part numbers for a redesigned parts
 

part numbers for a redesigned parts
hello
i have a dude about part numbers.
when a part suffer a redesign that part needs a new part number or we can use the actual part number??
thanks a lot in advance
eng-tips forums is member supported.
hmmmm...
are you trying to ask if the part needs a newfff"> number if it's redesigned?
if so, probably, but it depends on a number of factors.
v
mendiriv,
when a part is designed, assigned a part number, and manufactured, it is good practice to not change form, fit or function. if someone walks into your warehouse looking for part 123-ab3321, whatever they find should function as that part.
this point has been brought up repeatedly on eng-tips. use the google window, above, and search on "form fit function".
jhg
if the part is more than 50% redesigned, new part number. has been a loose rule of thumb for a long time, but not everywhere.
chris
solidworks 08, catia v5
if the new part is backward-compatible with the old part in all places where the old part was used, then it can be a new revision of the same part number. if not, it needs a new number.
tick's rule is the basic rule of thumb that works in most cases.
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
ticks rule is slightly incomplete from my understanding of what asme y14.100 says about when to assign new part numbers. it actually lists several cases when a new pn is required but the most common consideration is are the new and old versions completely interchangeable, both backward & forward compatible.
for example, could both versions be put in a bin on the shop floor and used at random with no problems, including any related to tracability.
'changes to form fit or function' often get trotted out as the be all and end all of when it's a new rev but even that's incomplete.
kenat,
how would you measure if a part is 50% redesigned or 45%?
powerhound, gdtp t-0419
production manager
inventor 2009
mastercam x3
smartcam 11.1
ssg, u.s. army
taji, iraq oif ii
i think kenat's explanation satisfies your question, powerhouse. it's not a matter of %, but upward and downward compatibility.
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca