MassiVonWeizen
Guest
If there is a corner, it must be represented.
only tangent edges can be omitted or represented with thin line.
only tangent edges can be omitted or represented with thin line.
meccanicamg
Guest
then in the left view there must be represented by force the bevel.
TETRASTORE
Guest
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
certainly always applies the rule that the design must be perfectly understandable. therefore in your case the edge of the bevel, which of practice is equal to thread, would make the design unclear more than the section unequivocally clarifies geometry and would be enough for the construction alone.
even in the assemblies it is avoided to represent bevels, tangences, threads and the like, unless they are functional to the understanding of the assembly, because they would weigh the views of useless lines.
even in the assemblies it is avoided to represent bevels, tangences, threads and the like, unless they are functional to the understanding of the assembly, because they would weigh the views of useless lines.
Nioh17
Guest
in the case of thread yes, in my case I'm still not sure. in the book of chirone it is said that the edges (those in sight) are always drawn. but I work in the mechanical sector I have seen many designers who do not, the bevel put it only in the profile view with quotation. then in the book in the chapter of the projections we talk about the minimum size of a significant element for every type of scale and signed that must be no less than 2 mm, then here opens another question because if I design in front view a diameter and a bevel of 0.5, then we have 2 very close continuous lines (the diameter and the bevel are very close to about 0.3). therefore here contradicts the rule because the rule of 2. otherwise each bevel should be circled and magnify with a scale where to have one (i.e. zom) more than 2 mm.
then the questions are 2:
1-the edges of the less than 2mm bevels in front view should be drawn?
2-the rule of the meaning element also applies to bevels?
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
as already said the design must always be understandable.
0.5 bevel serves practically only to eliminate living edges and can also be omitted in a lateral view by inserting a well visible note that specifics that all living edges must be eliminated with 0.5x45° bevel.
then depends also on the scale of representation: a tree a few hundred millimeters long with numerous processing and shouldering that is represented in a 1:2 scale can not allow the quotation of a dozen bevels 0.5, a tree along some ten millimeters with few processing represented in scale 1:1 allows quietly the quotation of the bevels 0.5.
e.g. the posted tree This is what discussion, if you had to represent all the bevels the side view would come out similar to a black ball; then in the specification this is a design made to tecnigraph and you had to save time, but now you have to take into account the phase of printing and the thickness of the lines.
and you return to the initial phrase: Does the bevel make the drawing difficult to understand? if the answer is you do not put it, if the answer is no you put it because it is the correct representation (but if you do not do it and the drawing remains understandable no one will beat you); is like a throat for grinding, does it make sense to represent it in a 1:20 view? no, but you put an indication of detail and draw it separately on a proper scale.
0.5 bevel serves practically only to eliminate living edges and can also be omitted in a lateral view by inserting a well visible note that specifics that all living edges must be eliminated with 0.5x45° bevel.
then depends also on the scale of representation: a tree a few hundred millimeters long with numerous processing and shouldering that is represented in a 1:2 scale can not allow the quotation of a dozen bevels 0.5, a tree along some ten millimeters with few processing represented in scale 1:1 allows quietly the quotation of the bevels 0.5.
e.g. the posted tree This is what discussion, if you had to represent all the bevels the side view would come out similar to a black ball; then in the specification this is a design made to tecnigraph and you had to save time, but now you have to take into account the phase of printing and the thickness of the lines.
and you return to the initial phrase: Does the bevel make the drawing difficult to understand? if the answer is you do not put it, if the answer is no you put it because it is the correct representation (but if you do not do it and the drawing remains understandable no one will beat you); is like a throat for grinding, does it make sense to represent it in a 1:20 view? no, but you put an indication of detail and draw it separately on a proper scale.
meccanicamg
Guest
all beautiful things, but if you use a 3d cad like solidworks inventor catia or solidedge.... what models in solid you also see at the table....so if there is one must see for strength. it is only with autocad that one draws untiedly between the views.
if you find simplified drawings are simply wrong. in companies do as they want and don't care about the rules.
in 2022 I still see written "a-a-section" instead of "a-a." or on the roughness of each, including who does not use the wheel of the wheel on the face of the workmanship but turns 180 degrees only to read it better. bevels at 20 degrees guotari "2x20°" which instead is made with two distinct quotas.... an angle and the other linear....
if you find simplified drawings are simply wrong. in companies do as they want and don't care about the rules.
in 2022 I still see written "a-a-section" instead of "a-a." or on the roughness of each, including who does not use the wheel of the wheel on the face of the workmanship but turns 180 degrees only to read it better. bevels at 20 degrees guotari "2x20°" which instead is made with two distinct quotas.... an angle and the other linear....
Last edited:
MassiVonWeizen
Guest
It seems implicit in the initial question that it is not bound by a cad 3d and that it manages the views manually (otherwise the application would not have made sense and would have possibly been placed differently), among other things in the profile of the applicant there is written autocad. Therefore my answers are circumstantial to this aspect.
meccanicamg
Guest
However the views must be consistent, regardless of the cad. especially if you draw in scale 1:1....and then mountains...decide to do details ... everything has to be.
TETRASTORE
Guest
thank you all for the answers.