ROHS in Drawing title

[firebirds]

Is it acceptable to include ROHS in a drawing title? My company is proposing to include ROHS as part of the drawing title on all ROHS compliant items. The reasoning for this is to enable drawing users to know if the item is ROHS compliant just by looking at the drawing title. My thinking is that it doesn't conform to standard naming conventions. If we decide to include ROHS in the drawing title I just know that some brainiac will also want to know if it is CE marked and/or UL listed. Your opinions will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

 

[TheTick]

Dumbing down of engineering. Gotta love it.

Put a note right by the title block. Include a ROHS property in CAD files.

 

[firebirds]

Currently we have a lengthy general note stating that the materials used shall be ROHS requirements, package marking requirements, certificate of compliance and declaration of compliance statement inclusions. IMHO that is sufficient. The attempt here is to enable people scanning a database to see that the part is ROHS compliant without ever having to see the drawing.

 

[ptruitt]

If putting it in the title block really helps the drawing's 'customers', it might be okay. But your design policies should specifically allow and describe what the "RoHS" tag relates to. Also, the placement in the title block should be audited to be sure it is always there when it should be and never there when it shouldn't be. There is probably a better way. I would suggest an internal Standard which is referenced in the drawing notes. Let Quality or Operations figure out how they will ensure that the physical parts meet all design specifications. Your policy might read something like: "If the abbreviation 'RoHS' must appear in the title of the design document, the design must comply with XYZ Design Standard DS-12345." The Standard might need to be owned by another group in the organization for regulatory or corporate structure reasons.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[KENAT]

It's not my favorite but I'm not sure it violates ASME Y14.100 naming conventions, so long as it's included properly.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ptruitt]

Let me say this another way: The design documents should not be process-oriented, if possible. So it is best if the design docs (perhaps with the help of internal Design Standards) can just state what external Standards or regulations need to be met. That way the design package is portable and stands on its own. Leave it up to Quality or Operations to evolve the leanest way to ensure that the physical parts meet all of the design requirements without impacting the design package. Design changes are especially dangerous in a regulated environment.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[MintJulep]

Is there asbestos in any of your products? Do you include "Asbestos Free" in the title?

Is there lead in your products? Do you include "Lead Free" in the title?

A drawing title should identify what something it, not what it isn't.

Add a field in the title block for RoHS compliance.

 

[drawoh]

ptruitt,

RoHS is not a process. It is a requirement you must meet. The thought of seeing RoHS in every drawing title appalls me, but I do not think the concept violates anything.

RoHS in the title is not just information for the end user. If the fabricated part is labeled as RoHS compliant, engineering must not change the finish to a hexavalent chromium chemical film like yellow Alodine, for example.

This may come down to office politics, and the OP's confidence in his coworkers. Will they read note_3 before they modify the drawing, or do they need to be bludgeoned over the head by the drawing title?

JHG

 

[ptruitt]

drawoh,

I guess my words were confusing. I agree that RoHS is not a process. My concern is that the design requirements might start specifying processes such as how to handle getting certs from suppliers. (I have seen this happen.) I know that the suppliers will need to supply certs, but I would rather see the logistics of handling the certs handled by QA or Operations and avoid the temptation to spell that out in design documents.

Hopefully, firebirds will find a lean and effective way to handle this without putting 'RoHS' into the title.



Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[ctopher]

I would not list RoHS on any engineering drawing, it has nothing to do with machining a part. You may create an engineering document (Performance Spec, Quality Doc, etc) that may indicate it. This document may be included on a top level BOM, or parts list.
If RoHS is included on each part drawing, expect the cost to go up.

Chris
SolidWorks 10 SP4.0
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[drawoh]

ctopher,

RoHS does not affect the machining process itself. It does affect materials like beryllium, and finishes like hexavalent chromium chemical films. If RoHS compliance is a necessary part of the functionality of a fabricated part, there are ways to make it non-compliant.

JHG

 

[ptruitt]

You may need to take another look at the issue, Chris. Someone needs to ask Marketing if RoHS compliance is a design requirement. If it is, the Design Product Specification should list it as one of the characteristics of the design that is non-interchangeable. The question then is how to ensure that the requirement is met. In the end, your company's legal council will probably dictate that it is referenced in some manner on each drawing that has any possibility of violating RoHS. But if you can come up with a lean and effective way of ensuring that the design is efficacious, go for it. Although complying with RoHS will probably add cost, design requirements always do. Fortunately, new methods are being developed to meet RoHS and the increase will be somewhat minimized. The fact that you made your comment indicates that you had better get to the bottom of whether or not your designs need to be RoHS compliant and if it does, is legal council satisfied that your approach will keep the company out of court. Putting this off will only increase the pain.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[ptruitt]

Chris... If your recommendation of adding documents to BoMs to address RoHS has been reviewed by legal council and satisfies them, I would like to know that. I does seem like a lean approach. But it seems as though all of your other policies and practices would need to be extremely robust and have a long history of passing audits that demonstrate compliance. All supplier would need to know if RoHS is a design requirement, or not.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[fcsuper]

If "RoHS" is the differnciation between to similar components, I don't see why it wouldn't be added to the title.

Matt Lorono, CSWP
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion
Follow me on Twitter

 

[KENAT]

Exactly fcsuper.

Maybe you have 'CIRCUIT CARD ASSY, MOTOR CONTROL' and you have the new RoHS compliant 'CIRCUIT CARD ASSY, MOTOR CONTROL, ROHS'.

Off the top of my head I don't think it violates ASME Y14.100 naming conventions and achieves the aim.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ptruitt]

I don't see anything wrong with fcsuper's recommendation, but where I have worked, RoHS would now be in all but about two titles. We have affixed verbiage regarding RoHS to all of our drawing templates. But that is not perfect, either: RoHS requirements are evolving. Savy suppliers will wonder what level of RoHS we need. There is no easy answer. It may be best to just run a recommendation by the higher-ups. If they will be accountable for the approach, go with that. But it might be good to review your approach periodically if you are in a very regulated industry without a regulatory affairs department responsible for keeping tabs on RoHS.

Peter Truitt
Minnesota

 

[SteveMartin]

If you just need people to be able to scan the database and determine RoHS compliance, why not put a RoHS field into the database? Faster and easier to scan than a title. I don't think putting it in the titleblock is against any standard, but there's an easier way to accomplish your stated objective.

 

[firebirds]

Thank you one and all for your comments. You have confirmed my thinking that this is something that doesn't violate any documentation standards but there are far better ways to handle the issue.