20 Replies Latest reply on Oct 25, 2018 4:25 PM by Kevin Chandler

    ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate

    John Isbell

      So here is my question, there is some debate as to which is correct per ANSI 14.5 section 1.9.5 does it matter if the X is before or after the dimension or in brackets for instance 2x 1.2 or 1.2 (2X) or 1.2 (X2). I've seen it all three ways just trying to get clarification. I know ANSI shows the 2X preceding the dimension but does not state that it must precede or at least I haven't found anything to say otherwise

        • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
          Rubén Rodolfo Balderrama

          I think Dan Pihlaja has a correct concept on that's kind of thing

          I remember and use this one (European)

          Resultado de imagen para Repetitive Features and Dimensions AFNOR

          But Ansi says (American)

          Resultado de imagen para Repetitive Features and Dimensions

          For Argentina we use European

          • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
            Paul Risley

            Consistency is the most critical thing in regards to this. Most shops and most machinists do not like having to hunt and peck for information. So on something like this the standard is open to interpretation, there is no set for how it is supposed to look for the reason that as long as the information is there and accurate it conforms to the standard. I personally prefer the 2X to be in front of any and all features replicated since it follows standards for the hole wizard and gives drawings a uniform appearance. But it is strictly a personal preference as well as an easy indicator for our shop to quickly look at a print to see how many of a certain feature are going to be put into a part.

            • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
              Steve Calvert

              In the States we do 4 2X and in Europe they do (I do as well) 4 (2x)

               

              Steve C

              • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                Dwight Livingston

                John

                 

                Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                 

                Dwight

                  • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                    Dan Pihlaja

                    Dwight Livingston wrote:

                     

                    John

                     

                    Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                     

                    Dwight

                    Agreed.  It specifically says a space between the X and the dimension.  That does not include a parenthesis.  So I would say that 2X 1.2 is correct.

                      • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                        Kevin Chandler

                        Dan Pihlaja wrote:

                         

                        Dwight Livingston wrote:

                         

                        John

                         

                        Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                         

                        Dwight

                        Agreed. It specifically says a space between the X and the dimension. That does not include a parenthesis. So I would say that 2X 1.2 is correct.

                        A good point to mention the parentheses as these are used for reference dims, so adding it to an instance count could further befuddle things.

                          • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                            Rick McDonald

                            Kevin Chandler wrote:

                             

                            Dan Pihlaja wrote:

                             

                            Dwight Livingston wrote:

                             

                            John

                             

                            Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                             

                            Dwight

                            Agreed. It specifically says a space between the X and the dimension. That does not include a parenthesis. So I would say that 2X 1.2 is correct.

                            A good point to mention the parentheses as these are used for reference dims, so adding it to an instance count could further befuddle things.

                            In a way, the "2x"  IS referencing the quantity of places this dimension is used so putting it in parentheses could be considered correct, but as it is also clear that the "2x" is a quantity of locations it is also self explanatory so the parentheses are redundant. 

                              • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                Dan Pihlaja

                                Rick McDonald wrote:

                                 

                                Kevin Chandler wrote:

                                 

                                Dan Pihlaja wrote:

                                 

                                Dwight Livingston wrote:

                                 

                                John

                                 

                                Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                                 

                                Dwight

                                Agreed. It specifically says a space between the X and the dimension. That does not include a parenthesis. So I would say that 2X 1.2 is correct.

                                A good point to mention the parentheses as these are used for reference dims, so adding it to an instance count could further befuddle things.

                                In a way, the "2x" IS referencing the quantity of places this dimension is used so putting it in parentheses could be considered correct, but as it is also clear that the "2x" is a quantity of locations it is also self explanatory so the parentheses are redundant.

                                I actually disagree with this (the underlined above).

                                 

                                Since putting something in parenthesis means one of these things:

                                1) It is repeated on the same drawing

                                2) It is specified in a subordinate document

                                3) It is (in the case of a dimension) an accumulation of other dimensions

                                4) It is shown for informational purposes only.

                                 

                                The 2X, in this case is none of these things.

                                Specifically, it is not just shown for informational purposes....When it comes time for inspection, when the inspector sees 2X 1.2", then he/she needs to inspect 1.2 in two different places.  Adding the parenthesis just confuses the issue.

                                 

                                So, in conclusion, I think it is wrong to add the parenthesis, as the parenthesis is open to interpretation....while the 2X 1.2 is not.

                                  • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                    Rick McDonald

                                    I also don't think that it should have the parenthesis and I never use them for quantities (and don't recall ever seeing them before on quantities for dimensions).

                                    I was just pointing out a possible theory of why it might be considered correct in Europe as Steve Calvert indicated.

                                      • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                        Kevin Chandler

                                        Rick McDonald wrote:

                                         

                                        I also don't think that it should have the parenthesis and I never use them for quantities (and don't recall ever seeing them before on quantities for dimensions).

                                        I was just pointing out a possible theory of why it might be considered correct in Europe as Steve Calvert indicated.

                                        My apologies. I applied my ANSI bias to your reply.

                                        Since I don't operate outside of 14.5, a (2X) is a red flag. One of several such flags occasionally waved around here, which I have to snatch away and toss out.

                                         

                                        Kevin C.

                                          • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                            Rick McDonald

                                            No need to apologize.

                                            We don't use strict virtually any ANSI methods here (but I have in the past and understand them and their use generally)(never been in a company that required strict conformity but I try to put in what I know and can correctly (per 14.5) that won't confuse others.

                                            We also don't use GD&T - so most people here don't even know what the symbols mean.  I know the basics as do the machinists, but we have never had formal training (I even tried to implement it here and purchased a book on it - but was shot down).

                                          • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                            Shawn Stugard

                                            I was thinking that perhaps the use of the parenthesis was related to how you'd put a numeral into a sentence that calls out a quantity, but not necessarily on an engineering print.

                                             

                                            "Insert three (3) screws..."

                                             

                                            I agree with Dan, parenthesis are an indication of reference information and should not be used.

                                        • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                          Kevin Chandler

                                          Rick McDonald wrote:

                                           

                                          Kevin Chandler wrote:

                                           

                                          Dan Pihlaja wrote:

                                           

                                          Dwight Livingston wrote:

                                           

                                          John

                                           

                                          Just to play along, I see that ASME 14.5-2009 1.9.5 does require a space between the X and the dimension, which is a trick unless you use the format shown in the figures. Also, 1.9.5.1 and 1.9.5.2 both require the dimension to follow the X. I see a trend there.

                                           

                                          Dwight

                                          Agreed. It specifically says a space between the X and the dimension. That does not include a parenthesis. So I would say that 2X 1.2 is correct.

                                          A good point to mention the parentheses as these are used for reference dims, so adding it to an instance count could further befuddle things.

                                          In a way, the "2x" IS referencing the quantity of places this dimension is used so putting it in parentheses could be considered correct, but as it is also clear that the "2x" is a quantity of locations it is also self explanatory so the parentheses are redundant.

                                          I'll agree with Mr. Pihlaja on this one.

                                          A Reference Dimension isn't a "refer to" context. It's basically an indicator to an unneeded, usually redundant but somewhat helpful, dimension.

                                          SW does a good job of following code and it envelopes the entire dimension in parentheses when selected as a ref dim because every chunk of the dim is reference, not just a select portion.

                                           

                                          Kevin

                                  • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                    Shawn Stugard

                                    The standard has been '2X <DIM>' everywhere I've worked, including a multinational corporation with 5000 employees.

                                    • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                      Chris Saller

                                      I also agree with "2X dim".

                                      • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                        James Riddell

                                        (number of multiples)'X'<space>'<dimension value - w/ R or dia, etc.>' is the way I have seen it taught and used since 14.5 became the "law".

                                        • Re: ASME 14.5 SECTION 1.9.5 debate
                                          Kevin Chandler

                                          I believe Mr. Livingston's post correct answers the OP.

                                          If you agree, please mark his post as correct.

                                          This way it will be indicated as such and placed directly under your OP where future searchers of this issue will readily see the proper reply.

                                           

                                          Thank you,

                                           

                                          Kevin