yang686526

drafting standard??
i have a basic mechanical rod consisting of several parts that is manufactured at a machine shop. my techincal drawing is about 15 years old, but covers everything i need (gd&t is fine). the quality assurance director at my office wants me to highlight or bold certain dimensions and tolerances so that the machine shop knows that these are "key" dimensions. is it common practice to specify a technical drawing in this manner? i argued that every dimension is critical and should be verified within tolerances. if i highlight certain dimensions, wouldnt the machine shop focus on those and not others to save time? im a young engineer, so any help would be appreciated.
find a job or post a job opening
oh dear what have you started.
the quality assurance director is incorrect here. what he really wants to know is the function and relationship of the part and how it is used during the assembly.
qa will require a control plan for this part and one does not want to spend time and $$ checking on a regular basis features (characteristics) that are not important to its function.
do not highlight this information on the drawing but give the qa department a "feel" of the product.
the thread kenat ref is good.
chris
solidworks 06 5.1/pdmworks 06
autocad 06
quote:
if they want to reduce inspection from 100% of all inspections they should use a technique such as statistical.
sorry, should be:
if they want to reduce inspection from 100% of all dimension on all items they should use a technique such as statistical.
when i worked in the automotive industry they used a symbol to designate critical features as 'key product characteristics' (example: daimlerchrysler used a diamond symbol adjacent to the dimension on the drawing). any feature designated as a kpc was required to be statistically controlled with a minimum cpk of 1.33.
that said, i always felt it was a bad practice to designate criticals.