chamfer 3

[xgrigorix]

I have a cylindrical part with a chamfer at each end.
Is the correct callout for this "2X 0.031 X 45°" or does each chamfer need to be noted individually?

Thanks.

 

[Heckler]

thread1103-134774

Best Regards,

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SW2005 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001
Dell Precision 370
P4 3.6 GHz, 1GB RAM
XP Pro SP2.0
NIVIDA Quadro FX 1400
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me.

- Woody Allen

 

[xgrigorix]

That thread doesn't answer my particular question. Is the "2X" part of the callout acceptible or do they need to be called out induvidually?

 

[ctopher]

2X is acceptable.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[MechCT]

9 times out of 10, I would use the 2X.

 

[ringman]

You WILL use the all around symbol?

 

[ctopher]

I believe the all around symbol is not necessary on a cylinder edge.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[wes616]

I agree with Chris here.

It is implicit that the chamfer goes "all around" on a cyl.



Wes C.

 

[templetonc]

It is redundant and I believe a gray area. If you believe that the all around symbol should not be used on a chamfer then I challenge you to look at it this example.

You have two pipes to need to be welded end to end. You would call that weld out on the drawing with an all around weld symbol in the leader line. Now why would you call out an all around symbol there? If this drawing is a Section View and it displays the weldmet the customer who reads this drawing will clearly understand that the weld is all around due to the fact that the V-Grove (standard pipe weld) points to the axis (two V-Groves one above and below axis). This example is much like the chamfer. The end user in both examples can tell the outcome without the all around symbol. If you can use the all around symbol with the weld symbol you should be able to use it with the chamfer. It keeps drawing continuity makes the drawing look esthetically pleasing.

 

[ewh]

Pleasing esthetics is not a necessary drawing requirement. Drawings are to concisely define a part. If it is not obvious that a chamfer goes all around, or that a hole is a thru hole, then more data needs to be added to the drawing. Otherwise, you are not being concise. If the chamfer is only part way around the cylinder, then more information is needed, such as where does it begin or end. If it is not clear that a hole is a thru hole by looking at the drawing, then a depth or "thru" needs to be added to the callout. Welds may not be required to be all around, but may be spaced around the cylinder, depending on the design intent, which would be shown in the symbol. If it is obvious that the weld is all around, then why add the symbol?
The objective is to keep a drawing as simple as possible while clearly and fully defining the item to be made.

 

[templetonc]

No esthetics is not a drawing requirment but it sets your prints apart from other draftpersons.

 

[ctopher]

I 100% agree with ewh.
This is why a little knowledge of machining is helpful when creating drawings. If you want to chamfer a pipe, would you chamfer a part of it? No, it would be chamferred with a tool all around. It is obvious the chamfer is all around. A weld can be welding in sections, therefor you probably want to call out all around if that is what the design calls for. I have seen pipe that was tack welded in 4 places around the O.D., but was not used for structural support or fluids, but most of the time would be welded all around.
If you want to add a countersink callout/dim, would you add "all around"? No.
I use SolidWorks. On a dwg, if you want to dim a chamfer, there is not an option to add an "all around" symbol, because it is not standard.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[smcadman]

If the chamfer was not all around, then it would be better to add another view to help define the part. We either stitch-weld or weld all-around the pipe/tubing, so it needs to be called out.

Flores

 

[MechCT]

The way I always did my drawings was like this. First you try to fully describe the part with the views only. Than you add dimensions, notes, tolerances, etc., to further describe the part until it is completely understood.

For instance. I would typically show a view with hidden lines to show a thru hole. Then when dimensioning the diameter or thread callout on the whole I wouldn't have to include any information about the depth because it's right there in plain sight.

Another. For a chamfer around a circular profile, as long as it's visually represented in way that implies a full run all the way around the diameter of the part only the size of the chamfer is neccessary.

That's the way I was taught to do drafting. Be thorough, be clear, but concise. Do not be redundant.

 

[ctopher]

MechCT, I agree.
Also, If the hole or thd does not go thru, it would need a depth called out...if it shows going thru or not.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[ewh]

Chris,
I have to disagree with your last post. Para 1.8.9 states "Where it is not clear that a hole goes through, the abbreviation THRU follows a dimension." This leads me to believe that if the drawing clearly shows a hole going through, then "THRU is not required.

 

[MechCT]

ewh,

I believe he's saying that if you've got a thru hole that is partially threaded that you need some indication of the depth of the thread even though the picture might show a thru hole... In which case he's correct.

 

[ctopher]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with you. I meant if the hole or thd does NOT go thru, it will need the depth called out.
I'm having a very busy morning.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[ewh]

Gotcha, makes sense to me now.

 

[ctopher]

thanks MechCT & ewh

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)
FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716