×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Process Notes on a Drawing

Process Notes on a Drawing

Process Notes on a Drawing

(OP)
Here's a question:

Is it "acceptable" to put a note on a part-drawing stating that the part (part A) can be made from another part (part B) controlled by another different part-drawing.

I think we are trying to keep process notes like this out of drawings, and let Manufacturing decide if they want to use another part to make a part, but in this case Manufacturing wants the drawing to specify that it is OK to do so.

I'm worried that we open ourselves up to a document control nightmare where we have to change the drawing for part A if we change part B in some way....

Opinions?

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I've certainly seen it done before, especially if you are modifying a purchased item.

It is common for casting, where you have a drawing for the raw casting, and a finished part drawing to define the machining and such.

Seems to fall in a grey area.  Is it really process information, or is it material information?

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I've seen it done before too.

Common on machinings/castings either where different items are made from the same blank or even where the forged/cast part has its own drawing to aid documenation etc.

I've seen it done in at least one case where there was a part that could be made either by modifying an existing machined part or by making it from scratch.  This was in the UK though.

We also used to do it a lot for specials & the like.

Depending on how you word it I don't see that you are specifying manufacturing methods which is discouraged (ASME Y14.5 1.4(e)).  If you say "MAY BE MADE FROM PART XXXX" I don't see a problem.  In fact it's kind of like when you give options on the base material, either different grades or even "MAY BE MACHINED FROM STOCK OR FORGED BLANK" which I once used.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

A "made from" is acceptable. But having process notes may cause trouble. Better to leave them and have them on a job traveler of some sort.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

As regards your configuration control concern.

Well, the change to part B shouldn't affect function, form or fit and should be fully backward & forward compatible, or it would have to be a new number anyway.  

So while it may be a possibility I'd guess it to be unlikely.  

It's no more of a nightmare than having to update assembly drawings when a part is changed.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

(OP)
Thanks for the feedback guys.

The note that is desired is "may be made from part B" which is a little different from saying, "may be made from a blank".  The concern I have is keeping up with all these such kind of cross-references which are not formalized in our configuration management system.

-Damon

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

Like I said, I've seen it done the way you just clarified.  It may not be ideal but I'd say can sometimes be justified.

As regards the config control issue, like I said most issues should be covered by the fact that to keep the same part number and only be a rev the change must be backward & forward compatible.

Things like finishing can cause problems as usually change in finish (e.g. Cad plate to zinc) is considered back & forward compatible but sometimes for compliance reasons isn't really.

However, if in doubt do you have some kind of production permit or waiver system?  You could perhaps have one which says "PART XXXX REV A MAY BE MADE FROM PART YYYY REV C" using revs to differentiate is normally bad practic but for a waiver may be OK and avoids the configuration issue to some extent.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I prefer "MADE FROM P/N XXXX" or "M/F XXXX (XXXX=part number)". You can also add "M/D XXXX, OPT".

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

However Ctopher, saying "MADE FROM P/N XXXX" says that's the only thing it can be made from.  My interpretation of the OP is that it can be made from scratch or from an existing part.

What's "M/D XXXX, OPT"?  OPT is optical or optimium to 14.38, OPTL is optional, am I being dumb?

(Minor pedantic point "/" has pretty much been dropped from standard abbreviations in ASME 14.38a-2002 and 'MADE FROM' isn't in there anyway.)

I did just remember that in the case I remember it being done for full scale production the drawing that it could be made from was effectively obsoleted.  The drawing was done in this way to allow the 100s in the field to be modified to equivalent standard.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

You can always add the base part as a raw material in the BOM of the "made from" part in your ERP/PDM system.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

MadMango, I was thinking the same thing but some systems make this difficult.  I'm led to believe that with our implementation of SAP it's difficult to add a BOM to something that's categorized as a piece part.

Or something, I'm no ERP expert.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

"OPT", I meant optional.
A material or part can be called out, then another also called out as optional.

Chris
SolidWorks 07 4.0/PDMWorks 07
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I think the OP is saying he has no ERP/PDM system to keep track of parts/releases/revisions.  The drawings themselves are the only documents in the system...been there & done that.  As far as I know, it is not illegal in any drawing system to add a general note of the form: "This part is used on assembly ####, and may be used for production of part ###."  This type of note is of use to engineers/drafters/checkers who may not remember to check other affected assemblies when parts/drawings are revised.  It also leads to a nightmare of drawing revisions when new assemblies using the same parts are created (you have to update this note to add the new assy no. to the list).

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

So, while I don't think it's the main point of the OP the 'where used thing' is done, in fact I think it used to be done more and was if I recall sometimes a box in the title block or edge of the drawing format.

 Also in one government system I worked, the convention was that updating the 'where used' didn't require a rev if it was the only change.  Made it a bit less hassle.  From what I've seen having it as a note may not be great.

We had a similar debate when we had 2 different drawings for the same item but on different products but that had different customers (both government but different departments).  Manufacturing understandably wanted only one drawing/part number.  In design we knew we couldnt' do this because the drawing packs had to be independant for contract reasons.  

Older drawings would have the note "THIS PART IDENTICAL TO XXX-YYY" or similar.  Trouble was when the new rules came in on things like VOC, Cad plate etc one customer wanted their drawings updated while the other wanted to wait.  The two parts were no longer identical/interchangeable but the customer who didn't want them changed for treatment also didn't want to pay to have the note saying "THIS PART IDENTICAL TO XXX-YYY" removed.  Ahhh!

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

carloabarth,

   If your drawing shows all the dimensions of your part, it is an adequate control, without your process note.  If part A passes inspection, you do not care how they did it.  You should not provide manufacturing instructions.

   If production determines that part B is identical to part with A with the exception of some easily added features, they have no obligation to tell you about it.  You simply do not need to know!

   The danger of a note like this is that someone will modify part B so that it cannot be modified to part A.  As KENAT points out, modifications like this are bad practise.  You should not change form, fit and function of existing parts.  How much do you trust your fellow designers?  How much control do you have over part B?

   Another possibility is that you deliberately designed parts A and B to be identical, with the exception of a couple of features added to A.  The last time I did this, I indicated my design intent by generating one tabulated drawing.  One view showed all the common features.  The other view showed the features that applied only to part A.  

   You could call up part B as the required material for part A.  The drawing for A would show the modifications required to bring part B to part A specifications.  This is a good solution if you want to rule out any possibility of fabricating part A from scratch.  Otherwise, it is a bad idea.

                              JHG

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

Sometimes a better note is: "REF NOTE: PARENT PART NUMBER: XXX-XXX-XXX".  Let the machinists decide what to do.  If they have a part they can use, they may choose to use it.  If they have the CNC code, they may choose to use it.  If they have the CMM program, they may choose to use it.  It depends on how much time you have.  As long as your new print has all the dimensions and not existing part feature dimensions as reference, they should give you what you are asking for on your sent out print.

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

(OP)
Thank you all for the wonderful feedback.  It is great to have a forum like this to exchange ideas and get advice from so many competent people in the field.

Drawoh, I agree with you, I think it is dangerous to make such a note on the drawing, although I have seen it done many times.

The end result of this was:  We had a meeting between production and design engineering where we explained that design engineering didn't care how the part was made so long as it met the critical characteristics defined by the drawing.  If production wants to change those in order to make the part easier to build or allow some production process that wouldn't currently be allowed because of the current drawing, design engineering would consider to change the drawing.  But design engineering can't add a note which references a production process using another part which is not part of the design BOM.  So production will do whatever they need to do, the part (part A) will be approved solely on the basis of the Part A drawing/ critical characteristics, and I feel much better!

Thank you all!

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

carloabarth, I have the feeling I missed something on your original post(s).

Based on how you describe it in your last post then it sounds like you made the right decision.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

The typ note would read as follows;
PN xxxxxxx-xxx shall be considerd a make from alternate part.
Ideally make from alternate part rough machined part or casting ( excess mtrl ) fab/machined for hi-use finished parts. Also may be designated as MRP raw mrtl enabling in house machine shop to fab blanks as req'd.

Ray Doyle
SolidWorks 99-07

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

What about just putting the revision level for "Part A":

NOTE: May be made from (Part A) Rev. (#)

Then, if "Part A" is changed and made unsuitable for producing "Part B", the drawing for "Part B" is still correct, assuming that the revision level for "Part A" was changed when the part was made unsuitable. If "Part A" is changed but still suitable for making "Part B", then perhaps you need to update the drawing for "Part B", but even if it isn't changed to say "May be made from (Part A) Rev. (# or #)", it still isn't INCORRECT. If the note for part B isn't updated, the machinist may be able to determine if the new revision of Part A is suitable anyways. In an ideal world, the machinist may even catch the fact and ask you to update the drawing, though I know some places communication between machinists and engineers is limited or non-existant...

-- MechEng2005

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

How about - "MAY BE MADE FROM PART 'B' PROVIDING ALL DIMENSIONS ON THIS DRAWING ARE MET"?
or - "SIMILAR TO PART 'B'"? this would allow them to find part 'B' and evaluate it's applicability as a 'make from' part.

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I'd hesitate about using rev letters as a distinuishing factor in official/permanent documentation.

To keep the same part number the change that causes the rev change must be backward/forward compatible.

Often the rev of parts is not marked on them even if the part number is, since they should be interchangeable.

Using rev letters to essentially define different parts is generally considered bad practice.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

I think the best method, which has been touched upon here, is to leave any reference of the M/F part off of the drawing and include it in other rider documentation.  If any other part meets (or can meet) all of the criteria of the drawing, then it should be fair game as a M/F.  To avoid configuration issues, it should NOT be noted on the drawing.

RE: Process Notes on a Drawing

MechEng2005,

   Using revision numbers to identify parts generally is frowned upon.  

   Take that case that we share my part XXXX-RevB, and it meets all our requirements.  I move holes and revise the part to RevC to suit some other parts I have modified.  Surprise!

   Note that the RevB drawing is obsolete, and no longer available for you to get fabricated.  

   Again, we share my part YYYY-RevB and again, it meets all of our requirements.  This time, I discover that I have misspelled DISCOMBOOBERATE on page three, and I revise the drawing to RevC.  How do you decide whether the part still works for you or not?  This is especially awkward if I am the sort of person who does not fill in revision blocks.  

   This is nasty and complicated.  Do not change form, fit and function.

                              JHG

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources