ASME vs ISO Programming impact

[[Jo...]]

Hi All,

Happy Friday! 

My company is entertaining the idea of transitional our drawings over to ISO from ASME. This is mainly to align with our German parent company. I was asked to assess the CMM programming impact. 

Can anyone share some major differences to be wary of? Are there any programming considerations within Calypso?

 

Appreciate the insight!

[[Ma...]]

Mostly gauss evaluation.

But i would go to ISO training.

[[Jo...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Hi Martin,

Could you elaborate on the Gauss evaluation you mentioned?

Training may come in the future if the decision is to move forward. At this stage, they would like to understand the CMM program's impact on current/future programs. 

 

I have been doing my own research on the topic, but I figured I would reach out and post here for Calypso-specific considerations.  

 

[[Ma...]]

I hope others will join this, because i don't feel to be a mentor 🙂

I don't know ASME so i don't know what differs, but as i saw in ASME you are using mostly tangential evaluation.
I am using almost everywhere Gauss evaluation, but if there are callouts with GX,GN, then this should mean tangential evaluation.

Most of things comes with Calypso setup - perhaps somebody from Zeiss could possibly tell you default settings - this settings should be subject to load/save so you won't have to set that up again.

Also origin point from perpendicular planes ( and other features ) are not forced to be exactly perpendicular - we are using real intersection point.

I really hope someone join here to help 🙂 There is so much what can differ

[[Ke...]]

This may be useful...

Also, look for online training. There are often classes that only cover the ASME vs ISO differences

ASME vs ISO - GPS.pdf

[[Jo...]]

Nice guide for sure, Thanks Keith!

Not looking for a mentor LOL... Any insight is appreciated from anyone who has time to comment or share any references/articles. 

 

This video I found was pretty helpful. I'm sure this only scratches the surface, though. 

 

[[Dr...]]

I think

Please sign in to view this username.

's doc wins for presenting the information concisely, and that video does a great job with visuals for applicability. I chuckled a bit at the latter's eurotechnosynthoclub music; maybe that's part of the charm.

If you're bringing any docs over from Y14.5-1994, here's an archived article from 2006 that contrasts them well through a pre-2009 contemporary lens:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081120182556/http://www.tec-ease.com/the-new-gd&t-article.htm

If you're working with the 2009 standard or later though, I wouldn't bother with that one too much. It hits on some interesting minutiae, but I can't speak to its accuracy regarding recent standards.

[[Je...]]

The very first difference is: in ASME your standard-evaluation is the envelope-condition (it is called "first rule" or something like that, I read here), in ISO it is the two-point-diameter/-distance (ISO 14405-1 chapter 6.2.). At next I´m with Martin, for evaluations like position, coaxial-/concentricity and most others, that use datums, your tolerated element is LSQ, but your datums are allways outer tangential (MCE, MIE), and calculated according to ISO 5459.

If you want to have the possibility, to search for yourself in ISO-norm, then get ISO 8015, ISO 1101 and ISO 14405-1 + -2 first, they are most important, when it comes to evaluation-questions.

Edited June 10

[[na...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

 

Please sign in to view this quote.

Good sources, after a quick look I only want to add, that for ASME CF (Continuous Feature) there is a similar-CT (Common Tolerance), ISO 14405-1:2016, paragraph 3.9

[[Jo...]]

Thanks for the feedback and resources all! This is all good stuff to present to the engineering team to aid in their decision making. 

Thanks again!