Detailed Assemblies in Teamcenter?

[HJKnight]

Hi,

The design office I work for is currently in a transition to Teamcenter, and i have come across a couple of annoyances.

Previously I was able to create detailed assemblies of components, like sheet metal parts that are riveted together. I am now being told that because Teamcenter will see 2 separate files (sheet metal & assembly) then i will need to create 2 drawings, one to shape the sheet metal, and another to add the rivets.

I am wondering if this is the case with everyone else, or is there another way to get around this but keeping configuration control?

Thanks,

Harry

 

[swertel]

What version of Teamcenter?
What version of Solid Edge?

Are you talking about creating multi-detail drawings? That should still be possible within Teamcenter, but it depends on how the TC Admin created your data model. When creating the data model, they may not have created the means to have multiple design items relate to a single drawing item. They probably expected a 1:1 relationship.

I'm assuming you have always created three separate models: 1) sheet metal, 2) rivet, 3) assembly; and then created a single drawing detailing all the components, then you can still do this in Teamcenter but the TC Admin must have created the Design item type along with the Drawing item type and Part item type. I may be able to offer more information once I know a bit more about your specific implementation.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[HJKnight]

We are using Teamcenter 10 and ST6

Yes that is pretty much what I would of done before, the drawing would be made from the assembly model and I would detail the part and show the position of the rivets and anchor nuts (for example).

We have the same issue with creating labels, I am being told that each label needs to have its own part number and drawing. which is causing an issue with our manufacturing department.

Im not entirely sure how the teamcenter has been set up but I think you are right in saying that its a 1:1 relationship.

 

[swertel]

The ST6 SEEC doesn't take advantage of the multi-field key introduced in TC 10.1 You need at least ST7 for that, and ST8 now that it's out would be even better. That would be one way you can redefine your data model to get to where you want to go.

The model I'm trying to set up, and haven't been able to yet for reasons outside of my control, is to use the PART or ITEM item type to define the configuration item and use the DESIGN item type to store Solid Edge models. If it works as documented, the actual "part numbers" are defined by the PART or ITEM and therefore I can create as many DESIGN models as I want and still have them be identified by the PART or ITEM.

I apologize if that is confusing, but it's the nature of the vocabulary of Teamcenter.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[bshand]

Scott,
"When creating the data model, they may not have created the means to have multiple design items relate to a single drawing item"
Isn't that in the nature of an assembly drawing? An assy draft can have a view of the whole assy or any part of it, no? Or are you saying that some TC arrangements might not allow you to browse in the view wizard for parts either as part of the assy tree or outside of it?

I don't know the inner settings of TC but we used to do multi-detail drafts for weldment type assemblies at a place I worked last year which used TC.
Bruce

 

[swertel]

For every Solid Edge model, there needs to be a corresponding Teamcenter Item and Item Revision. Whether that item is a PART item type, DRAWING item type, or DESIGN item type depends on how the data model was created for your specific instance of Teamcenter. Regardless of the item type, there is only a 1:1 relationship between a Solid Edge file and a Teamcenter Item, although there is a way to have both a Solid Edge model file and drawing file associated with a single Teamcenter item, but it's not recommended.

SEEC automatically creates the BOM View in Teamcenter for PART or DESIGN item types when that item contains a Solid Edge assembly file. When you create a DRAWING from that Solid Edge assembly (and corresponding Teamcenter PART Item and Item Revision that has the assembly dataset in it), the Solid Edge parts list should match the Teamcenter BOM view.

So far, you should have
1) a Solid Edge assembly,
2) a Solid Edge sheet metal part,
3) a Solid Edge part (for the rivet),
and no drawings.

NOTE: The following is purely theoretical because I'm still running TC 8.3. I'm going on memory for the changes to TC, SE, and SEEC.

CASE 1:
If your data model is setup so both the drawing and the model exist in the same item, then I believe the drawing could only reference the model from within the same item. Creating an "external" link to another TC item caused misbehavior. This is a direct 1:1 relationship.

CASE 2:
If each of the 3 models are contained within PART item types, you should be able to create a DRAWING item type and do exactly as you have done in the past. Create the SE drawing from the assembly model. Each additional view of the sheet metal part alone MUST be created from the assembly model with the other parts of the assembly hidden. Depending on your data model, the DRAWING number will not be the same as the ASSEMBLY number. This maintains the 1:1 relationship.

CASE 3:
With a change to SEEC (TC 10.1 and ST7 or ST8), Teamcenter can now create the spaghetti links from a drawing to multiple models. Therefore, you could potentially have a DRAWING item type along with the 3 PART item types already defined (above) and create viewports directly to those other item revisions and not create views of the assembly with parts hidden. This creates a Many:1 relationship. The problem with this is dealing with revision rules. If you revise the sheet metal part, but not the assembly, what revision is the drawing?

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[bshand]

Scott,
I'm not sure I can follow you and what you say seems to be at odds with my experience with SE and TC. That includes SE versions prior to ST6.
The only thing I can confirm is the problem with parts in an assembly drawing and corresponding revs. I believe we rev'd the drawing if a part or parts changed but I'm not totally sure. But I believe we tracked where a part was detailed using where-used in TC. It's a little foggy now. Not sure what you mean by "external link".

 

[swertel]

Sorry. I really need to diagram what's going on. Not feasible in an online forum.

But I'll try to quickly redefine external link.
In this specific reference, when an assembly is placed on a drawing first, you can create views of the component parts by placing more views of the assembly and hiding everything else. This creates more "internal" links between the drawing and the assembly model.
If you were to create a drawing view and use the Browse... option to grab the component model itself, this would create a link "external" from the existing drawing-assembly link. The end drawing would look the same, but contain a spaghetti mess of links depending on the size of the assembly and the number of components in the assembly being detailed. ST8 has new functionality that handles this better.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[bshand]

OK. We just used the browse function typically. I'm not sure you could pick from the assy in the view wizard pre-ST7 but as there is no way to go back and see I rely on my hazy memory.
But it just seems if the assy item has to carry bom information then the links would already be there.

 

[swertel]

I finally found my old notes.

Notice on page 10, we're still testing to see if this is a valid relationship -- the one you are specifically asking about.
Notice on the last page, you can't have 2 SE models in the same TC Item, but you can have a drawing and model within the same Item (not shown).

I hope this clears a few things up that I was trying to explain above.
With 10.1 and ST8, the way the a drawing relates to assemblies and the constituent components changes, so you may not have to worry if page 10 is a valid relationship. Our 10.1 development server isn't configured yet and our ST8 license hasn't been deployed. And it's summer!; half the company is out on vacation at any given time. It'll be months before we're in a position to test.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[bshand]

"I hope this clears a few things up that I was trying to explain above."
Yeah, not so much . For me anyway.