Arrangement vs reference set 1

[dtharrett]

I have a main assembly with 3 subs:
Sub A is the base machine frame
Sub B is an interchangable tool set
Sub C is another interchangeable tool set
Sub B & C will never be on the machine at the same time (they occupy the same space).

Currently I have the main assembly set with two Arrangements:
Arrangement 1 has Sub C suppressed (the other two un-suppressed)
Arrangement 2 has Sub B suppressed (the other two un-suppressed)

Others in the office seem to think this should be done with reference sets (I am not very familiar with reference sets and the others are not very familiar with using arrangements in this fashon).

So, I wanted to pose the question here. Which method (arragements or reference sets) is appropriate for this task and why? Or are there other methods that would be even better.

FYI, We are running NX7.5/TC 8.0

Thanks!

 

[JohnRBaker]

In order to make this work with Reference Sets, you would have to create two Reference Sets INSIDE the Main Assembly file. Since we do NOT recommend creating Reference Sets IN an Assembly file, this would obviously NOT be the way to go.

What you have described so far, using Arrangements, should work fine, and long term it will be much easier to manage and update your product designs when needed.

Reference Sets were designed to FILTER out things like construction geometry (curves, surfaces, datums, points, etc.) which is not needed when working with the finished part as a Component in an Assembly. Technically, life will generally be much easier if the ONLY Reference Sets found in an Assembly were those applied to the lowest piece part level, the actual parts where the geometric models of your product were created, NOT where they are being assembled. That is what Arrangements were designed to do.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[dtharrett]

Thanks John,very informative responce!

 

[cowski]

There is an advantage to arrangements if you are doing drawings. You will be able to place a view of each arrangement on the same drawing; you will not have this level of control with reference sets.

 

[Toost]

It can be done using ref sets defined inside the subs, but it would be a little confusing.
If we compare the method to arrangements, it gets clearer.(?)
Arrangement A+B ( C suppressed)
Ref set method : then Sub C should use reference set "Empty"
- or a , in Sub C, manually defined ref set called "A+B" which is Empty ( nothing selected)
Sub C should also contain a ref set "A+C" which equals "entire part"

The reverse should then be defined in the Sub B.

This way one could select both Sub B and Sub C and select reference set "A+B" or "A+C" and it would have a similar result to the arrangements.

But, if you would ask me for a recommendation, i would say Arrangements.


The same

 

[dtharrett]

Looking for a little more advice regarding the arrangement option.

I have my main assembly with arrangement A & B

For my assembly drawing, I inserted a base view and selected Arragement A. Then I added another base view and selected Arrangement B.

After inserting my parts list, I see that I have the main machine as qty 1, Tool set A as qty 1 but tool set B does not show up on the BOM (the assembly navigator shows it as suppressed).

I would like for my BOM to be lined to the drawing (i.e. no manual entry). It there aw ay to get the views I have with the desired BOM?

 

[JohnRBaker]

The Parts List note is ONLY linked to the Master Part file that the drawing was created for. Any additional 'parts' which are added the Assembly Navigator as the result of something like adding a view based on an alternative arrangement or when adding a view of a totally different part file, these are NOT included (by design) in the Parts List note.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[dtharrett]

John,
That makes sense. So, if I wanted an upper level drawing with 1 frame and one tool plate A & 1 tool plate B how would you suggest this be layed out?

 

[dtharrett]

Thinking about this a little more, maybe I should make a 3rd arragement with all 3 subs in it and show one of the tooling plates to the side (kind of exploded).

Not sure if there are special tools or techniques to creating an exploted view??

 

[JohnRBaker]

If you wish to create an exploded view, it must be defined in the Drawing file itself (it can't be inherited from a lower-level assembly), but if you're going to be making a 3rd Arrangement anyway, just position the additional components in their so-called 'exploded' positions (the Components in an Arrangements can be both CONTENT and/or POSITION specific).

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.