quotation advice

[3DJack]

Bye to all,
I'm an engineering student and I'm following a technical drawing course.
I'm struggling with a very easy table but that still leads me to have some doubt.
I attach the table I have made and I would like you to tell me how to improve the arrangement of quotas and if there is something wrong.
for the moment in this design are not important tolerances
I also have questions:
- the height of 14 mm in the front view I put it inside the piece, and I wondered if it was more right maybe to fix it outside
- as there is symmetry axis, there is no need to put the positioning quota of the center of the holes? I only inserted what indicates the side distance.
- from what I know if an arc has a width <= 180° the radius is indicated, otherwise the diameter is correct?
- the odds of the diameters of the concentric circles in the view from above are good or would it be better to indicate them in some other way?
- who puts it more
I have searched in several texts, but I have always found only general indications, and at this moment they would need more specific advice, and I imagine that many things are learned with experience and not books.
Thank you in advance

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

-The quotas, if not impossible, must always be outside the piece
- the thickness of the quota lines dseves be thinner than that of the geometry of the particular
-if possible you do not share hidden entities, then do a section of the top lamatura in which you will also mnette the diameters
- the quotas must be placed in areas where they are clear and well understandable therefore that positioning quota of the lamatura you will put on the upper view; if possible, unless the functionality does not say otherwise, it would be better to quote the work one than the other

- from what I know if an arc has a width <= 180° the radius is indicated, otherwise the diameter is correct?

I've never heard of her. but it is necessary to contextualize the function of the arc/diameter to hold a correct answer

- maintain welding indications on diameter 48
- Why do different thicknesses on that particular to s? if you make a constant thickness it is bending optics, as it is disegnjato now it should be done by forging
-It makes more sense to insert the width of the socket, which will have its own functionality, than the distances of the edges.
- missing the total width
- work (mandatory) and tolerances (if needed)
- quota 6 of the lamatura makes no sense because the operator needs a working depth and not the remaining spectator

edit:
do not insert the diameter symbols on the odds of the circles is theoretically correct, but not always accepted.
there is a discussion about the forum you can look for

reedit:
here is the discussionhttps://www.cad3d.it/forum1/threads/quotatura-diametri-discussione-filosofica.19144/

 

[3DJack]

thanks for the quick and exhaustive answer.
I am sorry that you do not notice the difference in thickness of the lines, in the passage to jpg has worsened the quality.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

As there is the symmetry axis, there is no need to put the positioning quota of the center of the holes?

read more This is post, but read all the discussion that is interesting

I will explain to you why the quotation of the asola is potentially wrong.
you know very well that the dimensions of the design are theoretical because there is no perfect size; In fact, dimensional tolerances are defined precisely for this reason; i.e. obliging the size of the object to respect certain values that allow its functionality and interchangeability with identical designs.
in mechanical drawings there are dimensional and form tolerances specified in the table and those general ones that refer to the norm en-22768 iso-2768
that your size 60 is subject to the latter so who will build that object, keeping good the most used designation that is the m, can make the size 60,3 or 59,7.
You will understand that by listing in that way you can have a 20,3 or 19,7 wide asola (and would be added also the tolerances of the two 20 and then canremm have the 20,7 or 19,3) asola that could seriously compromise the functionality of the object (think that it should enter a ø20h9 pin, these or move like the whole dance group of ricky martin or will not enter at all. )
when you quote you always have to contextualize the object otherwise you can not do a good job

 

[3DJack]

Thanks again, specific that in lesson we have not yet dealt with the topic tolerances or workings, so they are still quite ignorant in the matter and the demands for this elaborate did not preview anything more to respect the theory given dances norms in the field of quotation.
I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your fast and always exhaustive answers I also found in other discussions.

 

[welcome to the machine]

good 3d jack, finally a guy who thanks when you run mistakes is the best way to learn quickly and also, regardless, the best way to behave.
mvw knows what I mean.

 

[exxon]

and, look at case, the design is already great in departure. Will it be a case? Not for me.

I also add a personal preference.
those 3 mm beam quotations disturb the design: I would omit them, adding to the drawing the indication "unquoted fittings r3".

 

[simone1996]

Bye!
if I can say my about it:
I would personally quote ø from the front view along with the following depths: disk ø48, lamatura and non hole passing ø20 (as massivonweizen and probably someone else will have already said).
I would quote it as a drawing from above, but I would not quota the radius but the ø or however the hollow width (øfresa).
I would quote the total length of the object in addition to 76.
I would share the total height. if it is not important I would put it anyway but in parentheses.

in case it was made of piego, therefore with equal thickness, I would consider it as a sheet and percui the thickness I would mark it in tenths.
the external radius therefore should be r6. (on these last three rows, I might have said big...fly).

then as we have already said, at the normative level there are no hidden lines and no axes.
therefore propose either a partial section or a total section of the piece.
Anyway, I think it's clear that way.
I may have said things that have already been said.
I may have said stupid things, in that case, apologize in advance.
This is how I would be corrected.
Hello, everyone.
Good evening.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I correct your comments that have the defect of inexperience:
the maximum dimensions are always quoted for the simple function of knowing the size of the object is manipulating in addition to having the size for any packaging.

I would share the total height. if it is not important I would put it anyway but in parentheses.

as mentioned above, but in previous posts I wrote that the depth of the lamatura is quoted and not the final thickness, but it is not said that the functional quota is from the base to the end of the lamatura (65mm) then in that case you put this tolerated quota and in parentheses the depth of the processing. always keep in mind that the operator should not make calculations to perform the piece

I would quote it as a drawing from above, but I would not quota the radius but the ø or however the hollow width (øfresa).

I explained why the width of the asola is quoted. the diameter of the cutter is not a reliable value because it is not mandatory, on the contrary it could be deleterious, perform the processing with a tool equal to the final width

in case it was made of piego, therefore with equal thickness, I would consider it as a sheet and percui the thickness I would mark it in tenths.
the external radius therefore should be r6. (on these last three rows, I might have said big...fly).

the piece does not have equal thickness, but putting it so (as it would be obvious) the thickness is quoted in mm and not in tenths (which is commercial stuff) both because the same unit of measurement is always used both because then those who read the design could make confusion, starting from the concept that the design must be clear and understandable both from the expert operator, that from the boy out of school, than from the operator of a foreign nation
the internal radius, i.e. fold, is an arbitrary value that the designer puts for practice, but which is then decided by the one who folds the sheet according to the matrices available (as exxon says it is enough to put it as a general note), therefore the outer radius will have as value the internal radius + the thickness of the sheet (3+15=18). Where did you get that value 6?

then as we have already said, at the normative level there are no hidden lines and no axes.

the axes always put, are fundamental references for the interpretation of a design

Don't worry about saying wrong things, we all do it, if you do, we will correct you and we will discuss

 

[welcome to the machine]

All right, if you follow what he says is even better, but tell me what he's testing is!

 

[simone1996]

you absolutely were just to say mine in case there were snacks for others. I'm sure there are. Thank you so much!
the headboard in the photo is of a low &selve engine of an airplane. the low&selve produced many motors for cars and airplanes, this is for airplanes (bus ii). I simply put it because I have suffered from desmodromic cinemas beyond applications, as in this case on a motor.

 

[simone1996]

@mammals :for the thickness of the sheet I mean as in enclosed photo, I would never quota so a design, it is only to give indication of the rays. in the drawing attached by 3djack the radius of internal piego is 3mm, the exterior always 3mm. I'm not just clear about this part.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I try to relay:
generally indicates in the design of a folded sheet the inner radius equal to the thickness. but it is a purely formal convention. in reality the fold of the sheet is carried out through tools that can have radius different from the thickness. For example, to fold an 8mm sheet, you can use a 4mm radius tool.
the outer radius is always equal to the inner radius+thickness. also does not quote because redundant
to understand better so I asked you where you had taken that value r6

3djack technically did not wrong because that piece cannot be a folded sheet having different thickness; From post #8 onwards it is a surplus that exudes from the simple quotation that was required for exercise and addresses the theme of the working process in which you have to evaluate how to produce a particular by optimizing resources.
threads like this in which you expand the initial request by going to touch other topics make the forum useful that otherwise would become a barrel and dysfunctional response.

 

[simone1996]

If I have understood, for example, in the photo I attached: 6mm thick plate conventional inner radius of 6 mm with outer radius = inner radius+thick therefore in this case 12mm. in case the folding knife generates a radius of e.g. 4mm, the outer radius would be 10mm

Thank you for the courtesy of explaining.
Good evening!

 

[rctimelines]

Good morning, good advice but... there are first of all very precise regulations for quotations, even in the representation, although today the commissioning by the software simplifies this work, not always the default settings are correct (but this is not the case). by now, cause computers and little expertise, it is also a spread in the executive field of out-scale drawings with missing or useless odds! ! !

I would like to point out, contrary to what is said above by someone, that the initial result of the table, unfortunately, is not a great deal.

as to rules of common sense, instead, I would say that the quotation should be essential (non-rounding), complete and ordered. .
It is right to enter the overall quotas at least to realize the overall dimension of what is being discussed, but it is also an indispensable and necessary rule. In general, we should always quote a whole line (perimeter or section) and bring out the overall measures up to the total sum. the operator must find all the measures that are needed without making calculations (somme or subtractions that lead to error).
to quote a design it would be necessary to know the tools and the procedure to realize it or to define it in order to give preponderance to the really useful measures.

sent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

I would like to point out, contrary to what is said above by someone, that the initial result of the table, unfortunately, is not a great deal.

may be, but motivates your statement otherwise remains fried air and does not help the student improve

 

[exxon]

I would like to point out, contrary to what is said above by someone, that the initial result of the table, unfortunately, is not a great deal.

Since I was the one who defined a good job, I feel compelled to replicate.

It is right to enter the overall quotas at least to realize the overall dimension of what is being discussed, but it is also an indispensable and necessary rule.

Since you have cited the rules, why don't you bring back the point where the overall quotas are required?

In general, we should always quote a whole line (perimeter or section) and bring out the overall measures up to the total sum.

and where is this thing written?

to quote a design it would be necessary to know the tools and the procedure to realize it or to define it in order to give preponderance to the really useful measures.

Unlike the inaccuracies you wrote before, this is a conceptual error: a design must regardless of the method of realization of the particular that will be adopted.

Before judging the work of others, we should have cleared what we are talking about. .

 

[rctimelines]

Before judging the work of others, we should have cleared what we are talking about. .

superfluous comment, of course, if I intervene, I know perfectly what I am talking about.. After university and 35 years of technical design I think I can afford to judge, especially to those who ask for advice and evidently it is at first!

for your information the technical drawing rules have existed for over a century (in bs and iso).. I'm surprised you don't know. I am also surprised that at a technical design course they do not claim to be taken into account, since it will be a matter of cogent aspects in the pursuit of the activities.
the other comments I made do not know if they are reported in the legislation, in any case I specified that they were my comments of common sense, so nothing I have to mention.

quotas must be all and should not be rounded up, know the method of production of a specific object is not necessary, but certainly helps a lot (I speak for myself that I designed for construction, topography and especially for mechanics and manufacture of various kinds: from moulds of various kinds, metal carpentry up to the carpentry and furniture) because so you have way to highlight or not forget some essential references: cornerstones, tooling measures, points and critical measures etc.

In the case of the design of the op, the first thing that jumps to the eye is a general disorder of the quotation that makes difficult also the control that the measures there are all. thin lines are a negligible detail: That looks like the print of a draft.

sent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[rctimelines]

I turn to the op.

I attach a pdf of the first thing downloaded from the internet (note to the one part of the iso 129). I don't know what texts you've been looking for.

about the design, I would say:

parts from the top left corner and consider the left side of the upper design, quota each point and report on a vertical axis, then collect everything in a total quota on a parallel axis that sums all the preceding. if you need other intermediates add a third axis of partials between the two.

horizontally do the same thing and make sure that the 14mm thickness is shown out on a horizontal axis.

in the view from above the diameters do not indicate them as distances but, especially if they were to be obtained from drilling/drying should be indicated as circumferences (center and radius/diameter). In this case, you will receive information about the processing (path and tools)View attachment Aggiornamento_Quotatura.pdfsent by my nexus 5 using tapatalk

 

[exxon]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. .

the other comments I made do not know if they are included in the legislation.. .

Now it's clear.