Part numbers / Revisions / File naming 1

[EduPuixa]

thread559-278946

Greetings everyone in this large and awesome community! I will allow myself and reignite same old topic about part numbering system, their revisions and file naming conventions.

First let me share my insights and pits along the way to where I am now. Five years since graduation I've been working in company which produced Make-to-Order parts, assemblies and machines. When I started there they already have used solidworks, but it was a mess in their file management - many folders with similar projects, parts named just how they look (bracket, hook, bracket1, etc.). If the project evolved you had, lets say, Folder-A and Folder-B (Folder-B is more upgraded product with more parts, more corrections, more fixes that didn't work on project before). In many times you can find Bracket1 in both folders but they look completely different. In times I needed to compare newest (current) model with one of previous versions, but with same file-names and lots of conflicts it wasn't possible. Unless I saved both assemblies as parts and then compared them.

One negative thing I would like to pint-out about small start-up companies (OK, maybe not the ones which start completely from zero, but ones who star using CAD to increase productivity) when you show them what you can do and how easier it is for manufacturing department afterwards, they just load you with work and you don't have tome to think-through, develop and implement good file management system in the beginning!

At least it's what happened to me and I had to design my system along the way, between modelling and detailing stuff for our production facility. From the start I new we needed part numbers to distinguish many parts that already existed and many,many more that would come. Only thing I new about part numbering was what I had learned in university - unfortunately it was significant numbering system. I started with it. It looked something like (AA.BB.CC.DDDD where AA-project, BB-main assembly, CC-subassembly, DDDD-Part) and for many projects it worked rally well. (Oh, at that time I didn't use revisions) Until I wanted to reuse already created parts on other projects. Then I realised I needed system that doesn't tie one part to one specific assembly in one specific project. And of course same thing goes for assemblies and sub-assemblies.

I thought about it a little (at least as long as I had time before I got next project forced forward) And with next project all my parts and assemblies started from C000001 and up. Don't ask why I put "C" in front of my P/N, I guess it's because company I worked in started with that letter.
Again, for some time and many projects this was great system - I could easily move parts and assemblies from one project to another with no problems what so ever. (Still no revisions used) But then one day I decided I want to see what changes I had made over the time our products developed. Also I wanted/needed to use configurations for mirror parts or tabulated parts and I needed to update my system. At that time I "improved" my P/N to something like this C000001AA[A], where C000001 - document number, AA - tab for mirror parts/tabulated parts, [A]-revision. It worked somewhat well, but the P/N length was changing - C000001 for simple part/assy with no revision, +AA/AB/AC/... if tabulated part with multiple configurations, +[A]//... if I revised the part/assy. Now it was workable, but kind a messy, and with weldments it was even more frustrating. And if you have tabulated part and need to revise only one configuration you have to bump-up rev for all configs or do some weird stuff which involves new configurations.
It was my worst decision But then I left that company.

For some time now I am working in different company. Up till now they only have had some hand-made sketches for production - no real drawings, no CAD. And heads of this company understand the importance of strong foundations for file management. So I took my time to get some more insight and upgrade my previous system before I start making drawings for production. Here are set of my requirements that I could think of:
[ul]
[li]P/N stays constant length;[/li]
[li]I can use configurations to create tabulated parts / multi-body parts / mirrored parts in single part file[/li]
[li]I can use revisions and compare / simultaneously open current rev and one of previous revs.[/li]
[/ul]
For the moment I have come up with following code: A-000000-122-B3 (dashes only for clarity)
[ul]
[li]A - Part group (F-fabricated, M-modified, P-purchased);[/li]
[li]000000 - Sequential number;[/li]
[li]122 - Tab (1XX-reserved for mirror parts, X22-reserved for tabulated parts)[/li]
[li]B3 - revision (B-major=part/assy, 3-minor=drawing only)[/li]
[/ul]
Part number is A-000000-122 and revision is only used in file name so I can open historical versions alongside current versions if need be. I also know that this kind a hybrid system, cause it has some intelligence in it, but it's so tiny that if it is ignored it won't make a difference (except for "A" - part groups).
As for revisions "B3" numerical bit (3) changes if I have to update only drawing (missing dimensions, additional dims, notes, etc. Alphabetic bit "B" bumps-up with some changes in part file itself. In this case I create new files (part/drawing/DXF/PDF) but P/N remains the same, only revs are bumped. I know this is not the best practice towards Form, Function, Fit. But I decided I could go this way if I have to make insignificant changes that doesn't compromise interchangeability both upstream and downstream.
For example, let's say I have a right angle reinforcement rib laser-cut from sheet metal P/N F-002598-001 (file name F-002598-000-A0) [dashes for clarity reasons only]. It has right angle corner chamfered to 10x45deg. to accommodate for welding seam (no grinding required from welder, just put and weld in place). After first prototypes we decide to decrease this chamfer to 6x45deg. In this case I'm going to bump major rev, new P/N F-002598-001 stays the same, but file name F-002598-000-B0 changes. In case I have to make a hole in this part or other feature I'm going to crate new file with new part number P/N F-002599-001 (file name F-002599-000-A0.

For the moment this approach looks kind a neat for me, cause if we have one project with many iterations over time it is possible to access all these variations and changes at any time and not only in PDF format but in SW native format and there is no risk of conflict between them when opening newer one and older one at the same time. And if a new customer places order that is more similar to base project than its last iteration, I can easily start from that in different direction. Also I don't have PDM system available and I plan to make a partslist and ECOs list in excel spreadsheet, at least for time being.

Would love to hear some thoughts about my ideas! Any questions and suggestions are welcomed as well!
Cheers, J.Sinkevics

 

[snowshoe2]

Hello EduPuixa,
I personally have gone a different direction with part numbers over the years, I have tried to keep them as simple as possible without intelligence. I then have used the property fields to describe the components more completely. The value this has for me is that it allows me to take a large BOM of an assembly and sort it based on the type of parts and assemblies in it; such as purchased, machined, welded, maybe different vendor names, whatever.

I also insist on using PDM, I use to do some consulting work with manufacturing companies and have seen how much effort goes into managing files that PDM just does for you, granted it does take some overhead of work to manage the system, but I feel the net benefit is worth it. Managing the revisions and version is worth it alone.

But regardless of the part number system you use, whether it is small like mine or more encompassing such as yours it has to be understandable to the next person, if it can't be described on one page to someone new it might be too complicated, in my opinion, as I am always thinking about how do I teach someone else to manage this stuff while I go on vacation, or when I leave the company. Leave a system that people know how to use so they always say good things about you (builds a good rep)

just some thoughts, you know your challenges and it reads like you are on top of them.
Snowshoe2

 

[JMirisola]

As you yourself alluded to, part numbering has been discussed ad nauseam here on Eng-Tips. Here's my take on it: 1)you should read this so I don't have to repeat myself. 2) you should then go through the posts here. 3)If you have SolidWorks Pro or Premium, you have PDM; use it. Trust me, you'll thank me later.

Jeff Mirisola
My Blog

 

[EduPuixa]

Thank you, both Snowshoe2 and Jeff, for your replays!
I completely agree with you that intelligence should be kept at minimum in part numbers. Ideally excluded entirely, cause P/N is just what it is - a number. I incorporated intelligence in my P/N for two reasons:
1) To separate items we manufacture from the ones we purchase (with letter in P/N beginning). If I come up with good actual file management on my workstation I may get rid of this "bit" what so ever;
2) To distinguish mirrored parts (with first digit in 3-digit tab). Over the past years I've seen too many "mirrored" sheet metal parts that are bent following only one drawing although subcontractor was provided with both, LH and RH drawings, as well as both DXF files for cutting. And as most of the these parts are laser-cut, I ask to engrave actual part numbers on them. In this case, when I receive batch with parts I can see if bent part should be with it's mirrored counterpart or not. Anyway, I think it won't make problems/difference if now I separate mirrored parts with -100/-200 or later by sequential -001/-002 tabs as I am doing now for weldments, muti-body parts and configurations. It's not like I'm designating that "1" is right handed and "2" is left handed version of the part. It's just so I know if I need to look for mirrored part or not;

Currently I'm modelling and testing any scenario I can think of (simple parts, sheet metal, mirrored, multi-body, weldments and assemblies) to see how my system is performing and to locate as many underwater stones as possible. It is still a work in progress and I'm devoting as much time as I have before/eventually my superior well ask to take on the duties they hired me for!

I have been through many posts Jeff posted and many others on the same topic outside Eng-Tips forum, but thanks anyway! This is one of the subjects that is always in perpetual motion and discussion, and it's hard to see if it will reach some kind of conclusive end. At the moment I have SolidWorks 2013 Standard edition, but I will look into some info about PDM Works. I already know that PDM works manage revisions, but is it possible to open two different revision documents at the same time?
Though I don't think my boss will be willing to spend more, cause they are just starting to use 3D CAD (really any kind of CAD) and I am only person who is doing it all, and they just bought workstation and SW for me to work on.

BR, Janis Sinkevics

 

[EdDanzer]

A license plate part numbering scheme is great if you don’t have to use it to build stuff with. A semi-significant method seems to be the best of both worlds. We have a customer that uses a license plate method and struggle to find items for reuse because name searches can provide too many options and if there is a typo in the description you may never find the item. When they rented from us they would come and get parts from our Vidmar drawers rather than try to find the item in their system.

We use a semi-significant part numbering system and keep the inventory in areas by item type. All fasteners have an F for the first identifier. All customer specific items have a C as the first identifier. Most items have 6 alpha-numeric identifiers to reduce the problem with typographical errors. There are usually only 3 or 4 for the identifiers that are significant. This system was setup in 1996 shortly after adopting Solidworks. We currently track over 20,000 items this way and I can usually find a specific item very quickly.

Ed Danzer

http://www.danzcoinc.com

http://www.dehyds.com

 

[drawoh]

EdDanzer,

We set up a system where the number classified the part as a fastener, as a machined component, as a resistor, etc. Initially, much of this stuff was set up in a blind panic rush, by clerks, who had limited understanding of the components they were classifying. They got a lot of stuff wrong. Untrained clerks, and unchangeable numbers will make havoc out of a significant numbering system. If you have MRP and/or PDM, classification should be an editable field in your database.

Our old numbering system was in three parts, project, assembly and number. I liked this. It allowed drawing numbers to be managed at the project and task level. It made it easy to store and locate drawings and documents in a central computer directory. When numbers like this move into production, you can declare them to be not significant. In 3D CAD, this could be a work-around for not having PDM.

--
JHG

 

[EduPuixa]

Hi! Just a quick update. And thanks for some more ideas.
As our production plans for new subframe has been changed a little - postponed for about a month or so. Kind a good news for me. Now I have little more time and less rush to get my file management system improved and implemented. Which is great!

While I'm testing/experimenting with my various parts, assemblies, file organisation and how I will be able to find them later, and reuse in other projects, it leads me to use of more non-significant P/N system.
One thing I would like to hear is how others deal with P/Ns in weldments or multi-body parts? Do you leave P/N for weldment as is and add tab for weldment bodies? Or use first tab (-001) for weldment and sequential tabs for bodies? I'm asking cause I intended to reserve -000 tab for documents (part/assy design ideas or something else not related to SW models).

BR, Janis Sinkevics

 

[drawoh]

EduPuixa,

Do you fabricate and stock the pieces of the weldment in house? If not, you only need a part number for the completed weldment.

--
JHG

 

[EduPuixa]

-> drawoh, yes. We buy raw material (square/round tubing, flat bars, sheet metal, etc.) and create all weldments and their neccessary components in-house. We do outside contracts for sheet metal laser cutting and bending, but these parts mostly are arranged in assemblies and already have separate P/Ns. Also I could use same nummbering technique if I create multi-body sheet metal parts. In this case I will need P/Ns for separate bodies so I can send them to our contractor for cutting.

Janis Sinkevics