7.2.1 (b) & (c)

[Jon Wilson]

Hello everybody, newbie here looking for help.

Concerning 7.2.1 sections (b) and (c):

During contract review activities I am struggling to understand just how far to go with this. A part of my organization is a foundry that makes castings for a number of outside customers in addition to producing castings for our own product line.

For the outside castings, a number of them are for air compressors. Does this mean that we must understand all of the potential ways this casting could be used in a final product? Same thing for statutory and regulatory requirements. Do we have to understand all of the applicable codes related to air compressor use? Am I reading too much into this? I forsee a large effort just to get our arms around this not to mention some difficult product liability questions.

Could you provide some simple examples to help me explain this to others? Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

[M Greenaway]

Jon

Contract review is the assessment of your companies ability to satisfy the requirements of a contract or order.

If that contract is to supply a casting to a customers detailed design specification then you neednt concern yourself with its subsequent use. If however you are contracted to design the casting you will need to consider its use in your design function. If at contract review you see this design element, and know you have no design capability then you would decline the contract.

 

[Mike S.]

I don't know castings, but I'd guess a 7.2.1 b issue for you might be something like this: The customer's drawing & specification for the casting doesn't specifically say "no cracks" but you know well it won't work if there is a crack halfway through the casting, so you don't ship it. A 7.2.1 c issue is harder for me to imagine for you but might involve things like if the casting happens to be made of lead you might need to label it as lead-containing since lead is a poisonous metal. Does this make any sense?

 

[db]

Hey Jon, Welcome to the Cove!

This is an oversimplification, but it gets the idea across. You go into a restaurant and the server takes your order. They will often ask : “What type of dressing would you like on your salad?” this is 7.2.1 a). They normally don’t ask if you want a fork to eat it with (7.2.1 b), nor will they ask you if you want a clean plate (7.2.1 c).

I think Mike is interpreting this correctly. In your arena, cracks, spiderwebs, porosity, etc. may not be specified, but understood. Shipping container weights might also not be specified. Sometimes this part relies on your expertise.

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

Jon - Welcome to the Cove!!!

All three replies are on the mark.

I work for a die cast/machine company (not design responsible). A bout 3-4 years ago we quoted a family of parts (housings), with some machining, for gas regulators (mostly for the gas grills found in most homes). Each part was multi-cavity (8 cavity was the smallest die). They told us of their requirements for leakage (none) and air flow. We assigned a "Launch team" and, at first, thought it looked like a good line of product for us. As we started getting into it, we found that if we could not meet their tolerancing scheme with their datum scheme. We approached them with a revamped scheme which allow us to meet capability requirements and would only require "minor" changes to their assembly process fixtures (mostly manual). After many go-arounds and a couple of trips to Texas, we backed out of the project. It would have turned into a high maintenance account (with "commodity" piece priceing). As it turns out, this company reapproached us last year begging us to help them out (we probably would have except we have pretty much gotten out of Zinc castings).

While we weren't too concerned about all the regulatory requirements, had we not "reviewed" all the potential outcomes (just from a manufacturability viewpoint), we could very well be out of business from just that one venture.

I guess I'm trying to say that NO we did not need to know all the statutory and regulatory requirements - that was the customer's responsibility. All we would have been liable for was if a malfunction occured due to our part causing the failure and we didn't wish to get into the "proving fault" arguments that we have heard have been going on with our "replacement".

This is a heck of a lot longer than I planned on for an answer and I'm not even sure I've helped (but my fingers are sure a lot more tired!!!).

Bill

 

[Jon Wilson]

Thank you very much folks. That is exactly what I was looking for. We have a large product line of our own and these elements are adequately addressed on our own designs but I was stumped on those outside casting jobs.

I think I'll hang around here a while if you'll have me, lol.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Jon Wilson said:
---X---
I think I'll hang around here a while if you'll have me, lol.

If we'll have you? Of course we will. Welcome to the Cove, and keep posting Btw: The question you asked triggered good responses that are valid not only for a foundry.

/Claes