushing engineering to have all drawings checked by suitably qualified staff. they refuse to hire anyone else to do the checking though so i'm still overworked and under qualified/experienced!
we're looking at moving some machining overseas and i dread to think how that will go given the state even some newer drawings are in.

kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
brandy7,
"we must now show each dimension no matter how many of the same there are for fear of being fired" seems to preclude using your suggestions.
absent any standards being used, duk748 is stuck doing what the boss wants. good practice doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.
"it is a good practice to have seperate drawings for l.h. & r.h..." - this is true for tooling, but, while they may make opposite parts, they aren't really opposite parts themselves if they are different.
for product detail drawing documentation though, it is often a waste of effort. having two separate drawings introduces the chance of missing something when a revision is incorporated. i think it actually gives you less control of the drawings, not better.
believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.fff"> - robert hunter

duk748, i think it's time you started channeling gordon ramsey, become the standards champion at your workplace.
"art without engineering is dreaming; engineering without art is calculating."
hello again & thank you to all the champions out there who feel my pain - as the one poster put it "i am stuck doing exactly what my bosses tell me to do & w/o any standards or the un-willingness to implement any i have to go along -
as gorden would say maybe i need to get some "bullocks"
& hold my ground - maybe not - just pull more hair out!!
thank you again for allowing me to rant & i wish everyone a nice calm weekend - i will continue to follow this thread
i believe it's bollocks, bullocks are steers.
"become the standards champion at your workplace." ...and be shown the door shortly afterwards unless you first convince management of the benefit.
our old checker was first on the block when we had lay-offs, at least in part because he'd upset some people by finding the faults in their drawings and enforced standard industry practices.

kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
it's definitely a slippery slope.
"art without engineering is dreaming; engineering without art is calculating."
this topic again! hehe
i agree with the others mostly. i don't disparage "typ" completely though. it does have its uses, and it is allowed (though not mentioned) by the asme standard (as revealed in the other discussion linked above).
it is actually unclear to place a billion identical dimensions on a drawing. it would seem someone feels there is an issue with clarity where no issue exists (with regard to 5x, other side, and as shown notes), and they came up with a solution that doesn't solve the supposed issue and in fact creates further issues.
the application of a standard would resolve some of the problems. i wouldn't champion the standards without support of someone else above you though.
good luck. it looks like you have a hard road ahead of you until.

matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca