Alice Bennett

I owned the bracket layouts, panel segmentation, fastener strategy, and general tolerance scheme, and I based those on shop feedback, material availability, and assembly access. So, for example, I chose a modular panel approach instead of fully welded to improve service access and reduce finish welding. I did check that with manufacturing and the lead engineer, but the initial recommendation was mine.

Balancing stiffness. Balancing stiffness and access. A fully welded box would have been stiffer and simpler on paper, but it made internal access and rework harder. I sketched both and walked through service access and fab steps with manufacturing. The modular route added fasteners and some tolerance sensitivity, but it made maintenance and panel replacement much easier.

I followed a personal checklist that mirrors our template, title block revisions, material and finish, datum scheme, GD&T call-outs, BOM match, interference check, and export verification.

We got a couple shop questions on bend reliefs and a hardware call-out. I verified intent, updated the note for clarity, and reissued the drawing with a minor revision. The goal was to keep production moving without on-the-fly interpretation.

Assemblies with configurations, sheet metal for enclosures, weldments when applicable, drawing automation for views and BOMs, and PDM via Windchill for revisions. I use design tables when families repeat and keep drawing templates aligned to our ASME-style company standard.

I built and maintained the top-level assembly and major sub-assemblies, created the sheet metal parts and brackets, and generated the part and assembly drawings, BOM and PDF DXF packages. I processed revisions in Windchill, but always had a peer check and engineer approval before release.

I set a stable top-level assembly with defined datums and interface planes. I keep external references intentional and limited, favoring skeleton sketches or master layout geometry rather than chaining parts together. That lets me change a panel size, for instance, without breaking downstream hardware. I run interference detection as part of my pre-release checklist.

One clear one, the internal bracket that clashed with the connector and cable envelope, that would've been a shop rework, but we were able to catch it during digital fit check and shift the bracket location.

Big ones were drawing identification and revision control. So things like title block data, drawing numbers, revision history, and making sure views, notes, and reference documents were organized and complete. For datum schemes and GD&T specifically, that's more on Y14.5. So for anything beyond routine application, I relied on our company standards and engineering review rather than interpreting it on my own.

I flagged it to the responsible engineer or document control and asked which requirement governed. Once decided, I implemented that direction on the drawing and noted the revision basis. I didn't make unilateral calls on standards precedence. I document and follow what the accountable engineer or customer contact specified and ask if anything was unclear.