![]() ANSI states if a part is not backward compatible then is gets a new part number not a new revision. My question is "how was I misled this whole time or did the standard change when ASME and ANSI combined?Īll of my experience says to revise a drawing if there is a change to the Form, Fit, or Function of a given part. The best summarized test is interchangeability - not just on 'Form, Fit & Function' but in every conceivable way including any requirement for trace-ability etc. To my surprise, ANSI does not follow that. 'Form Fit Function' is not a very good way of fully describing what changes need a Part Number change rather than revision (at least to ASME Y14.100 series, see section 6.8 of 2004 version). From the perspective of those people who work with the real-life physical part, the part number is used. A part number is, for all practical purposes, both an item identifier, and a location in the warehouse for that item. I have always worked off the three "F"'s. But the real part revision question goes to interchangeability, which drags in the old 'form, fit and function' discussion. We had a large debate on when to revise or create a new P/N for changing parts. Just recently the company which I have been with of going on 5 yrs, has been looking at setting up standards for ECO process and revising drawings. So I have been designing for 17 years now in the fields of Mechanical machine parts and assemblies, MEP, and Architecture disciplines. ![]() This is my first post here! I wanted to start off by thanking the community for this chance to discuss a few topics that has come up a few times already. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |