【转帖】revision table order

yang686526

revision table order
hello,
based upon asme/ansi standards does the order (ascending/descending) matter in revision tables?
a    vs     c
b    vs     b
c    vs     a
if no what are some standard practices?
in the past my company had its revision start lowest(a) at top and ascend.(note my companies revision block is in the lower edge of paper)
but recently my company switched to autodesk inventor and now with our new title block the revs start with highest and go down to a.
is this a question of orientation (top or bottom) of the page?
check out our whitepaper library.
to add on, the headings for the table are the lowest row in the table.
ex.
c
b
a
heading
i think it can work either way. most common i've seen is:
heading
a
b
c
chris
solidworks 07 3.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
asme y14.1-1995 says to have the rev block top right on the format.
examples in y14.35 section 6 appear to start with a at the top.
so:
heading
a
b
c
as ctopher says.
that is dependent on several factors, for the purests who have asme, ansi, iso9000. the simple fact is that regardless what these documents say it is up to the "companys" needs and wants first. the rule of thumb in engineering and drawing, by thomas french 6th addition, 1941. it depends on where is your title block is layed out. if it is located in the lower righthand corner then it is:
c
b
a
title
if it is located in the upper righthand corner then it is:
title
a
b
c
general with title sheets themselves you would place the revisions by the project and sheet no. location as:
r1
r2
r3
and so on.
leave the books on the shelf. the boss does not care how you do it as long as it gets done. so git 'r" done.
regards,
namdac
that's because the boss usually doesn't understand standards.
i vote for following the standards.
chris
solidworks 07 3.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
standards get my vote too.
quote:
the rule of thumb in engineering and drawing, by thomas french 6th addition, 1941, 1941??
drawing standards have evolved since then.  in fact back in 1941 gd&t barely existed, yet alone some of the other conventions now given in asme y 14.100 series.
if your company follows standards then you should generally follow the standards, not excessively pick and choose which parts to follow or you may as well not bother.
if your company doesn't follow standards then do whatever you like, just don't come crying when it leads to trouble .
the op asked about the standards, hence i referenced them.
i should say i didn't look at the hole of 14.1 or 14.38, just a couple of pages i happened to have handy so if someone wants to check the whole document for something i missed please do.
well, dispite all this of the standard thumping going on, the actual anwser to your question is that it is correct to run the list of items from the bottom up if the table is anchored to the bottom.  this is true for revision block, notes, and bom's or any other table anchored to the bottom of the drawing.  the reason is that new additions do not require the moving or reordering of previously existing items.  this was very important back in the pencil and paper days, but still is valid now, as it does get confusing as to what to look at if static items continously shift from revision to revision.   
matt
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
sorry if it was construed as 鈥榮tandard thumping鈥? we have battles daily at work over adherence to standards so i have kind of a short fuze on that kind of thing.
however, given that the op referenced asme/ansi standards, and given that this post is in the drafting standards, gd&t & tolerance analysis forum i thought my posts were appropriate.
back in the uk working to defence standards (def stan 05-10 if i recall correctly, which invoked bs308/bs8888) our format did have the rev block down toward the bottom as part of the title block.  it had the headings at the bottom and was populated in ascending order
c
b
a
heading
ok, so i have a question about revision tables...
we don't use them where i work (a decision i made, based on what a former employer used). my reasoning was simple, they take up too much space. if you need to refer to an older rev, it's in the archives. while i understand that some people want to be able to see the 'history' of a part/assembly right on the front sheet, i've never seen it used consistantly. personally, i've never had a use for it. am i way off the mark here? my boss, who worked in aerospace had no issue with my removing the rev table. i'm hoping to not get flamed here, just wanted some differing opinions...(ducking behind a chair)
jeff mirisola, cswp
cad administrator
sw '07 sp2.0, dell m90, intel 2 duo core, 2gb ram, nvidia 2500m
if you send a drawing out to a customer, shop or vendor ... how do they know what revision they are building/manufacturing to? how do you track your build against theirs?
chris
solidworks 07 3.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06