Skip to main content
A
agaribay1-Visitor
1-Visitor
June 6, 2013
Question

Off Topic: Revision Block on 1st sheet

  • June 6, 2013
  • 8 replies
  • 6170 views

Is there a Drafting Standard that states the Revision Block shall only be shown on the First Sheet?

Thank you.

-Art


[cid:image001.png@01CE62AC.AABCA5F0]

.

.

.

.

This message (including any attachments) contains

confidential and/or proprietary information intended

only for the addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure,

copying, distribution or reliance on the contents of this

information is strictly prohibited and may constitute a violation

of law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the

sender immediately by responding to this e-mail, and delete the

message from your system. If you have any questions about this

e-mail please notify the sender immediately.

    8 replies

    T
    TimKnier1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    June 6, 2013
    I can't quote chapter & verse of any standard that says so, but I can't remember anywhere in my long and storied career that a filled in revision block appeared on every sheet. I have seen many times the revision block filled in on the first sheet only and all of the rest of the sheets just say "See Sheet 1".

    Tim Knier
    QG Product & Support Engineering
    QuadTech
    A Subsidiary of Quad/Graphics
    Sussex, Wisconsin
    414-566-7439 phone
    -<">mailto:->
    www.quadtechworld.com<">http://www.quadtechworld.com>
    G
    GlenWisham1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    June 6, 2013

    Come on folks, have we all forgotten about ASME (formerly ANSI) Standards?

    Take a look at ASME Y14.24 and more specifically ASME Y14.34 for your
    specific question.

    Every thing we do on every drawing and has been based on these industry
    standards in one way or another.

    To my eye, the new kid on the block ISO, is pretty much a copy of the
    standards too, they just tell you to flip the views backwards.

    ...just my two cents

    Glen R Wisham
    Engineering
    EW Design and Analysis
    Space and Airborne Systems
    Raytheon Company

    +1 805.879.3359(office)
    +1 805.879.3017(fax)
    561.3359(tie line)
    -

    6380 Hollister Avenue
    Goleta CA 93117-3114 USA
    www.raytheon.com

    Follow Raytheon On
    TwitterYouTubeFacebookLinkedIn

    Raytheon Sustainability

    This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged.
    Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the
    addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or
    any information contained in this message. If you have received this
    message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete
    this message. Thank you for your cooperation.


    D
    DonSenchuk12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    June 6, 2013

    ASME Y14.1 (and Y14.1M) cover formats. It doesn't specify in there that each sheet shall have its own rev block. It does however cover the use of a table on sheet one describing what revision each sheet is at. ASME also requires that each sheet clearly indicate the revision.



    In my experience, the rev block is identical on all sheets. If one is documenting the changes within the rev block, this is probably not the best choice. If one is referencing an outside document where all the changes are detailed, this becomes much more feasible.




    In Reply to Art Garibay:



    Is there a Drafting Standard that states the Revision Block shall only be shown on the First Sheet?

    Thank you.

    -Art
    J
    jnelson14-Alexandrite
    14-Alexandrite
    June 6, 2013
    ASME 14.35, Section 7 (Revision Control Methods) provides several methods for multi-sheet Revision.



    [cid:image004.png@01CE62DB.09E31540]

    [cid:image005.png@01CE62DB.09E31540]

    B
    BrentDrysdale12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    June 6, 2013
    Hi Art,
    I have replied to this in email as for some reason I could not find it in
    the forum.

    I like simplicity and since I never trained as a draftsman (though I have
    made drawings for many years including from a drawing board) I have always
    seen these as simply documentation for what I want to make. I emphasise
    clarity over what standards say though in some industries you are bound by
    standards requirements. (Shock! horror! Queue "march to the scaffold"-
    Berlioz <).">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK0skj1HNzY>).

    Where all this is getting to is that our drawing templates call up drawing
    formats that have the Title Block totally populated from Parameters and
    Notes within the 3D model (Part or Assembly). I even do the no-no of
    having the revision (issue for us) in two places in the title block but as
    these are populated from one source I don't care. In multi sheet drawings
    the sheets are the same as the first sheet though we can have a mix of
    sizes if really necessary; all are auto-populated so the only chance for
    error is if the Designer does not fill in the Parameters and Notes
    correctly in the model.

    I have put an example from an A3 drawing that I am presently working on
    (and not finished). You can see Issue K on the far left and also on the
    right after the part number. Other non standard things are use of upper
    and lower case text and Arial narrow True-Type font. All in the name of
    clarity.

    Good luck!


    Regards,

    *Brent Drysdale*
    *Senior Design Engineer*
    Tait Communications
    K
    kimndave91-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    June 7, 2013
    All,

    Beyond drafting standards, Art's question is an interesting one.

    The obvious interpretation of the question is: Can/Should other sheets
    have their own revision blocks?
    The next interpretation is: Does the revision block have to be shown on
    the first sheet or can the drawing revision block be on some other sheet?
    Possible interpretation is: If the revision block is too large to fit on
    the first sheet, what is there that I can do?

    In the good old days when drawing sheets were totally independent pieces
    of paper, each sheet could have its own revision history.
    But, in those good old days, one wouldn't consider moving views from
    sheet to sheet, or just adding views because it took too long, so most
    of what went on on drawing changes was either add or replace entire
    sheets and/or make some few minor changes to a sheet. Under that
    circumstance it was easy enough record those changes.

    Ready for a rant?

    <rant>
    With multi-sheet computer files (CAD drawings, MS-Word, MS-Excel,) it is
    a single document. Any change to any page changes the whole document
    revision. It's interesting if a word on page 5 revised that page, but
    there's no good guarantee that that is all that happened.

    Moreover, with PDM systems, filling out the revision blocks becomes
    wasteful.

    Why?

    Consider - the drawing basis file is the Pro/E drawing and associated
    items. When a snapshot is created, perhaps a PDF, how is that snapshot
    lock-step coordinated with the PDM system? If Rev A is created and
    committed to a vault and, in the review process, a typo is found and
    fixed creating A.1, what distinguishes a PDF snapshot of A.1 from the
    Rev A snapshot? They should both say Rev A. They are, however, different.

    I'd just as soon leave revision information to be controlled by a PDM
    system, watermarking its outputs with actual revision status, actual
    release status, time of output, and requesting user.

    As far as history of drawings being recorded on drawings under PDM
    systems? Why? If you need to know how a drawing got the way it got,
    you'll need to go to the PDM system anyway. Sign-offs? Same thing. If a
    drawing is signed by a stress engineer and it undergoes thirty
    revisions, is his signature still good? Even on the first revision, it
    doesn't record what use the stress engineer analyzed. One has to go back
    to the stress reports to see that information. Likewise everyone on the
    project - under a PDM system one should have links to all the
    information that backs a drawing of a part or an MS Word report or an MS
    Excel spreadsheet.

    Otherwise you get things like including the number of the record of the
    desired change to document and the number of the document attached to
    the record of the desired change and the number of the document that
    approved the incorporation of the change to the document. Even then, how
    does one know those documents were approved? Go back to the PDM system.
    How does one know they have the latest version - Go back to the PDM system.

    If there is a PDM system, one should be able to keep the meta-data off
    the drawings and watermark it on the outputs.
    </rant>

    Dave S.

    T
    23-Emerald IV
    TomU23-Emerald IV
    23-Emerald IV
    June 7, 2013
    Dave S. said, "If there is a PDM system, one should be able to keep the meta-data off the drawings and watermark it on the outputs."

    Is anyone out there actually doing this, specifically with Windchill? Where is the information that would have been placed on the drawing in the Rev box being stored in the PDM system? It can't just be a parameter (attribute), or you wouldn't see the full history from each previous revision in the watermark.

    Tom U.

    G
    GlenWisham1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    June 7, 2013
    Group,

    I've seen two or three ways of revving drawing sheets over the years. One
    is to control each sheet separately, this was originally driven by our
    customers requirements and may be considered old school thinking in this
    day and age. The pragmatic part of this thinking is driven by the ease of
    seeing what was changed quickly by looking at the drawing. Now days we
    have tools to compare different revisions of drawings with differences
    highlighted in the color of your choice.

    Over the years our company has assimilated other companies, some of them
    had the culture that the entire document should be at the same revision.
    So our standards were broadened to accept both methods of controlling
    revisions on multi sheet drawings.

    In the day that drawings are becoming more and more connected databases,
    residing in a single file, the method of making all sheets the same
    revision makes sense more and more. I do not think enough time has passed
    however to remove the rev status of sheets block on the first sheet and the
    individual rev status blocks on each sheet as is promulgated in the ASME
    specs... some poor soul will still end up working from a paper copy of a
    drawing and wonder.

    I'd say leave it alone for now and if you describe something you did on
    sheet 3 in the block I say that's good. If you say the particular sheet
    was revised by some other document number I'd say that was good. If you
    say 'SEE SHEET 1' for the current revision status, I'd say that was good
    too. ...provided that is what you say you do in your work instructions,
    policies and procedures or standard guidelines... AND as long as your
    partners and customers are in agreement of the method you use. Three
    things I've learned over the years is that consistency counts, the document
    that describes your general guidelines counts and above all, your customer
    is always right.

    I think best revision practice now days is to use a metadata tag, that is
    watched like a hawk by Configuration Management. That metadata tag
    determines the revision, and is displayed in the revision block along with
    the metadata tag containing the identifying number of the document making
    the change displayed in the revision block in the format of each drawing.

    Best Regards,
    Glen R Wisham
    Engineering
    EW Design and Analysis
    Space and Airborne Systems
    Raytheon Company

    +1 805.879.3359(office)
    +1 805.879.3017(fax)
    561.3359(tie line)
    -

    6380 Hollister Avenue
    Goleta CA 93117-3114 USA
    www.raytheon.com

    Follow Raytheon On
    TwitterYouTubeFacebookLinkedIn

    Raytheon Sustainability

    This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged.
    Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the
    addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or
    any information contained in this message. If you have received this
    message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete
    this message. Thank you for your cooperation.


    Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement