Using Solidworks 2003 and developing drawing standards

Hello,
We are in the process of implementing Solidworks and developing
standards for our engineering group. We are doing allot of family part
drawings with design tables and trying to figure out how to keep track of
say a rectangular tube cut to various lengths using design tables where
another engineer would not duplicate the drawing. We would like to start a
set of drawing standards which include drawing structure and naming
(nomenclature). Is anyone willing to share their standards with us that we
may modify or build upon. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

Just a thought regarding drawing structure and nomenclature:

NEVER USE INTELLIGENT PART NUMBERS!!! Part numbers are just a unique
identifier for a part, no more. They should just be some number. Start
with 1 (or something like 10000000) and assign all part numbers
sequentially. Part numbers should in no way describe the part or how it
is used. This allows for flexibility down the road when the part's
description or use, or how it is made changes.

I also suggest keeping the drawing #s the same as your part #s.

For tabulated drawings, what we do is make the tabulated drawing using a
design table that lists the part according to part number. Then, we
make a "pointer drawing" for each part number that only states 'See
drawing XXXXXXXX' for details.

Thus, say we have a model named 123 that contains configurations (using
a design table) for part numbers 456 & 789. We make a drawing named 123
that shows the model and design table to completely document all
configurations (456 & 789) on that single drawing. We also make
drawings for 456 & 789, but the only thing on these drawings is a note
saying 'SEE DRAWING 123 FOR DETAILS.'

This is the way we do things, and think it works pretty well. You could
also use a dash (XXX-YYY) number system to designate configuration YYY
of part XXX, but I would advise against this. What happens if (for
whatever reason) you decide to remove 123-456 from the design table and
create a separate model for it?

Like Wayne mentioned, Lee has a nice tutorial on tabulated drawings and
design table to help you out as well.

 

Thank you for the help, I downloaded the file on it. I'll research it and
see what happens. Trying to get the drafting standards started however is
our biggest hurdle currently. Part of it has to do with the actually
description of parts. As far as part numbers our drawing numbers they are
just 7 digit numbers with each tabulated part having a dash 01, 02, ect.

 

Try this...


http://www.d-digest.com/ssa/V2I3/V2I3.html#solsrev

Bruce A.

 

I definitely agree that for normal parts, do not use intelligent part
numbers. Sequential numbers are much easier in the end.

However, Standard Parts, such as Nuts, bolts, tubes, pipes, extruded
sections and anything else that is regarded as a Standard Part and possibly
created using a Design Table, should put in the Feature Palette, That being
so, it becomes a lot more logical to use intelligent part numbers based on
Shape/Size/Length/Material etc. This would help your production department
when two parts are called up with only the length being different, as it
would be readily recognised as being the same form material.

A macro can also be created to added new configurations and generate a new
number automatically based on the form. I did this at my last job and it
enabled other users to add a new length and Part Number at the click of a
button.

The other advantage with intelligent part numbers for Standard Parts, is
that similar/related parts would be stocked adjacent to each other. Also
when searching for parts in your CAD system or Feature Palette, all
similar/related parts would be adjacent to each other.

 

There is a book "Engineering Documentation Control Handbook" by Frank
B. Watts. I referenced it when setting up the part numbering system
in my department and also used it when we set up our drafting
standards. There is an ANSI standard (14.1 maybe?) which helps for
setting up borders and such. These two references should help.

-Erik