Categories on the naming sheet:
Letter breakdowns for projects:
Master Assemblies -100
System Assemblies - 200
sub assemblies for systems eg. batt box, transmission, knuckle, etc
handling 200H
ergo 200E
structural 200S
Powertrain 200P
Part Files -300
Any item that requires fabrication beyond the item, if cots are modified, tubes bent, parts otherwise edited
Handling 300H
Ergo 300E
Structural 300S
Powertrain 300P
LV 300L
COTS components- 400
Cots Assembly - 400A
Cots part (and multibody) - 400P
Hardware- 500
bolts and fasteners- 501
nuts- 502
clamps- 503
Naming:
Names are to be derived using closest physical description of the item, (then if applicable for distinguishing: size of item, color of item, use of item)
Part Status Utilization & Rev changes:
The “Part Status” feature of PDM is a powerful tool that we have never utilized at NER. In industy, the tool can be used to lock files in a revision state, requiring principal engineers to review it before it can be approved for production. We should be employing a similar method with our parts to orgainize or WIP, concepting, and in production parts.
A basic proposed format is below showing several new states:
The basic premise is as follows: any part created starts as a WIP file, editable by any PDM user, they then have the option to move it to concepting to show that a file should not be referenced by other projects, or does not show design intent. If a file is going to be worked into a usable state it should stay in WIP. Files in WIP with the goal of being approved should follow proper design standard and be designed showing design intent, with labeled folders and tree items to allow others to access them easily. The file stays in WIP until it is ready to be reviewed by the head of the system, or the chief. At that point the user initiates a status change to submit for review. In that state the head will not be able to edit the part, and it will be locked unless it it pushed back to WIP for more revisions. The head has two options depending on the quality of the file, either push back to WIP or push through to a REV state. REV states are also locked, preventing changes to be made in that state, and should be considered ready for production. If a head or lead or member spots a problem, the lead will have permissions to pull it back into a WIP state, thus unlocking the file. At this point, the file must be put back through the same process in order to be ready for production, and subsequent submit for review creates a REV B file.
An Alternative to this is to require that a part be in level REV B to allow it to be put into production. In this alternate method, the file can be edited during REV A and referenced by other projects during that time, this would mean that WIP files can be ignored by all other system leads and that the only referenceable files are REV A and above files. This would mean that a minimum level of REV B would be locked, and that REV A files can be referenced, but not put into production.
Fergus: “I’m more of a fan of the first option, the second option does clean up the existence of WIP files and does improve the accountability of the system, but could hold up leads from being able to count on other files, but it just depends on how the users treat the system. I got used to the first method at my first CO-OP, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, I would invite more input on the status tool usage. The only requirement is that it must be used on some level”
Rev changes should happen on the parts themselves not car after any change has been made following a cleared for manufacturing part, i.e. if a part has been reviewed, and put into production but an issue was found, a rev B would need to be created.
Parts should be renamed after a rev change, and the drawing for it should follow suit, but the rev A file should be archived as a PDF.
rev changes have to go through the same process as parts to get approved into drawings
Naming Example:
so for a part in the harness assembly on 22 after we found an issue requiring a rework at comp:
300E_HARN_ClothToBoltHarnessTabLarge_revB_22
this change can go along with the deletion of folders within the systems, I.E. lead projects get removed if system folders are populated with this naming scheme and make it easy to browse for files easily.
The highlighted portions above should be an auto updating feature, likely one requiring the chief to build out some PDM macros. It would be super helpful to get the chief to a level of basic understanding of the PDM macro feature, and would allow us to get auto naming accomplished easier, and track the rev change as part of the file name.
3D Representations of Electrical Parts
PDM Data Card
info you type in:
description
auto populated:
revision
part number
Sheet Format and Drafting Standards
My updated sheet format is saved in the Sheet Format folder of PDM and titled NER Size B. This is a drawing template for an 11”x18” tabloid size paper. I think this size is most appropriate for our drawings considering the high complexities of most parts we will be making. It’s just easier to fit everything on the page compared to an 8.5”x11” letter size paper.
To use:
open a part drawing
right click on Sheet 1 in the feature tree
go to properties
under Sheet Format/Size, browse and select the NER Size B.slddrt file
apply changes
My drafting standard is saved in the Sheet Format folder of PDM and titled NER_DRAFTING_STANDARD. This file contains all the settings that apply to your drawing such as font size, dimension precision, location of dimensions, all uppercase text for notes, etc. Having people load this file into their drawing will help make our drawings neater and more cohesive as they will have the same font sizes and appearances.
To use:
open a part drawing
go to Options (the gear icon at the top ribbon)
Document Properties
under Overall Drafting Standard, select Load from External File and select the NER_DRAFTING_STANDARD.sldstd file
click OK