Auxiliary View Fold Line convention in ASME standard?

[Denden]

Have always learned and practiced, from the manual drafting days in the 80's, to define an auxiliary view by a phantom line (no view arrows) between it and the principal view it is projected from, not necessarily one looking like a section line (with arrows and labels) as today's CAD systems (SolidWorks in particular) would show in default.

Any new or current convention or standard which defines it one way or another?

Thanks!

 

[Jim Wynne]

Have always learned and practiced, from the manual drafting days in the 80's, to define an auxiliary view by a phantom line (no view arrows) between it and the principal view it is projected from, not necessarily one looking like a section line (with arrows and labels) as today's CAD systems (SolidWorks in particular) would show in default.

Any new or current convention or standard which defines it one way or another?

Thanks!

I don't know about standards, but the attachment represents the way that I see it being done most often (Detail "B"), if that's the sort of thing you're referring to.

 

[Denden]

Thanks, Jim, but the example you had provided is of "detail views."

Referring to an auxiliary view, that which is projected at an angle from one of the six primary orthographic views.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks, Jim, but the example you had provided is of "detail views."

Referring to an auxiliary view, that which is projected at an angle from one of the six primary orthographic views.

As in Views A and B in the attachment? That's also a common method, although again I'm not sure of standards and what they might say about it.

 

[Denden]

Yes, Jim.

I could understand applying labels/designations and the arrows if there are multiple auxiliary views as in the attachment but when there is only one, am just used to only seeing a simple phantom line between the primary and the auxiliary views.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Yes, Jim.

I could understand applying labels/designations and the arrows if there are multiple auxiliary views as in the attachment but when there is only one, am just used to only seeing a simple phantom line between the primary and the auxiliary views.

A couple of observations:

What I look for most in a drawing (and I work in a job shop, so I see lots of them, from lots of different sources) is clarity of intent. The only time I have an issue with any particular method is when the method used creates ambiguity. If I can clearly see what an auxiliary or section view is intended to depict, I don't care much about how it's done in the particulars.

The other thing is that a "standard" such as ASME Y14.100 (which is what I assume you're interested in) is only a standard when two or more parties agree to use it as a standard. The problem is that you might see a lot of drawings that say in the title block that they're based on Y14.100, but aren't, at least not completely. The same applies to GD&T and Y14.5M. At some point you have to be glad to have a drawing without ambiguity and not worry so much about the orthodoxy of its composition.