Naming Rules

[Binga]

Hello!

I am very frustated with the names that I am giving to my parts/assemblies.
Many times I have to use names used in another parts or names that doesn't make sense after some time.

Are you using some kind of naming rules?
Don't you know any tips for it?

[Mark.Lancaster · Accepted solution]

Years ago when I did CAD management..  We developing a simple naming convention that started out with a code to categorize what type of design it was and then it continued with a simple description.  For example M-MtgPlateUnit.ipt

From there we modified the browser (occurrence) name to fully describe the component.  Some of our parts even had an ilogic code it them to automatically generate what the browser name would be.

Another division of ours even wrote a VBA program that would generate a file name for you based on your answers to the program.  So I can see taking that concept and creating a iLogic interface to do that.

There are so many ways to accomplish this.  I tell people keep it simple and don't use the file name to totally describe what this part is.  Also if you have Vault (paid versions I think) you could use the automatic file naming interface.

[Curtis_Waguespack · Accepted solution]

Hi Binga,

Below are just a few examples of part-numbering schemes. I favor a very generic naming scheme that simply provides a unique name, over one that attempts to build in a lot of meaning into the part number  and file names.

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

Excerpted from Mastering Autodesk Inventor

If you do not have a part-numbering scheme already, take the time to implement one to

make working with your Inventor files easier. Keep in mind that the most effective numbering

schemes are often the simplest. Many an engineering department has eventually run into unanticipated

limitations when using a numbering scheme that is too specific or when attempting to

include too much information in some built-in code. Here are a few suggestions that may help

you in determining a numbering scheme that will work well for you:

Sequential Project-Based: 0910–00001

Here, the first four digits correspond to the project number and the last five are sequenced, starting at 00001. This numbering system works well when parts are not often used across different projects. Common parts might be created under a “common part project” prefix such as 7777.

Generic Date-Based: 09–0707–01

Here, the first six numbers are assigned by using the current date when the part number is created. In this example, the part number was created on July 7, 2009. The last two digits are sequenced starting with 01. This is a highly flexible numbering system that allows 100 part numbers to be created per day. If more than 100 are needed, then backdating using an unused date can be done. The date itself holds no real significance, other than helping to ensure the unique part numbers.

Sequential Product-Based: NG-00001

Here the first two letters reflect a specific product line, such as the Next Generation (NG) line, and the last five are sequenced starting at 00001. This numbering system works well when products lines are engineered and maintained separately.

Once you’ve decided on a part numbering scheme, you will want to come up with a central

part number log file or tracking system to be used in assigning numbers to ensure that there are

no duplicates. If you have a resource planning system (commonly referred to as a manufacturing

resource planning [MRP] or enterprise resource planning [ERP] system), you likely have the

ability to manage part numbers using that software. If not, a simple XLS spreadsheet fi le can be

used to assist with this task.

[Binga]

Is there a way to accept the two replies as sulution?

[mdavis22569 · Accepted solution]

Click on both of the solutions 

For where we work .. we have generated numbers in the PLM 

Last place I Cad managered:

EXXXXXXXX-01, 02, 03 ... Electrical

GAxxxxxxxxx-01, 02 etc General Assembly *layouts

MXXXX-01  manufactured assemblies

Dxxxxx-01 Part files ...

X's were filled by job number assigned to the case ...with a year on them... so now they would be GA-16xxxxxx

[Daniel248]

I’m on Curtis’ side – the simpler the better.

Furthermore, there are some clear advantages when File Name = Part Number I would like to mention. For example, when you have a part open in Inventor, you could RMB on it in the browser and pick ‘Open Drawing’. Similarly, from an assembly browser, RMB on part > Component > Open Drawing. This simple detail helps a great deal when working with very large assemblies.

I’ve seen very ‘entrenched’ hierarchical file naming / part numbering schemes, sometime there’s even a “PART NUMBERING RULE” book that’s usually handed out to any newcomer into a Design Office, clearly originating in the years before the 3D was invented… with pages and pages of Naming Codes and specific groups of numbers or characters defining every conceivable category.

And still, nothing prepares you for that day when you fire up the Frame Generator and you show anyone in the Design Office how quickly you could design a Steel Tower construction, with dozens of different Steel parts, based on a simple 3D wire skeleton and then you look at the files Inventor creates for you in an instant and see something like this:

 

When that happens, the first thing to do is doge that “PART NUMBERING RULE” book that’s just been thrown at you, and is now hurtling in the air, coming towards your head ;-))

Then, is back to ‘manual labour’ to re-name your parts one by one, preferably before making a drawing for each member (hope you’ll have Vault on your side, or at least use the Design Assistant) if it’s not possible to just let it be… usually it isn’t. I prefer Vault.

[Curtis_Waguespack]

---

@Daniel248 wrote:

...fire up the Frame Generator... based on a simple 3D wire skeleton ...

...back to ‘manual labour’ to re-name your parts one by one, preferably before making a drawing for each member ...

---

Hi Daniel248,

Some links that might be of interest ( or might not?)

3D wire skeleton

http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2013/08/use-3d-solid-edges-for-frame-generator.html

re-name your parts

http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/03/understanding-autodesk-inventor-frame.html

a drawing for each member

http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com/2011/03/detailing-frame-generator-weldment.html

I hope this helps.
Best of luck to you in all of your Inventor pursuits,
Curtis
http://inventortrenches.blogspot.com

[Anonymous]

---

@Daniel248 wrote:

I’m on Curtis’ side – the simpler the better.

Furthermore, there are some clear advantages when File Name = Part Number I would like to mention. For example, when you have a part open in Inventor, you could RMB on it in the browser and pick ‘Open Drawing’. Similarly, from an assembly browser, RMB on part > Component > Open Drawing. This simple detail helps a great deal when working with very large assemblies.

I’ve seen very ‘entrenched’ hierarchical file naming / part numbering schemes, sometime there’s even a “PART NUMBERING RULE” book that’s usually handed out to any newcomer into a Design Office, clearly originating in the years before the 3D was invented… with pages and pages of Naming Codes and specific groups of numbers or characters defining every conceivable category.

And still, nothing prepares you for that day when you fire up the Frame Generator and you show anyone in the Design Office how quickly you could design a Steel Tower construction, with dozens of different Steel parts, based on a simple 3D wire skeleton and then you look at the files Inventor creates for you in an instant and see something like this:

 

When that happens, the first thing to do is doge that “PART NUMBERING RULE” book that’s just been thrown at you, and is now hurtling in the air, coming towards your head ;-))

Then, is back to ‘manual labour’ to re-name your parts one by one, preferably before making a drawing for each member (hope you’ll have Vault on your side, or at least use the Design Assistant) if it’s not possible to just let it be… usually it isn’t. I prefer Vault.

---

First, I realize this is a few years late.... but i just have to say that there is no ACTUAL benefits to PartName=FileName... as you can clearly see, even Inventors generated parts do not share this insane rule that cant even be changed... rant over..