Drawing List of material revision 1

[tacodog55]

Revising the list of material. Drawing will be Rev B.

Item 9 is a swivel leveling foot.
Engineer wants to replace it with a non-swiveling foot.
This is a new company I am with now. Very lax drafting standards here.
Should Item 9 be lined through (deleted) on LOM and add new item # for new foot, (rev bubbles added where needed).
Or should Item 9 just be revd and description/part replaced with new foot.

Fit form function... well it is the same size, does the same thing, but it is a different part.

Any opinions?
Thanks

 

[KENAT]

Ideally

"Item 9 should be lined through (deleted) on LOM and add new item # for new foot, (rev bubbles added where needed)."

However, a quick look in ASME Y 14.34 & 14.35 and I couldn't find this explicitly stated.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[MintJulep]

What's the case for deleting and adding a new part number? What value does it add?

The revision history or change notice should identify "Item 9 was foot co. p/n 12, now p/n 13.

Why tinker with the rest of the drawing needlessly?

 

[SteveMartin]

Strikethrough and new item number is the conservative method (many may say overkill). Practically I think rev-ing the item number would pass muster in most companies.

Either would be vastly superior to the way things get done around here...

 

[ctopher]

I agree with strike-thru the old, add the new.

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

 

[hydtools]

Rev the item.
Call it a day.

Ted

 

[KENAT]

Back in my govt drawing pack days rule of thumb was that you didn't re-use item numbers.

However, as I mentioned above, a quick look through 14.34&14.35 didn't turn up much to support that - I may just have overlooked it though.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[tacodog55]

Thanks. I had also looked through ASME but could not find anything.

I had wanted to just strike through. The checker said he had never seen it done that way before.

I can see a case for both methods.

Thanks

 

[drawoh]

tacodog55,

What CAD software are you using?

When I first hacked with SolidWorks 2001, I determined that the strike-through capability of their bill of material software was not reliable. I made a point of not using it. Admittedly, SolidWorks has had lots of time to fix this bug.

Another issue with SolidWorks, and I am sure, lots of other stuff, is what happens after you delete the bill of material, or the view controlling the bill of material? There goes your strike-through. If my drawing view does not work, I delete it and start again. This is easy, and I wind up with a good, readable assembly drawing.

We are using SolidWorks' Excel BOM. Sometimes, this becomes corrupt, and there is no choice but to delete it and insert a new one.

Take the case that you have implemented strike-through on your BOM, and you have a requirement to copy and paste the BOM to some other application. In an Excel BOM, strike-through is implemented by fonts. This will not work in a text only application like Notepad, or a database.

There are a lot of good reasons to use strike-through on an old-fashioned, hand lettered BOM. I would be very cautious about using it on a computer.

JHG

 

[PeterStock]

I agree with drawoh's point about CAD systems, a strikout method is unreliable at best with automaticaly created BOM's in Solidworks and Pro/E. It is probably the same in other software packages.

Peter Stockhausen
Senior Design Analyst (Checker)
Infotech Aerospace Services

http://www.infotechpr.net

 

[tacodog55]

We are STILL using IDEAS. No strike through capabilites. Just draw a line.

 

[drawoh]

We are STILL using IDEAS. No strike through capabilites. Just draw a line.

Meaning that your strike-through is completely unintelligent?

One of the objectives of a 3D CAD system is type-once-use-everywhere. The stuff that is not required on requisitions or in MRP, either should not be there or it should be ignored.

What happens when your in-house CAD monkeys check out your drawing with the line through the BOM item, and start changing stuff?

JHG

 

[tacodog55]

Meaning that your strike-through is completely unintelligent?

Yes.

The model and LOM are not connected. LOM is not generated. It is hand typed in.