New to sheet metal, looking for feedback about dimensioning

[Anonymous]

s

So I modelled this and i was looking to see if there is anything else needeed or missing from a standard sheet metal drawing?

The drawing note is that is missing is:

Top Plate

material: stainless steel

scale 3:2

thickness 1,00

Bend RAD 1,00

[Cadmanto]

Looks good at a quick glance.  Maybe reference angles for your tangs.

Another thought is depending how they are being fabricated, if you are burning them and supplying a dxf file a simple note to say just that, maybe you could eliminate some dimensions.

Just a thought. 

Windows 10 x64 -16GB Ram
Intel i7-6700 @ 3.41ghz
nVidia GTS 250 - 1 GB
Inventor Pro 2018

[Frederick_Law]

I usually only dimension flat with overall size.

Let the dxf/dwg control details.

Enough dimension on the formed part so other can make and check.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately for the nature of the project I need to dimension EVERYTHING although nothing of this will ever me actually made so I guess it doesn't really matter. But if I ever actually get to fabricate something I'll keep that in mind, thanks 

[CadManagerMoffatNZ]

We (I) have spent many years fine tuning our sheet-metal drawings.

We have a Kaizen policy around not doing work for works sake and as such our drawings are very simple.

The only dims on the fat pattern are the overall (X&Y) plus fold notes (angle and direction) and any Good Face / Grain direction notes.

The Folded views will have the finished folding sizes.

The dxf used for cutting or punching the part carries all the manufacturing information on hole diameters and placement.

A step file exported to our bending software determines the fold (back gauge placement) position.

All that said its what works for your internal processes that is important.

[Anonymous]

Ahh thanks that's actually really helpful information. I was told before that I should dimension the flat pattern fully and leave the folded for a representation view. It would definitely be a much cleaner look using flat just for overall sizes.

[CadManagerMoffatNZ]

For comparison here is a vintage 2010 style drawing.

The guys at the coal face (press brakes) love the new format drawings so easy for them to find the check dimension they need .

Good luck.

[Cadmanto]

I typically will only place dimensions on the flat that like OAL's or hole dimensions that are shown dimension-ed to a folded edge while in the flat show it to the actual direct edge if that makes sense.

Windows 10 x64 -16GB Ram
Intel i7-6700 @ 3.41ghz
nVidia GTS 250 - 1 GB
Inventor Pro 2018

[johnsonshiue]

Hi! The only think missing is probably the angle of the two fingers. It is not dimensionally defined.

Many thanks!

[IgorMir]

That should be the other way around, actually. The finished part should have priority. Hence - the dimensions are on it, not on the flat pattern of it.

Cheers,

Igor.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Ahh thanks that's actually really helpful information. I was told before that I should dimension the flat pattern fully and leave the folded for a representation view. It would definitely be a much cleaner look using flat just for overall sizes.

[Anonymous]

That does not look like a good time at all. But I think you have just gotten me a extra point or two for my project as I can now switch to dimensioning the rest of my parts as folded and talk about the difference and why this way is better for the end product quality checks. 

Thanks 🙂

[swalton]

I usually dimension the formed shape, not the flat pattern.

Why?  Because I only use the formed shape.  The sheetmetal vendor can do whatever she wants with the flat pattern, as long as the formed shape fits in my machine.

I will provide a flat pattern, and I add dimensions to the bend lines, plus the overall size.  I also add bend notes that include the bend direction and the k-factor used to calculate the flat pattern.  That way if the sheetmetal vendor's tooling or shop experience is different, they know not to use my flat pattern.