Material-based part numbers without using a family table

[JS_11714118]

Version: Windchill 12.0

My company has newly adopted Windchill as a PLM but has been using it for file storage/vaulting & has been using Creo since the proE days. We are moving towards incorporating the options modeler module & need to include material options with our corresponding part numbers in doing so. The current method we have been instructed to use is using a family table for materials & part numbers. This means that existing family tables are getting broken up for BOM purposes, despite being related parts. I would rather maintain links between structurally related parts & think there has to be a method we're not aware of (Windchill is new & the 1st PLM for everyone at the company, so we're all beginners). Is there a way to have materials & corresponding part numbers linked in base package Windchill+Creo without family tables?

My supervisor does not want to use nested family tables. WTParts might offer an option to have different materials usable in the options modeler without family tables, but that seemingly requires another module that I don't believe we have. Thank you very much for any help you can offer.

[RandyJones]

This may or may not be of help to you but new in Creo Parametric 12.4.1.0 and Windchill 13.1.1 is Engineering Materials in Windchill and the Material Server in Creo Parametric: "Material Management with Creo and Windchill"

https://support.ptc.com/help/creo/creo_pma/r12/usascii/#page/whats_new_pma/mbd_material_management.html

[JS_11714118]

Thank you very much for the reply!

If I am understanding correctly that the model item structure tab (1:59 in that page's video) would allow different names & part numbers to be set based on material, then this might be what I was looking for in a future software version.  We are currently running Creo 10.0 & Windchill 12.0 and it looks like this particular functionality isn't in those versions based on the support pages. I will see if management would be willing to update to a newer version, though we moved to C10/WC12.0 just a few months ago. Is there any Windchill 12.0 alternative that might offer similar functionality?

[joe_morton]

Something to explore is a "part-centric" approach. Our reseller, Tristar, has given several presentations about the concept. One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM1IIfduDbs

The general idea is that the WTPart is the central part of the design instead of the model or drawing. You can link a material specification document to your WTPart to define the material, as opposed to putting it on the drawing. So if you fully embrace that, it would let you do something like:

• WTPart 1 (material 1)
  • CAD Model A
  • Drawing A
  • Material Specification 1
• WTPart 2 (material 2)
  • CAD Model A [same as above, because the geometry is identical]
  • Drawing A [same as above, because the material is NOT called out here]
  • Material Specification 2

It's a big shift. We're only in the early phases of trying to adapt to it.

On the more technical side, there are multiple link types available between CAD Model and WTPart. There's the "owner" link that will drive the BOM by default if you use a CAD-driven WTPart structure. There's other links that still let you link the CAD to the WTPart.

So in the example above, WTPart 1 could be linked to CAD Model A with the Owner link. Then you could like WTPart 2 to CAD Model A using a Content link, for example.

There's a lot of potential benefits to this approach, but also a lot to weigh through for your particular business.

[JS_11714118]

Thank you for the suggestion. Based on that webinar, this sounds more extreme than what I'm looking for but entirely possible to implement this to a less extreme extent in practice. This makes it sound like WTParts are more like folders than intrinsically linked files to me, which leaves me concerned about how thoroughly integrated all related files in the WTPart are. A driving reason for the current practice is to have weight calculations bound at the part level for reference & to ensure that that calculation will always be available on the drawing. Would separate material specifications running off of the same design files still independently display mass property calculations? Specifically, if the drawing references the material specification that changes between WTParts, as you've described, would the drawing A contained within WTPart 1 & WTPart 2 properly show different calculations for weight? I would think it possible given that the same parameter would be called, but given that it is the 'same' drawing I am wary of files not communicating properly.