Underdimensioned prints referring to the model with a generic profile callout
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    39
    Likes (Received)
    108

    Default Underdimensioned prints referring to the model with a generic profile callout

    Hi All,

    I'm checking some prints and coming across a batch that is using something that I've only ever seen with complex shaped mold cavities.

    These are milled parts and have most, but not all of the dimensions there. There is a note to "check the solid model for any missing dimensions" and that "all dimensions from CAD are Basic". and also a callout for "all surfaces are PROFILE x.xx to ABC"


    I'm just making a process check that the world has not changed on me while I am stuck in old ways. Are shops wanting to take in the solid model now and program toolpaths off the solid - and only see dimensions on a print for critical features? These are milled parts, not for EDM sinkers.

    My initial reaction was that this was lazy, but maybe there is some merit to keep a print cleaner and just highlight the criticals
    Last edited by gregoryd; 05-29-2021 at 06:01 PM.

  2. Likes Dan from Oakland liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    3,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1420
    Likes (Received)
    4448

    Default

    that seems to be the way things are headed. The result of laziness? Absolutely.

  4. Likes Dan from Oakland, GregSY liked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    355
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default

    I work a lot from solid model assemblies. The designer gives me a step or parasolid file and I dimension each part myself. I can then make it manually, program off the wire frame, or program off the model for 3d surfacing. Very rarely do I get actual prints these days. I do like it better as I can control what dimensions I use and I no longer have to worry about missing dims.

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    326

    Default

    At work we have the “lazy note” for flat parts which is basically a .060 profile call out. The parts are cut on either a plasma or laser in-house. The print really only matters if it has bends on it or has other secondary work like tapped holes. The design has to work using whatever falls off the cutting machine. The only thing a fully dimensioned print gets is better revision control.

  7. Likes digger doug liked this post
  8. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    22,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    that seems to be the way things are headed. The result of laziness? Absolutely.
    Overworked, and understaffed, try walking in some one else's shoes for once.

  9. Likes Tonytn36, CarbideBob, gregormarwick liked this post
  10. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Southeastern US
    Posts
    6,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    888
    Likes (Received)
    2873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Overworked, and understaffed, try walking in some one else's shoes for once.

    Amen, there are 4 of us providing manufacturing engineering support for 90 machines and 102 robots. If I can save an hour by creating a 2D print with only critical dimensions on it and send you a model for the rest, I really do not have much choice. I need that hour for something else that is so hot it is scorching my butt cheeks.

  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    11

    Default

    With the vast majority of manufacturing now produced by CNC via CAM software, there's little point fully dimensioning drawings anymore. In fact, dimensions are just another thing for inspection to reject it on, I've seen far too many parts scrapped because a clearance feature was out of tolerance, I'll actually ask engineers to remove dimensions before signing it off unless it's critical. As usual though, it's horses for courses, simple turned parts for example get fully dimensioned since it will likely be punched straight into the machine.

  12. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    2,630
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1963
    Likes (Received)
    1637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryd View Post
    Hi All,

    I'm checking some prints and coming across a batch that is using something that I've only ever seen with complex shaped mold cavitied.

    These are milled parts and have most, but not all of the dimensions there. There is a note to "check the solid model for any missing dimensions" and that "all dimensions from CAD are Basic". and also a callout for "all surfaces are PROFILE x.xx to ABC"


    I'm just making a process check that the world has not changed on me while I am stuck in old ways. Are shops wanting to take in the solid model now and program toolpaths off the solid - and only see dimensions on a print for critical features? These are milled parts, not for EDM sinkers.

    My initial reaction was that this was lazy, but maybe there is some merit to keep a print cleaner and just highlight the criticals
    Typically in the aerospace r&d/prototype companies I worked at complex parts that were being cnc'd didn't warrant complex fully dimensioned prints,

    1) because most machinists were too lazy to check the dimensions of parts, other than cursory checks. So a fully dimensioned print was a waste of time
    2) about all the dimensions the machinists wanted was a few overall dimensions to make sure faces/lapjoints/overall lengths etc looked to be correct.
    3) the most important dimensions/notes the machinist wanted was for clearance/tapped and reamed holes. as a check to make sure the programmer wasn't trying to tap a hole 10-32 when the print called out 8-32 etc etc.

    I get prints from one vendor that has almost no usefull information, I concluded eventyally it was because they weren't capable/too lazy/incompetant to make decent prints. So as a result I decide what's important, and don't waste any time trying to figure out if they knew what was important.

  13. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    355
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tonytn36 View Post
    Amen, there are 4 of us providing manufacturing engineering support for 90 machines and 102 robots. If I can save an hour by creating a 2D print with only critical dimensions on it and send you a model for the rest, I really do not have much choice. I need that hour for something else that is so hot it is scorching my butt cheeks.
    As I said above, I enjoy working from solid models. If I have a dimensional question I have all the answers right there, no need to track down the engineer or designer. As far as tolerance goes, we in the tool room work to near zero tolerance...meaning we go for as close to nominal as we can get.

  14. Likes digger doug liked this post
  15. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    42
    Likes (Received)
    241

    Default

    I'll echo the time savings. A lot of times I am the one designing, programming, and building stuff for in house work. No need to dimension and tolerance everything, just the critical features will suffice. It does spill over into parts made by others, programmed by me. Same thing though, worry about the critical dimensions and the rest either don't matter or will fall into place with the critical features.

  16. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    39
    Likes (Received)
    108

    Default

    Thanks for the replies

    I've been searching this a little more - and it turns out that there is a name for this: Partially Defined Drawing (PDD).

    I was taught a long time ago by a strict Russian Engineer. This was when referring to the model was very rarely used and most CNC was done by hand (My first work computer was a 486 and we would do CAD on a UNIX box). Seeing what can be done today with CAM making auto generated toolpaths is amazing to me, and I can see where lots of time can be wasted by making a perfect physical print that is full of information that is never used and makes finding the critical features difficult.

    So it looks like it is acceptable . . . . and is complimented if there is an accompanying CMM setup and software to inspect and report.

    If shops are taking paper prints and making their own CAD model to feed into a CAM package I see how this is the way of the future.


    Everything below I found online and did a cut and paste:
    _________________________________

    A Partially Defined Drawing (PDD) is a drawing that has been simplified in that it does not
    contain a complete set of dimensions. For complete product definition the dimensional
    information is queried from the model geometry contained in the CAD digital data file.

    PERTINENT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE ASME STANDARDS

    ASME Y14.5-2009 Dimensioning and Tolerancing

    1.4 (b) Dimensioning and tolerancing shall be complete so there is full understanding of
    the characteristics of each feature. Values may be expressed in an engineering drawing or
    in a CAD product definition data set. See ASME Y14.41.

    ASME Y14.41-2003 Digital Product Definition Data Practices

    7.2.1 Basic Dimensions. Queried model values shall be interpreted as basic dimensions
    unless superseded by a toleranced dimension or defined as a reference dimension.

    7.3 Drawing Requirements
    Basic dimensions not displayed on a drawing shall be obtained by querying of the model.

  17. Likes Milland liked this post
  18. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    355
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigjon61 View Post
    I'll echo the time savings. A lot of times I am the one designing, programming, and building stuff for in house work. No need to dimension and tolerance everything, just the critical features will suffice. It does spill over into parts made by others, programmed by me. Same thing though, worry about the critical dimensions and the rest either don't matter or will fall into place with the critical features.
    I work in the toolroom at an aerospace foundry. 90% of what we do is one off fixtures. Some are as easy as plates with tfg points all the way up to contoured nests with locating pins. Some for wax and some for cast parts. The key is accuracy, ease of use,, and repeatability. I'm working on one now for assembling critical wax parts together for single crystal casting. Everything except the base is delrin and almost everything will get machined once attached to the base.

    Moral of the story is, I couldn't do it with just 2d drawings. Everything has to line up just right or the castings will be garbage.

    Here's the caveat, this model was made by engineering not our designer, he has looked at it and fixed some stuff but minor details like holes are out of wack, this is where I'm able to make the changes to put the right stuff together...like a .230 clearance for a 10-24 screw and then .136 clearance for a 10-24 screw.

  19. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,439
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    373
    Likes (Received)
    898

    Default

    My favorite is when I get a model and a print and neither had units...

  20. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    251
    Likes (Received)
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryd View Post
    There is a note to "check the solid model for any missing dimensions" and that "all dimensions from CAD are Basic". and also a callout for "all surfaces are PROFILE x.xx to ABC"


    I'm just making a process check that the world has not changed on me while I am stuck in old ways. Are shops wanting to take in the solid model now and program toolpaths off the solid - and only see dimensions on a print for critical features?
    Yes. The world is changing.

    You nailed the process for the majority of incoming parts we get. They send a CAD a model, then provide a super minimal print that only has callouts for the critical things.

    For the vast majority of parts, we can post code driven from the model and hit a .010in profile without needing to check a damn thing. So really, I feel like these "lazy" prints just make everybody's life easier. We only feel compelled to check a couple reference dimensions pulled from the CAD, and anything the designer felt was important enough to put on the drawing.

  21. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    4,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1708
    Likes (Received)
    2248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boosted View Post
    Yes. The world is changing.

    You nailed the process for the majority of incoming parts we get. They send a CAD a model, then provide a super minimal print that only has callouts for the critical things.

    For the vast majority of parts, we can post code driven from the model and hit a .010in profile without needing to check a damn thing. So really, I feel like these "lazy" prints just make everybody's life easier. We only feel compelled to check a couple reference dimensions pulled from the CAD, and anything the designer felt was important enough to put on the drawing.
    Whenever I am designing parts internally, I model them exactly how I want the final part to be, then I use PMI to apply symmetric tolerances and use model to manufacture, maybe a print with inspection details. This way the model geometry can be used directly without fucking around with offsets and workarounds.

    Unfortunately, pretty much ALL of our customers model to basic dims, then cover the print with asymmetric tolerances, which makes their models largely useless for manufacturing without a lot of additional work, so our workflow is to build a new model (modelled to mean tolerance dimensions) from the print and use that for manufacture. If any one of them sent me a model and a bare print I would be seriously anxious about it, because I don't trust them to model for manufacture.

  22. Likes Milland liked this post
  23. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Temecula, Ca
    Posts
    3,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1420
    Likes (Received)
    4448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Overworked, and understaffed, try walking in some one else's shoes for once.
    Jesus Dougie, you took a break from scolding spammers for this?
    Get back to work you lazy fuck.

  24. Likes plastikdreams, AARONT liked this post
  25. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    355
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    Jesus Dougie, you took a break from scolding spammers for this?
    Get back to work you lazy fuck.
    Ya know...when you walk a mile in someone else's shoes you end up a mile away from them and with a pair of shoes that aren't yours.

  26. Likes Larry Dickman liked this post
  27. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    39
    Likes (Received)
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gregormarwick View Post
    Unfortunately, pretty much ALL of our customers model to basic dims, then cover the print with asymmetric tolerances, which makes their models largely useless for manufacturing without a lot of additional work, so our workflow is to build a new model (modelled to mean tolerance dimensions) from the print and use that for manufacture. If any one of them sent me a model and a bare print I would be seriously anxious about it, because I don't trust them to model for manufacture.

    Yes - everyone models to benefit their function. When we moved to the SI/ISO systems we designed and modeled parts to nominal and then added the Fits and Tolerances. It made it real easy to check and convey function on H7/g6 combination. Way easier than putting unilateral tolerances around designed clearances and always having to do the math between two separate prints.

  28. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    22,351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Dickman View Post
    Jesus Dougie, you took a break from scolding spammers for this?
    Get back to work you lazy fuck.
    Try some compassion for your fellow man eh ?

  29. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    355
    Likes (Received)
    1814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Try some compassion for your fellow man eh ?
    On this site? What are you going soft...

  30. Likes digger doug liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •