【转帖】new asme y14.5 2009 std

yang686526

new asme y14.5 2009 std.
gentleman,
          i think we will be under rev- '94 for a while.
any thoughts on when the industry have to be in full compliance with this std.
thank you.

check out our whitepaper library.
5 threads below this one...
it will depend on your contracts or what your management decides.
there are still sections of major aerospace/defense companies working to the 82 version.
kenat,
i agree that most companies will continue to use '94 (or '82) unless there are compelling reasons to change to the new one.
so the question is what might those reasons be?
are there problems with the old standard that you just can't stand anymore?  some companies have already gone to the trouble of creating their own customized y14.5 "addendum" to discontinue use of certain y14.5 tools and add others.
are there improvements in the new standard that you can't live without now that you know about them?  there are new tolerancing tools such as continuous features and customized datum reference frames.  there are new fundamental rules including the ever-popular implied basic zero.  there are better definitions and explanations such as the behavior of tertiary datum features.
i suppose that the decision to change should be based on a combination of the above, in the particular company's context.  along with the costs involved with making the change, which might outweigh the potential improvements.
evan janeshewski
axymetrix quality engineering inc.
i have been studying the new standard for a couple of weeks and will conclude that if one thinks that the 82 or even the 94 standard is somewhat complex, just go through datum section 4. most companies will need consultants just to figure it out and there should be training only on this section to fully understand it. good luck to the layman on the shop floor!
dave d.
all this is interesting!!!!
evan,
your comment re corporate addendums intrigues me.  i'm not sure if you're saying they should or shouldn't move to '09 if they already have the content in their addendum.  i see both sides of this one; why go thru the effort & cost of updating your addendum &/or drawing templates to reflect the new standard, right?  on the other hand, just maintaining an addendum is costly beyond its original inception, so going to the new standard may be cost effective overall.
in some cases, i think people will migrate to '09 because of the (hopefully) eventual changes to cad packages which really don't fully support even '94 at this point.  other software & hardware for inspection and such may also be factors.   
jim sykes, p.eng, gdtp-s
jim,
i'm not sure if i'm saying whether they should or shouldn't either!  i actually hadn't thought about the issue of moving to '09 where there is already a corporate addendum in place.  i was just stating that some companies have made their own addendums (addenda?) to '94, as evidence that it is not universally accepted as adequate.  good point though.
regarding software, i would agree that a lack of '09 functionality in cad systems and metrology software would definitely hinder migration.  this must have happened before as well - how long did it take for '94 to become more popular than '82 for new designs?
evan janeshewski
axymetrix quality engineering inc.
evan,
what makes you think '94 is more popular than '82 for new designs?  ;~}
seriously though, the software still isn't really '94 compliant in all aspects from what i've seen, and it's distinctly deficient in y14.41 functionality.
jim sykes, p.eng, gdtp-s
solidworks is mostly compliant with y14.5-1994 these days, though i know of a few gaps.  i personally don't know anyone using 82, or have i seen an 82 print in many years.
as far as y14.41 goes, i consider it to be too deficient to be widely applicable right now.   i hope they clean it up and make a new version that is more in line with the industry as a whole.
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
matt,
we're starting work on y14.41 revisions shortly.  now is the time to submit your comments to asme.
jim sykes, p.eng, gdtp-s