Drawing Practice Question

[dgschaefer]

Not exactly a Creo question, but related.

I have a disagreement of practice on drawing tables, specifically the revision table.

My practice is that when the description cell for the rev. is too small, you make the row taller to accommodate.  Another user will make the description column wider. Of course, back in the paper drawing days, the columns were defined by the pre-printed title block so you couldn't make them wider. That's where I'm probably coming from.

Is there a common or accepted practice on this?  I'm not looking for an ASME spec (although that would be fine) but rather if there's a general consensus.

Thanks,

--
This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[BobSchwerdlin]

I have ALWAYS made the row taller and added multiple lines of text.

Bob

[sshannon]

I make the table cell taller to accommodate more lines of text. Some co-workers make the text smaller but I disagree w/ that as my old eyes can't read smaller text. 😉

Regards,

Steve Shannon
Tooling Engineer
trans-matic
300 East 48th St.
Holland, MI 49423
phone (616) 820-2427
fax (616) 820-2488
www.transmatic.com

[GaryBunney]

We always make our rows taller and have the table set to wrap text and
auto height adjustment.


Gary Bunney
Engineering-Supervisor
Harford Systems Inc
Lab Products Inc
a bio Medic Company
2225 Pulaski Hwy
P.O. Box 700
Aberdeen, MD 21001

[jflores-3]

We maintain minimum text height and add a second or third row if needed. Our formats are released forms and document control can be very anal about modifying forms. They consider expanding the block a modification to the form while adding a second row is using the form as intended.

Jim Flores
Mechanical Designer
Sustaining Engrg, Philips Healthcare, PCCI

[kimndave9]

There shouldn't be much need for room in the revision block. The exact changes to the drawing should be identified in the Engineering Change Request or the Engineering Change Order and Notice. I know some companies like to use the block as a detailed reverse list record of every little change, but I think it's a waste of time to do so. In the past it wasn't possible to have more than one original of a drawing and a limit on the number of copies, but with CAD that is no longer true, so if one wants to see what the old drawing was like, take a look.

Most of the time, when pressed to include this excess data, I just make the text a little smaller or increase the row height.

I think there is no ASME drawing guidance on this level of detail.

x

[DonSenchuk]

It's been 11 years since I worked somewhere that wanted every single alteration listed in the revision block. In the companies between then and now the revision block always refers to an external document where every change is laid out in minute detail: zone, from-to, sometimes including pictures.

Having said that, ASME does show what to do, mostly.

ASME Y14.1-2012 7.7.1
Space shall be reserved to extend the revision history block downward as required. When additional space for the revision history block is needed, a supplemental revision history block may be located to the left of the original revision history block. Revision history blocks may be included on continuation sheets.

It also lays out the exact size of the revision block and each cell within except it omits the horizontal length of the DESCRIPTION field to enter the change details, instead saying AS REQD.

So, it's really up to the admin to determine how wide to make the revision block's DESCRIPTION field (shown in Fig 7-1), then to enforce the "you may only grow cells vertically" if you're following ASME standards.