Can you deviate from a mil standard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spoolx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Standard
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriateness of deviating from military specifications (mil specs) in product design, particularly concerning anodizing thickness for aluminum components. Participants explore the implications of such deviations in the context of engineering practices and customer requirements.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) questions the legitimacy of specifying a coating thickness that deviates from the mil spec minimum, citing a recommendation from the coating vendor.
  • One participant suggests clearly noting any exceptions to the mil spec directly on the drawing to avoid confusion.
  • Another participant questions the rationale behind including a thickness below the mil spec minimum when the upper limit is acceptable.
  • A different viewpoint indicates that the vendor's recommendation might aim to reduce scrap material.
  • The OP clarifies that the anodizing is primarily for cosmetic purposes and marketing considerations, which influenced the decision on thickness.
  • One participant emphasizes that if a customer specifies adherence to a mil standard, any deviations must be formally waived by the customer.
  • The OP asserts that they are the designers and owners of the product, implying some autonomy over the specifications used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of deviating from mil specs, with some advocating for strict adherence and others supporting the rationale behind the deviation based on vendor recommendations and product requirements. No consensus is reached on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of deviations in specifications without resolving the potential consequences or the necessity of formal waivers. The conversation reflects varying interpretations of compliance and the role of vendor recommendations.

Spoolx
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi all,
I ran across something today and wanted to get other engineers opinions.

I design products for a company and we routinely use mil specs to identify process parameters for our products.

Recently, I released a drawing that said process per the anodize mil-spec-xxx.xxx and below it I identified a thickness that does not fall completely within the range of the mil-spec

More specifically I said process per mil-spec -xxx.xx, and apply a coating thickness of .0004-.0008. However, the mil spec recommends a minimum of .0005.

In our business we use the anodize primarily for aluminum protection and color, the thickness range was recommended by the coating business who applies this anodize per the mil spec all day every day. When I say protection I simply mean no oxidation, it is a hand held device that does not mate with anything.

I originally thought it was no problem but I am starting to second guess myself. The mil-spec provides tons of information, and we deviate from one small portion of it to fit our needs, but we aren't military.I feel like our drawings are the final say, so if we state process per the mil-spec but then below it we have a small deviation than its legit. Obviously we want 99% of the process to be followed so it wouldn't make sense in my opinion to do it any other way.

What is everyone's take on it?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Be clear in the drawing, and note any exceptions to the spec in the same place you call out the spec. EG - Anodize per mil-spec-etc with the below approved exception etc.
 
I didnt put exactly like you suggest however I did put
Anodize per MIL-xxx-xxx
Anodize Thickness .0004"-.0008"

Thanks for the reply
 
I agree with Grinkle. But I have to ask, if you're using the mil spec and would be happy with thicknesses up to 0.0008", why would you include the complication of an 0.0001" less-than-spec thickness?
 
OldYat47 - the OP said it was recommended by the vendor, its probably to reduce scrap.
 
Hmmm. Looks like the vendor is trying to stay very close to the minimum thickness. Interesting.
 
We did it primarily for the color, we are using a very light turquoise and when you go up even a few tenths in thickness it changes the color dramatically. Our components are anodized primarily for cosmetic preference and marketing wanted this color.

Of course we could have done .0005-.0008 but we were concerned with the anodized passing supplier validation so we gave him an extra .0001 on the bottom end.
 
Thanks for the reply guys
 
If you are delivering a product for which the customer specifies a mil std, then you must follow it exactly or else apply for a waiver from the. customer.
 
  • #10
We are the designers and owner of the design for a product we own and manufacture
 

Similar threads

What's the most likely cause for this carbon seal crack?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Calculate the bulk modulus and Derive the mean standard deviation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Chebyshev inequality, confidence intervals, etc
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Automotive Parameters required for a ZK worm gear
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad Standard Deviation Conceptual [intro. Stats]
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Introduction of a factor Δℓ when summing equal distants 𝐶ℓ
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Graduate Standard Deviation not equal to experimental uncertainty?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
Standard deviations and probabilities
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
High School Can We Create a Warp Drive for Light? - Josh's Curiousity
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
MHB What Can You Create with TikZ Code Examples?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K