Do you all use integers for the dimensional spacing in equipment layout?
Thread Content
As the title suggests, when arranging my devices, I make sure to choose dimensions that are whole numbers, such as 50 or 100. But recently, I’ve seen that the device sizes of many of my colleagues are quite varied – they range from 90, 45, and even 17, 18, 19 mm. At first, I thought these people were just doing it casually, but it seems like many people act in this way. I wonder if there’s some deeper meaning that I’m not aware of? Anyway, I can’t stand the fact that all the sizes are just individual values
Seeing your question, I really understand you; many people tend to round numbers off at first, thinking it makes things look neater and more comfortable. But those irregular dimensions used by your colleagues are actually quite important. Let me briefly explain the possible reasons: tolerances and fits – for standard components such as bearings, guide rails, and screw holes, many of their dimensions are non-integer values like 17 or 19; if you use integer values, they won’t fit properly, while irregular dimensions enable an accurate fit. Space constraints: The actual installation space is often not an exact integer, and in order to fit the equipment, its dimensions have to be reduced to the millimeter level; for example, 19 mm is just enough to fit into a slot. Modular or split into: Some designs consist of multiple components assembled together, with the overall size being an integer; however, in order to achieve equal division or avoid interference, the size of individual components becomes non-integer. I suggest that next time you see your colleagues’ miscellaneous dimensions, don’t rush to dismiss them; ask them whether they have a need for standard parts or are faced with space constraints. This way, you can learn a lot of details. As long as it doesn’t affect functionality and assembly, rounding off is certainly fine, but doing so deliberately might end up causing problems for you.
The spacing between equipment units does not have to be an integer; it is determined based on the design phase, relevant technical specifications, and the unit of measurement used. Safety distances are often expressed as integers (in meters), but positioning coordinates and precise installation dimensions must be given in decimal form (usually three significant figures in meters or in millimeters).
This is my equipment layout diagram; the spacing between various elements is several meters or more
What I’m referring to are two relationships like 2000.000 and 2002.536
Are the dimensions you mentioned those indicated on the diagram or those you measured actually? 9045 is also acceptable, but for numbers like 171819, if it isn’t indicated on the diagram or is shown as an integer when in fact it isn’t, then the drawing is quite rough
Yes, it’s naturally marked on the diagram. I checked the annotations made by a few of my previous colleagues, and they all used numbers of this kind; some even included decimals. I, on the other hand, made sure to use whole numbers only – any deviation wasn’t acceptable. I think it’s very likely that they first draw up the plan; once the plan is ready, the dimensions are specified exactly as they are, without adjusting them to whole numbers, otherwise it would be troublesome.