Part number Scheme 2

[JASON8102]

Have a meeting in 2hrs to discuss part numbering and models. Which numbering method / solidworks model configuration would you like better:

WST-1000 (MAIN WELDSTUD PART NUMBER AND MODEL)
WST-1000-1 1/4-20 X .50"
WST-1000-2 1/4-20 X .75"
WST-1000-3 10-32 X .50"
WST-1000-4 10-32 X 1.0"
(OF COURSE ALL THE SIZES OF THREADS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER AND THESE ARE ALL CONFIGURATIONS DESIGN TABLE DRIVEN FROM THE WST-1000 MODEL)
OR
WST0001 =1/4-20 WELDSTUDS
WST0002 =10-32 WELDSTUDS
WST0003 =8-32 WELDSTUDS
THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A CONFIGURATION UNDER EACH OF THE ABOVE MODELS:
WST0001-A =1/4-20 X .50
WST0001-B = 1/4-20 X .75"
ECT....FOR EACH "WST" P/N.

Which example works best?

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

 

[MadMango]

Neither. I greatly dislike significant part numbering schemes.

If only those two choices, I'd pick a modified #2. Not sure why you changed the configurations to use letters when numbers work just as well. Using letters, you are limiting yourself to only 26 configurations unless you go to double or tripple letters. If you do that, numbers would be better.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[JASON8102]

I'm not one for significant numbers either. However, I'm told we need to have a little intelligence in the numbering scheme. So the first example is what I came up with. I would rather go to one model that has all my configurations and descriptions for that piece of hardware instead of opening various files for each thread type I use. The second example was given by a co-worker, which has multiple files & configurations and it uses letters which I totally disagree with.

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

 

[MadMango]

I think grouping P/Ns by size/head type with configs for length makes more sense for hardware. Try to drop the alpha configs though, as when you get into 3-letter configs, you can end up with some humorous(less) words.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[MintJulep]

If you're going to do a significant part number, why not make it significant.

Plenty of schemes already exist along the lines of

WSTDDLL

Where DD is the diameter and LL is the length. Typically for inch sizes DD and LL are the number of 16ths.

So a 1/4 diameter 1.25 long stud would be

WST0420

 

[KENAT]

forum781 has multiple threads on PN schemes etc. Consensus is generally to avoid smart schemes.

I'd avoid special characters and spaces etc. Not sure if you have a PDM system but some systems and even some file structures etc. don't like spaces or special characters.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[ewh]

ASME Y14.100-1998 goes so far as to prohibit spaces in drawing numbers.

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

 

[drawoh]

JASON8102,

I recommend not using dashes in your part numbers. When MRP/ERP people enter numbers, they systematically delete dashes and other non-significant symbols. You want everyone on the same page.

One problem with signficant part numbers is that, sooner or later, they are entered by untrained people in a blind, screaming panic. Once parts are incorrectly classified and entered into your MRP/ERP system, you cannot change them, and your significant system is broken.

Your part classification should be a field in your MRP/ERP database. Mistakes can be corrected. Changing circumstances can be coped with.

I am a firm believer in never changing part numbers. I have seen it done many times, and it always causes confusion. Do not come up with a process that forces you to do this.

JHG

 

[fcsuper]

Don't use smart numbers for hardware. You'll have no end of discussion and issues that arise from this. If you must, use a general commodity code for all hardware, but certainly do not have the part number delineate any hardware specs. Seriously This is a time/money wasting trap that you'll never be free of if you try it.

The major reason is that there is always going to be some extra spec that makes this or that screw just different enough where it will require it's own part numbers. For example, what if material of the fastener becomes important. How would you handle two same screws of different materials? Then there's head type (pan head, flat head 82deg, flat head 90deg, flat head 100deg, cheese head, round head, button head, socket head cap screw, flat socket head cap screw, fastening type (philips/slot), locking, attached star washer, attached interior toothed washer, attached plan washer, finish, etc. You really going to come up with a number scheme that is going to support ever option from the start? Smart systems are rarely expandable to the degree necessary to support the possibilities that are eventually employeed.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

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

 

[ewh]

Well said, Matt. There is no point in trying to accommodate every possible configuration, as there will always be something left out that you were unable to forsee the need of.

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

 

[KENAT]

Isn't that why you have an 'other fasteners' or similar category;-).

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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