ASME Y14.41 - is any one trying to adopt this new 3D standard?

At the last New England SolidWorks users group meeting, I asked the
question if anyone had any interest in Y14.41 - 3D Drawing and
Documentation Practices. There was only one response. I purchased
the new Y14.41 in August and have been trying to recreate some of the
techniques in SolidWorks.

Is anyone interested in implementing this new standard or is it too
early?

Regards, Marie

 

I think nobody knows it, give us some examples of this standard! Maybe many
of us use inhouse standard or personnal standard since we do not know there
is a standard!

r

 

Hi Marie,
Based on your trials, how well does SolidWorks follow the ASME standard. Do
you know if they were involved in the definition process? EDS is claiming
some credit for helping define the standard, and they are touting adherence
in at least one publication that I could find.
http://www.acuityinc.com/News/articles/ASME Y1441-EDS.pdf

If the standard has been adpted by the DoD, it's certainly wouldn't be too
early to for some to consider adopting it as well.

Since I have no reason to shell out the 95 bucks for the standard, can you
bring it along next month and fill me in on some of the highlights?

Richard

 

$110 for the electronic version! The cost of ANSI standards is one of
my major beefs with ASME. I was a member for 20+ years and decided I
was just not getting anything for my $120 a year membership. The
discount on codes prices is laughable.

If ASME wanted their standards to be come truly universal they would
be available for a nominal price.

 

Robin,

Give me a few weeks to come up with something. I can't copy an image
directly from the standard. Do you know how to post a picture to this
newsgroup. Regards, Marie

 

I'm not Robin, but I can answer that question. In theory, you can't post an
image to this group. In practice, it doesn't work well, as some viewers
won't be able to see the attachment or, possibly, your email with the
attachment. You really need to point people at a website where they can see
or download the image.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

Marie,

I took a look at this standard earlier this summer soon after they
released it. I also contact SW product development to ask them
specifically about this standard.

From my convesation and reading the preface to the standard it is my
belief that this standard is not support in its entirety by any CAD
application.

It was designed as a template to allow business and CAD software
vendors to, over time, add funtionality to their applications such
that they met this standard.

SW representative stated that they were writing thier new code around
this standard and that over the course of several years they would be
in compliance. He would not commit to an exact timeline when this
would be completed.

My initial reaction was to try and implement the standard, however,
without SW supporting the majority of the standard it was deemed too
to expensive at this time. I will periodically revisit this question
as time goes on.

Cheers,

Len K. Mar, P.Eng.
President
E-data Solutions

 

Len,

Thank you for the input. New software functionality is a balance
between demand and development time. The standards is new and all
the functionality to implement is difficult. I have tried to recreate
the Y14.41 models in SolidWorks, Pro|E and Autocad - and there is no
complete solution to handle all the annotations in both the part and
the drawing that would adhere to the new standard. Let's see in a
year if there is more activity on this subject. Regards, Marie

 

3D modeling is the future of design, and ASME Y14.41 sets the rules. Y14.41
extends ASME Y14.5M into the 3D world.
The development of this National Standard was initiated at the request of
Industry and the U.S. Government.

The Y14.41 standard establishes requirements, and references documents
applicable to the preparation and revision of digital product definition
data, referred to as data sets. Y14.41 defines the exceptions and additional
requirements to existing ASME standards for using product definition data
sets or drawings in 3D digital format. This standard supports two methods of
application: model only, and model and drawing in digital format.

The structure of the standard begins with the requirements common to both
methods (model only, and model and drawing in digital format), and then
branches to the other sections that have differing requirements for each
method.

As well, it provides a guide for the many computer aided design (CAD)
software packages to develop better modeling and annotation practices for
CAD and engineering disciplines.

Developers of this standard include independent consultants, and individuals
from General Motors Corporation, Dassault-Systems, The Boeing Company, U.S.
Department of the Army - TACOM-ARDEC, Rockwell Collins Inc., Raytheon
Company, Thiokol Propulsion, EDS PLM Solutions, General Dynamics Land
Systems, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Ford Motor Company,
Caterpillar Inc., DEPCO Inc., Rolls-Royce Corporation, CNH Global NV, Purdue
University, and Hutchinson Technology Inc.

Adoption Notice:
ASME Y14.41, Digital Product Definition Data Practices, was adopted on 7
July 2003 for use by the Department of Defense, (DoD). Proposed changes by
DoD activities must be submitted to the DoD Adopting Activity: Commander, US
Army TACOM-ARDEC, ATTN: AMSTA-AR-QAW-E, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000.

 

I have used this standard as a guideline. we have created minimum
content drawings (MCD) for use by our fabricators.

This does require research. You will need to coordinate this with a
specific shop. it seems that each shop wants these minimum content in
slightly different forms. you will need to sit down and work these
MCD's with them to get the required information. they will also need
to have model reviewing capability. We have bought and installed a
SWx version at one location to support this need. Also all
fabricators have insisted on having hole information showing on the
MCD's. This was to allow ease of tooling selection on the shop floor.
Another item was the request to have overall reference dimensions on
the MCD. This allowed for raw material selection. On the MCD I
provide several isometric views to show the features of the part. I
also have added orthographic view and section views to show pertinent
information. We still do full notes to identify material, finish and
shipping requirements.

Another problem will be the method of inspection on the fabricated
parts. You will need to coordinate this with your incoming inspection
group. We are lucky at my location that we have an optical comparator
that can review a DXF translation of a model view and apply it to a
fabricated part. The comparator can analyze deviances from the dxf
file to the actual model and provides us with a report of these
deviations.

Just to know I am still doing drawing layouts and applying the minimum
content information to it. this was best accepted by my fabricators.
The person fabricating the part needs this basic MCD drawing at the
machine to review. Having a printout from the part/assembly was not
enough with the annotations.

This is a new world for some of us, and I am still evolving this MCD
in my company. Y14.41 was a good guideline to start from. Just
understand that it is just a guideline and you will need to do more
than what is stated in the standard.

If you are interested, I can send you a copy of a tooling part that
was done in this process. Send email to and
request this from me. I will try to accomidate all requests and
questions.

Thinking out of the box means that you are limiting your thought
process so you have to look beyond the box for a solution. Never
limit yourself, there is no box.

 

More to the point, does eDrawings implement this standard?

Since eDrawings is the medium by which SW is intended to be communicated to
the world, will eDrawings meet it?

Adoption of this standard might help quell the marketing wars that SW,
Inventor and Edge have been having and focus effort on performance and
stability.