Drafting Standards,BOM Standards, and P/N standards 3

[JASON8102]

Does anyone have a copy of a "newer" company standard that they can share with me? I've been choosen to write an engineering standard for our company. I've been doing mechanical engineering for 15 years and I've never seen this, except an old one that related to autocad users and layers, line types, ect...we Solidworks. I feel I should just write one sentence "follow ASME standards". However I feel what they are looking for more of, is when and when not to use a BOM for example. We have someone here that puts a bom on every print he does no matter what really. I of course do not. Part numbers are another big one here, there are a lot of parts in our system called "top", not good. Can't open two of them in SW at the same time of course. Everything I know should have it's own unique part number. 99.9% of the stuff we engineer all goes out to a vendor to make as well. If any of you have something to share that would be awesome! I know some companies have a definition of what an "assembly" is....stuff like that maybe.

Jason Schultz
Mechanical Engineer
Yaskawa Electric America
"It's got to be 5pm somewhere!"

 

[KENAT]

This is moved from over in Mechanical engineering other topics linked is a copy of what was put there:

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...g_Drawing_Standards_and_Bills_of_Material.mht

I swear there were vaguely similar questions before but I'm having trouble finding them.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fcsuper]

There are many consideration when working on this activity. This has been written about on SolidWorks Legion before.

It isn't just how to make a model or how to do a drawing. You must also consider how to manage your files.

http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=143

(managing data)

http://www.fcsuper.com/swblog/?p=37

(considerations when creating standards)

Search for standards for other articles that may help too.



Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[KENAT]

So a few more comments - part numbers and file names are not the same thing, likewise descriptions. You appear to be confusing them. The consideration of part numbering has been addressed over in Engineering Configuration Management a few times. As to file naming, I generally like the idea of using the drawing number, which is often the same as the part number, as a basis.

On when to use a 'BOM' (as I've mentioned before parts list is more appropriate terminology) and what is an assembly ASME Y14.24 addresses this to some extent.

4.1.3 Requirements An assembly drawing includes as applicable ... (b)a parts list specifying the unique identifier for all items which become a part of the assembly...

So I'd expect just about all 'assembly drawings' to have a parts list (parts list may be a separate document though) including inseparable assemblies.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[PeterStock]

What I would do is purchase a copy of the Globe standards and create a short company standard that envokes that standard with anything that is company specific stated. I would also envoke the version of Y14.5 that you are using. This spec should be called out in your title block and provided to vendors as needed.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[fcsuper]

Peter,

That's how I've done it. My drafting standard is only 4 pages long, and most of that is talking about location and use of templates.

Something like "Fully define the product on a drawing or in the model using ASME Y14.100 and associated standards."

Also, "Where this procedure differs from ASME standards, this procedure takes precedence."

These aren't the exact words I used, but are the general content.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[ewh]

I agree with the others - base your DRM on an existing commercial standard (such as Global or Genium) which is based on accepted industry standards (such as ASME), and note everywhere the practices followed by your company may differ from the standards. I have seen DRMs written completely in-house which were just a copy of the applicable industry standards for the most part. I think it is silly to go to such extremes. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel.
As for BOMs and file names, I agree with KENAT; any assembly drawing should have a related parts list (including inseparable assys). I have seen companies that would have a parts list on all of their drawings, assembly or not, to capture material information. While many may question the value of a system such as that, it did work for them.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[fcsuper]

I used to be a fan of Genium's product. But upon dealing with their staff via email about concerns regarding comments in their book, I'm come to the conclusion that Genium is not producing a vetted document. There is a substantial amount of opinion (particular from one individual) and even argumentative statements in their book. I didn't notice before, but I've learned a lot about sticking to just the facts, from being a wikipedia editor. I might suggest their book falls well short of even the most liberal vetting policies. It still may be a good technical reference, but not to be taken as a source document as the basis of a standard. I would recommend referencing the national/international standard directly. Spend the extra money to buy those standards in PDF format and print out multiple copies for your organization.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[ewh]

I have also found that to be true, and have remedied it by noting the differences in the company standard, which supercedes the Genium manual. It is always best IMO to follow the standards directly, but I understand how budget sometimes gets in the way.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[Tunalover]

I agree that your company standard should invoke one of the popular DRMs including the Globe Manual or the Genium Manual. I personally prefere the Genium Manual. From a business standpoint you can't go wrong having a B/M for every print. That is a tremendous help to mfg, suppliers, purchasing, etc.


Tunalover

 

[KENAT]

Personally, the Genium & Global DRM's are a bit bulky for every day reference. I know they (or at least one of them) is based on a real world DRM but they are so big I don't look at them as much as I perhaps should.

Also, they may have a bunch of stuff that is barely relevant to a lot of places.

Also, while fairly popular, they aren't industry standards so it's pushing it to expect vendors etc. to be familiar with them, though they generally follow the standards.

I still prefer making ASME Y14.100 etc. my primary reference with the other DRMs as at most a back up reference.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Tunalover]

I concur with KENAT. Y14.100 should be the leading document with a DRM as a backup guideline.


Tunalover

 

[fcsuper]

DRM are good as a backup to cover requirements in documents that you may not have purchased yet. That said, I'm highly suspect of the quality and accuracy of DRMs nowadays. For statements that are not directly covered by the standards they reference, I've come to realize there is a considerable amount of unsupported opinion crammed into Genium's DRM that really has no place in a reference book.

Though I've not read Machinery's Handbook cover-to-cover, so far I can truly say I've never encountered any philosophical arguments unduly represented within its pages, unlike Genium's book which actually tries to convince readers to the author's opinion with unsupported argumentative statements. Not very professional and completely out of place in a reference guide. I contacted them about this on one of their articles within the book. I initially received a positive and receptive response from one individual (not one of the authors). However, the changes in their recent update ended up being even more unsupported and argumentative, I suppose in a vain attempt by the author to convince everyone else that he was right. This is how I discovered that they really aren't vetting their book. I now question any purchase of further updates and would rather spend the money to purchase the actual standards directly.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper