Drawing title block original data in new revision

[CadDes]

Hi,

Our drawing template changed.
My question is about new revision of existing drawing.
In our system there are now entries that are filled automaticly to title block from the PDM info.
All old revision blocks and change history are removed with new template. There is little change table with change description and ECN number showing last change. That is how ever not my main concern.

Now when taking new revision of the drawing creator, approver and release date will be ones from the last revision. Original entries are overwritten by the system. That information can be found from PDM/earlier revision pdf, but it is much more limited in many ways compared to drawing.
I find it little difficult to accept that original release date and original creator are left out/replaced in the revised drawing.

Many changes made in our revisions are minor or limited, like adding a hole etc. In most cases designer revisioning has just task for one specific change and not full understanding of the original design. Now he/she will become only visible creator of the drawing, though it is unlikely that he/she would become true owner of the design.

Do you have this kind of practices in use in your companies or are you preserving 1st revision data in the title block and using revision block for changer names/dates?

I work in Europe so ISO 7200 should be applied for drawings. I tried to find is there some line about this but I couldn't find anything clearly stating for this example, or maybe not a propriate standard. I found in the forum that ASME standard says something about not to replace 1st revision author/release date data in the title block.
We should comply at least ISO 9001 through our quality system.

 

[3DDave]

It seems as if the wrong data is being drawn from the PDM, which should have manually set fields for unvarying data rather than changeable fields. The fields should be "Original Creator" "Original Checker" "Original Stress Analyst", and related dates and so on.

It likely doesn't matter at all. No one should be held responsible for any changes after they signed and no one should be held responsible for a design they did not create. If it is allowed to change, then the company is saying it doesn't matter.

 

[drawoh]

CadDes,

I know that with SolidWorks, the revision block can be an Excel spreadsheet, which can be imported into the new title block. Perhaps you are not running SolidWorks. Perhaps your SolidWorks installation pre-dates this feature. Supporting old system can be difficult and inconvenient.

To be populated by a database, your title block requires externally modifiable objects embedded in it. This capability has been in CAD software for at least the last thirty years. I assume this worked for you before. Your new title block requires whatever objects were set up in your old title block, of your present PDM is going to work on it.

What is your requirement for reporting revisions? If your new revision[ ]C is that you replaced your title block, I can understand that your revision[ ]B will have the old revision table. A very long time ago, I took over a package of drawings that had been updated bit by bit without recording revisions. There were no assembly or arrangement drawings, or a bill of material. I created the top level drawings, then I initialised all the drawings starting at revision[ ]5. This implied that I hadn't the faintest clue of what happened prior to my finalising date. Are you following procedures, or are you trying to communicate clearly.

I don't know what the European procedure is, but I regard functional modifications to documented parts as bad practise. Your revisions correct spelling mistakes and replace title blocks. If you add or subtract holes, you need a new part number to reflect the fact that you have a new part.

--
JHG

 

[looslib]

We created a second set of parameters for the titleblock that were extracted from the system parameters. They were named initial_<whatever>.
We then put relation code that would only redefine the initial_* parameters if the revision of the drawings was at '0' or 'A', both being essentially a new design. This would preserve the original release information in the titleblock and allow the system parameters to be used for the revision table information.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[CadDes]

We use NX. Before we had own title block, now we use one with the program.
Changes go through PDM with ECN process, changes are recorded. Old revision stays in the system. Question was about replaced data in the new revision drawing.
Those new revision automatic entries are not meant to changed as they are locked. You can still change them manually overriding the code.
We take lot of new codes when needed, but if compatibility/changeabilty stays revisioning is many times better option. We have mass of items 10s of thousands in total. One code change could mean that you have to take 10 new almost same variants along with it in upper level or to go replace item invidually in 20 assemblies.