UKC

One of the technicians in our office has had a little telling off for putting the diameter symbol after the number rather than before it on a few drawings. The boss said to him that it is stated in a BS that this should always be the case. Now I know that the boss is correct, however I've been reading though various BS & ISO docs (mainly BS 1192:2002 & ISO 128 (Not all parts) and I'm struggling to find out where it states that dia. symbol should be a prefix. Not only that I'm struggling to find out the general CAD standards relating to text sizes e.g. 1.8, 2.5, 3.5, 5mm etc.

Any of you guys know where I can find this info (Not wiki please), preferably a BS, ISO, EN etc or the clauses that relate to BS 1192:2007 which I cannot find anywhere. I have access to most construction related BS docs so it's proving to be quite frustrating.

Cheers

In reply to Wile E. Coyote: cant say im sure of the bs but i can be sure that your friend isnt alone. %%CC

In reply to thommi: Well I might be able to help you there

I've done a little bit more digging and I think BS 8888:2011 might be the answer. I'll have a scan through and see what it comes up with.

In reply to Wile E. Coyote: ok, for those that care the answer lies within ISO 129-1.

In reply to Wile E. Coyote:

Thanks.

Isn't BS 8888 aligned with the ISO spec anyway?

Also, don't all CAD pacakges automatically do things per your chosen standard anyway, SolidWorks certainly does. I'd have thought it difficult for your colleague to make an arse of a drawing in that way.

In reply to Removed User: As far as I'm aware yeah, but I'd been searching though BS1192 looking and trying to hunt down the elusive clauses (which I still can't find btw).

The drawing he was doing was a heating schematic I think. So it's all linework and any dims would have had to be drawn with a leader and text.

To be honest I'm not sure what drawing it was on, only that he came and told me all about earlier today. I said that the boss was right but I needed the proof.

I don't know! The M&E guys just seem to make it all up as they go along (I'm C&S)

In reply to Wile E. Coyote: It always goes before. If some halfwit mistakes it as a zero (less likely these days in CAD I know)then less damage is likely to be done if it precedes the number.

In reply to Wile E. Coyote:

ISO 129?


This has been a dog's breakfast ever since the demise of BS308. At that stage you could buy one well-presented and easy to understand book; BS308 Pt1; and readily discover 70% of what you needed to know to produce a comprehensible drawing. Even give a guy a photocopy of the old 'types of line' drawing and couple of sheets of dimensioning examples from Pt 2 and he was most of the way there.

In the 70s I used to be appalled that so many people's drawing was still in the world of the 60s. Now half of british industry is still stuck in the 60s while making a mess at 10 times the speed with CAD, and nobody seems to care.

BS8888 and the ISOs are little to do with graphical commmunication and a lot to do with making money for standards organisations. We have lost the way. Standardisation organisations were meant to provide a means to readily communicate standard methods and make things easier for industry. It's not happening. Major organisations are reproducing vital standards in their own form, at vaste expense, which shouldn't be necessary. This sort of basic information should be readily available and easy to understand so that industry can get on with the job instead of paying for millions of pounds of water-cooler time as people discuss these obscure documents that we are meant to believe are standards.

http://www.tech.volvo.com/std/docs/101-0005.pdf

In reply to Jim Fraser: I couldn't agree more with regards to people making a complete mess of drawings. Especially architects, they just can help themselves when it comes to rescaling, rotating, moving topographical surveys, sticking everything on the same layer and then expecting us to be able to make sense of their drawing and send it out for construction. Just leave the topo as you got it god damn it! (Sorry, I don't get along with architects). You're quite right though most drawings that come through seem to be utter tosh. It's nice to know there are people out there that care about presentation and clarity of drawings.

Fortunately working for a large engineering consultants has it's upside when it comes to getting hold of BS docs (I've got unlimited access to the technical indexes - IHS). I'll have a look at BS308 tomorrow.

The particular thing I was looking for yesterday was in ISO 129-1 Section 7.2 (I think it was 7.2)

In reply to Wile E. Coyote:

Don't know which ISO standard it complies to but when I did O levels in Graphic communication and then Technical drawing*, we were always taught it was 'convention' for the diameter symbol to precede the dimension. I've never drawn it by hand or in Autocad, or seen it on a drawing, following the dimension.



Note* A hundred and twelvety seven years ago.

In reply to Wile E. Coyote:


Cheers that gave me a big laugh, particularly coming from an engineering technician! ;D I've recently been trying to get an (internationally famous consulting) engineers to give me simple column layout drawings on a by-floor basis, but to no avail. They insist on including the columns on all the levels above and below, all on the one file. Not helpful, and certainly not clear.


You lucky thing you.

>
>

Glad I could help Wait until you see some of the M&E drawings that we're churning out!


>
>I've recently been trying to get an (internationally famous consulting) engineers to give me simple column layout drawings on a by-floor basis, but to no avail. They insist on including the columns on all the levels above and below, all on the one file. Not helpful, and certainly not clear.



What consultants have you been dealing with? Does it start with a U and end in an S? Everyone seems to have their own idea of what is correct when it comes down to structural drawings and what goes on what floor. Even the engineers aren't entirely sure at times. There isn't any excuse for a column layout though to be honest, it's the steel work drawings that get some people confused.

In reply to Wile E. Coyote:

Diameter: it used to be before for mm and after for inches.


Architectural, well, I just write them off from the start. For M&E, the worst I've ever seen were Japanese shipyard drawings (with Harland & Wolff at the opposite end of the scale in that industry). The motor industry is the leader is this game: always has been.

I gave up looking up BullSh1t8888 ages ago and just go to the Volvo website.


I have a drawing here in the drawer. Injection Pump Driving Gear, 10DP, 18-11-60, in ink on pre-printed white linen. A thing of beauty.

In reply to Fraser:

Then they'll be really really rubbish.


Layer control an issue is it?