Skip to main content
T
ToddSwartz10-Marble
10-Marble
February 16, 2012
Question

Using one CAD model to represent multiple parts in Windchill (Colors, Material etc)

  • February 16, 2012
  • 3 replies
  • 4441 views

Our Engineering/Manufacturing group uses different part numbers to represent different colors etc. As an example P1 may be White, P2 is Black etc.

To date, we have used a single CAD model with tabulation on the drawing to say use this CAD model/drawing, but make it X color.

We are moving off of a home grown BOM system into Windchill 10 and we are trying to determine options for how to handle this one-to-many situation since it creates challenges in pushing CAD to BOM.

Has anyone else been through this?

How are others handling different part colors? Family tables, just a duplicate model (hopefully not)?

Thanks

    3 replies

    K
    KshetrabasiMaha1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    February 16, 2012

    Hi

    We have not faced such problem( I feel lucky)

    But there is an option in Windchill -Replacement Part

    Although I have not used this option; But there is option in windchill to make BOM with replacement Parts

    (I am not sure whether this will help you or not)

    Regards

    K.Mahanta

    M
    MartinBach12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    February 22, 2012

    We are in the same situation, have to manage BOM's with color variants.

    We use family tables instances from CAD to represent each color in BOM's. The drawing is created from the generic with a repeat region table showing information from the family table of each instance.

    For each color variant we make a WTPart with one instance and the drawing associated.

    I have never looked into the Replacement Part option, but I do not think it will solve the one-to-many situation with the CAD model.

    Regards

    Martin

    T
    ToddSwartz10-MarbleAuthor
    10-Marble
    February 22, 2012

    Thanks for the reply Martin, I have been looking down the same path with each instance getting a different color. This solves the issue with the one-to-many relationship and allows an ‘owner’ link to the parts/cad that helps in driving the wtpart structure from CAD.

    The only downside I have seen so far is…Unless PTC has something that I am not aware of, all new part creation will need to be done from the CAD side first. Meaning, if I have a wtpart structure (with associated CAD) with all white parts and I want to create a structure with black parts, I have to go to each cad file and add a new instance for the color at the start, then push to a wtpart.

    If I make a separate, but same geometry, CAD model, I can create a wtpart and CAD structure from the original structure by doing a ‘save as’ with all dependencies and giving each a new part number/cad file.

    Trying to find the best of both worlds and evaluating all the options, which there are a lot of. I am also looking at a merge of the main cad file into the other cad file that would allow changes to feed, without having to redo the same change to all 5 cad parts, etc. I am sure I will find some drawbacks there to weigh against. There never seems to be a perfect answer.

    Thanks again

    M
    MartinBach12-Amethyst
    12-Amethyst
    February 22, 2012

    The combination of using family tables and letting CAD assemblies drive the Part structure give a couple of downsides more, as you have to configure family tables on several structure levels to get it right. Also that changing the structure can only be done by CAD designers, which is not optimal in our R&D groups.

    On the other hand, choosing not to let CAD drive the structure means that you loose control and won't get your visualizations right - at least in Windchill 9.1, in Windchill 10 everything is possible according to PTC.

    Making "save as" will give you as many CAD files to update as you have copied if you have to make changes.

    Let me know if you find a perfect way to manage this.

    K
    Karen1-Visitor
    1-Visitor
    March 16, 2012

    This problem is one that has been a problem for me. As far as I can tell, there is only one way around it.

    We use a "base part" which does not contain a "-01" or "A" or any sort of suffix that denotes what is special about each variant part. It is simply "123-456" and it has a general description of the part without naming anything specific that can change in each style of part (i.e. length, color, etc.). This Part has a CAD record associated to it. Since we work with ACAD and only use 2D, our differences are listed in charts that say "-01 = Blue" and "-02 = Red". That may change the rules for those with stronger CAD programs.

    Then I've created separate Part records which end in "-01", "-02".

    ALL of these Part records are then Associated to the CAD record by going to the CAD record and Associating "123-456", "123-456-01", and "123-456-02".

    When an ECO is called for to change the CAD drawing, all of the parts come up when Collecting Objects within the Change Activity.

    Each individual Part record can also have its specific metadata and structuring which is customized to it.

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement