![]() The next problem appeared when I used the same part in two different subassemblies. After some time, I realized that if the weldments’ parts are made by two different manufacturers and then welded by a third manufacturer, I damn sure want to have a separate drawing for each part so I can send it to each manufacturer! And if I was going to make drawings for each part, why should they be hierarchically positioned under the basis number of the weldment (KO_01_1001)? As you can see its’ parts are also on the drawing.īut soon this numbering system came crashing down on me.Īccording to ISO standard, one should have all the parts of a weldment on the weldments drawing. This is an example of a weldment drawing. All the professors cared about was that we made the drawing according to the ISO standard! UNIVERSITYĪt the university, we never gave much importance to the numbering of drawings. Sadly, I don’t have any examples to show you. This means we had all the numbering schemes we could have at once. And the third was a non-significant scheme with 6 digits.The second scheme was only used for projects in our country and had a hierarchical structure.If I remember correctly these drawings were made in a 2D software. The first scheme was an old one that was very significant and complicated. ![]() During my years as an apprentice, the company had at least three different numbering schemes! This was the first time I held a real drawing in my hands, and it had a real drawing number on it too. I started working as an apprentice one year before I went to university. Because numbering schemes are a very important part of every CAD standard, I have decided to share with you the story about how we got to the numbering scheme we are using today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |