Bill Of Material Standard for Drawings 4

[JASON8102]

Lets try this thread I started a different way by breaking it down better. Forget about ANSI and ASME standards for a min. How many engineers if making a drawing of a part with 2 weldstuds, or pemnuts, ect...some type of permanent hardware to the part don't use a bill of material on their drawing, you just leader line out a note on what needs to be installed or welded? I understand you use a bill of material if you MAKE it in house, but we don't. We don't stock pemnuts,weldstuds, weldnuts, ect...So my standard would read,"A bill of matieral is only needed on a print, if it is a weldment,a physical assembly we build, or it's an assemlby that can be dismanttled easily into loose items." Thoughts?

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

 

[ewh]

If you don't care about standards, then why are you even asking a question relative to a standards, in a standards related forum?
You have every right to continue to define parts as you do, just don't be suprised if others may find them difficult to interpret.
Your example drawing seems to have been created by someone who is somewhat familiar with the standards, but can't be bothered with having to actually follow them. Again, this is fine if it meets your needs. Just don't expect everyone to agree with arbitrary rules followed only for your own convenience.

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

 

[ewh]

...ANSI standards still talk about drawing in layers...

I'd better get busy and crack open those ANSI standards, as I sure don't remember that one!
As far as line types and weights, they are still relevant to ease of drawing interpretation.
But then again, you don't seem to have to worry about that.

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

 

[fcsuper]

I've found no value in having BOMs for sheet metal inserts. I'll stand up and say I would not use a BOM for a sheet metal component that has PEM nut inserts. There's not much of a point to it, and if there is also a hole chart, it's redundant.

For simple frame weldments, I'd use a cutlist. Again, a BOM is redundant to the cutlist.

In fact, I've not found much value in using a BOM for most inseparable assembly scenarios (95% of the time).

BOM's in my company's system are controlled by our PLM anyway, so they do not appear on the drawing in the first place.

This is just what I've experienced. Your experience may vary.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

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

 

[ctopher]

For sheetmetal I do the same as Matt.
For other mechanical assy's, I either add the BOM on the dwg, or make it a separate document.
This depends on company policies, contracts, and standards.

Chris
SolidWorks 09 SP4.1
ctopher's home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[JASON8102]

Matt and Chris both have it right. And that's what I wanted to make sure, as I write our company "standards" as well. Thanks guys!

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

 

[ewh]

I agree that Matt and Chris are right, but doubt that you know why...
Per ASME Y14.34 ASSOCIATED LISTS, "Parts lists shall be prepared for each assembly level drawing and may be prepared for other level drawings."
I think they are correct because of the standard based definition of "assembly". Per ASME Y14.100 ENGINEERING DRAWING PRACTICES, "assembly: a number of parts, or subassemblies, or combination thereof, that are joined together to perform a specific function and subject to disassembly without degradation of any of the parts.
Picking and choosing what is correct only because it already agrees with your opinion can be dangerous. It is always good to have a sound foundation on which to base your drawing practices. But I forgot, standards don't have any bearing on your issue.
In my own experience, working for mid-size to large companies, parts lists were a requirement for both separable and inseparable assemblies. This was to do more with procurement than anything, and was not difficult to provide. Different situations require different solutions.
It does raise questions though when standards are ignored because they are inconvenient. What is the point in even writing a "standard" if that is the case?

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