hexagon logo

ASME Y14.45-2021 Measurement Data Reporting

Hi All,

I am pleased to announce that the ASME Y14.45 standard for Measurement Data Reporting has finally been published! As a founding member and vice-chair of the development subcommittee, this is a very proud moment.

The primary objective of Y14.45 is to provide standardized definitions and formats for reporting GD&T measurement data. This makes it extremely relevant to CMM inspection and I'm optimistic that Y14.45 will become a must-have document for CMM professionals. I expect that the standard will reinforce a lot of what you know already, and provide guidance on some more complex issues that have historically been left open to interpretation. We made a real effort to address difficult topics such as profile reporting, MMC and bonus tolerance, surface interpretation, patterns, composite FCF's, and optimization.

I also expect that Y14.45 will be a great aid for understanding the GD&T functionality in PC-DMIS. I know from committee colleagues that Hexagon has invested a lot in making PC-DMIS follow the GD&T standards more closely.

Just as importantly, I believe that Y14.45 will be a great help (and eye-opener) for those not directly involved in dimensional metrology. It will help them to appreciate how difficult and complex GD&T gets when you need to to go beyond Pass/Fail and actually calculate numbers from the measurements!

Y14.45 is available now in PDF format, and the hard copy version is schedule for Jan 26. Here is a link for ordering:

https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-45-measurement-data-reporting/2021



I'm expecting that the Y14.45 standard will generate a lot of questions and comments and I'm looking forward to the dialogue. Feel free to fire away or contact me privately.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.

Y14.45 Measurement Data Reporting - ASME
https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/y14-45-measurement-data-reporting/2021

Parents


  • I have stated this before, new engineers nowadays are not being taught GD&T, when I have asked newcomers, maybe what is their thought on something pertaining to GD&T, They would always stop me in my tracks. Stating that there was no need to learn it, because it's already in the software that they use. That is why we are seeing more and more blueprints on this sight and people are asking "Is this Callout Legit?" Not saying all engineers or even all schools for that matter, but I myself have dealt with 2 so far.


    I had an interview last week where the Quality Manager openly admitted he's been measuring parts for 3 decades but honestly didn't know the difference between "that bullseye lookin' symbol" and "the ones with the arrows". He then proceeded to tell me that their biggest problem is getting parts to measure correctly on the surface plate vs the CMM. He asked me if I thought I could help and I told him "no I don't think I can lol"
Reply


  • I have stated this before, new engineers nowadays are not being taught GD&T, when I have asked newcomers, maybe what is their thought on something pertaining to GD&T, They would always stop me in my tracks. Stating that there was no need to learn it, because it's already in the software that they use. That is why we are seeing more and more blueprints on this sight and people are asking "Is this Callout Legit?" Not saying all engineers or even all schools for that matter, but I myself have dealt with 2 so far.


    I had an interview last week where the Quality Manager openly admitted he's been measuring parts for 3 decades but honestly didn't know the difference between "that bullseye lookin' symbol" and "the ones with the arrows". He then proceeded to tell me that their biggest problem is getting parts to measure correctly on the surface plate vs the CMM. He asked me if I thought I could help and I told him "no I don't think I can lol"
Children
No Data