only ASM's

[dgschaefer]

If you do sheet metal parts, you frequently run into a situation where a
part suddenly became an assy due to added PEM fasteners. If you start
as an assy, you can add what you want without hosing your drawing.

I don't think there's going to be a Pro|E way to accomplish this. Maybe
a company policy that the one who creates such a drawing must fix it on
his own time when it needs to be turned into an assy later. 😄

Doug Schaefer

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.

[kwsauter]

It might be easier to create a separate part number for the assembly
with the PEM fasteners. Then it doesn't matter how the piece part
drawing starts.


Ken Sauter
DRS Reconnaissance Surveillance and Target Acquisition
Infrared Technologies Division
PO Box 740188
Dallas, TX 75374
214-860-6826
- <">mailto:->

[TracyWillis]

I've never done sheet metal parts, so I'm not sure what the PEM fasteners are.
- YES Doug that is precisely the reason!
Starting with the ASM file keeps the drawing from getting hosed.
The ASM view automatically updates showing the modification and then the dimensioned views of the new component are added as another sheet.
All else is unchanged.
I know there are ways to rework it after the fact but it's just a lot, lot easier if it's already an ASM file.

Tracy Willis
Designer / Drafter

Cook Urlogical, Inc.
11OO West Morgan Street
Spencer, IN 47460
(812) 829-4891
(812) 829-1801 (fax)

Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and privileged information which is intended for the use of the above addressee(s) only. All other use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the document from all computer systems, or notify Cook Urological at (812) 829-4891.

[fred_roy]

I agree with Doug here. Especially if you have group that creates
manufacturing instructions on top of that. Then they too have to replace
the .prt with the .asm in there assemblies. It happened to us in the
past quite often, and it is a painful waste of time.



Now we create .asm by default for pretty much everything except
fasteners.

[davehaigh]

First of all why would you ever do that? 🙂
Because if you do a lot of work with sheet metal, it's a given that in the future you're going to need to add some press in fasteners to the part. You don't want to have to redo a drawing just because you put in a few inseparable components.

I thought it was crazy the first time I heard about it, but it's a very valid way of working.

David Haigh
Phone: 925-424-3931
Fax: 925-423-7496
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
7000 East Ave, L-362
Livermore, CA 94550

[mpeterson]

I have been designing sheet metal parts for many years and I still think the way to handle this is to have a detail drawing of the part and then if there is a design change and it becomes an assembly, like a PEM in an inseparable assembly, than create an assembly drawing showing the parts and any assembly instructions or specifications required and give this drawing its own drawing and/or part number. This will however create some additional modeling work to insert the assembly instead of the part, but I think this is more appropriate than creating all assemblies just for the cases when it is needed.

Sorry this doesn't answer the question andgood luck finding a solution to your desired methods of documentation.

Sincerely,
Sr Design Engineer
Igloo Products Corp
-

[wfalco]

I've used what I call "buffer" assemblies for years...and no issues. I
had someone say that its "dead weight". I'd prefer to think of it as a
life preserver.

I think those who are against it, just see it as being out of the
ordinary. But it is logical, as are skeletons and other bags of tricks.

[RonGrabau]

Just as a note, the Sheet Metal TC has been addressing this issue for years. PTC has yet to come up with a solution, but we have covered this subject extensively. We would like to see a solution where you can either add pems and such to a sheet metal part or have the conversion from part to assembly be transparent to a user.

Ron Grabau

[ptc-218373]

And it's not only sheet metal parts, although they're more likely to have
other components added later. It could be a piece of piping where you want
the supplier to add a plug, or a part that requires an added label.



We came across this issue many years ago, and decided that the "assembly
only" method made a lot of sense - especially when we were told that to set
up a new part number in the ERP system cost around $1000, and of course BOMs
would have to be revised to call up the new number. By always modeling parts
as assemblies, BOMs don't need to change, and new part numbers are avoided.



The way we did it was to name the assembly by the part number, and the part
would be the part number with the suffix -01.





David Tate

Keystroke Designs,

Kelowna, BC, Canada

[ptc-46674]

Wayne

I too have been advocating of this and I've used the same technique for years, I haven't found any downside to this approach so far.

"a solution where you can either add PEM's and such to a sheet metal part or have the conversion from part to assembly be transparent to a user."

This would be great but I can see how it would be very difficult for any software to accomplish this.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the way to go. "create sheet-metal assemblies" even though in the current design there are no assembly components other than the base sheet-metal part. At least the option to add them is there and you won't have to redo your drawing's or try to replace a sheet-metal part with a sheet-metal assembly when you later need to add "PEM's" or other press in hardware to a sheet-metal part.

Dave McClinton

MCAD Sys. Admin.

McKesson Automation

724 741 7760

david.mcclinton@mckesson.com

[wfalco]

Yeah...having more swap-abilty all the way round would be a nice edge
for PTC.

[wfalco]

Helicoils is a good example for machined parts.

[TimMcLellan]

Drawing replace unrelated with the ability to map part dimensions automatically to component levels (dxx:xx) would be a GREAT enhancement.



Tim McLellan
Mobius Innovation and Development, Inc.

[ptc-5248439]

Another solution for PTC would be to get rid of separate part and assembly file types. Or simply enable part models to have a bill of material.
I am not suggesting “multi-body” parts where a single part model is used to define more than one solid part (as some other cad systems can do.) I am suggesting, though, that any part model can have a bill of material which would help with PDM. For instance, someone mentioned machined parts with helicoils. Or what about paint, grease, etc. It would be unnecessary for there to be two files for every part if these “bulk items” could be added to the part model. It is not like they are assembled with constraints. Of course, with the PEM example, the PEM could be assembled. But again, wouldn’t it be simpler if you could assemble the PEM to the part model and not create an assembly model just to do that? When checked-in to PDMLink, the corresponding WTPart would have an appropriate bill of material. (So we create one .prt and one WTpart instead of a .asm and a .prt and two WTParts.)

Just another thought….


Michael Mongilio
Engineering Applications Manager
ATK Space Systems, Beltsville, MD