NX6 - Thoughts on managing different assembly configurations

[wiengines]

NX6 Native file system.
The company that I work for makes small one and two cylinder engines for use in everything from lawn mowers to industrial equipment.

Currently, we manage our engines assemblies using a “master assembly” approach. That is, we will have a master assembly for each engine model. These assemblies are what I would describe as “over loaded”. We will add all of the components for that engine model to this master assembly and then use a combination of reference sets and layering to actually manage the different engine configurations. This has been historically done this way because it was felt that it would be easier to manage one large assembly as opposed to multiple assemblies.

Also, the master assembly is basically a collection of parts, with no assembly structure such as sub-assemblies (to my dismay!).

From this master assembly, we will create two different types of drawings. One type is what we call an “engineering reference” drawing, which is actually used by the assembly line so that the operators know what components to add to the engine. These drawings may or may not have part numbers called out on them. In addition, the drawings often do not follow the actual assembly sequence as the engine progresses down the assembly line.

The second type of drawing is basically used to convey to the customers what the overall size of the engine is. These drawings typically show a basic engine configuration with the standard air cleaner, muffler, etc.
Currently, work is being done to create a system for the assembly lines so that the operator can scan a barcode and an exploded view of the engine at that particular assembly sequence will pop up on his screen, along with part numbers called out.

In addition, more and more customers are asking for a unique drawing for every engine configuration that they buy from us. The issue is some of our engine models can have a lot of different configurations. One in particular has over 800 unique configurations that we currently build. Granted, some of the configurations are as simple as just a different decal, but others could be quite different than what we have drawings for today.

So, my questions are the following:
1) How are others managing different configurations from a CAD point of view?
2) Anybody else out there have experience with providing exploded views to the shop floor for these different configurations?
3) Should we bite the bullet and start thinking about making separate assemblies for each different configuration? Most of my background is from the auto industry, and that is generally how we managed our assemblies.
4) Could assembly sequencing and/or arrangements be useful to us?

We are migrating to a managed system, but corporate edict says that we will be using Windchill instead of Teamcenter. The rest of the company already uses PTC products across the board, so we are heading that direction as well, except that we may stay on NX.


Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division

 

[JohnRBaker]

Have you looked at using Arrangements? From what you have described I would suspect that Arrangements might be your best approach since it can handle both alternative content and position of Components. For example, for exploded configurations, you could use something like Sequencing to define an assembly/disassembly Sequence and whenever you get to a point where you might like to save a 'configuration' like what you see at that step in the Sequence, you can with a single button push, create a new Arrangement which would capture the positions and locations of the Components. When it comes time to add the top level assembly to some product model, you can select whichever Arrangement you wish to use. Any Assembly file can contain Arrangements which means that you have Arrangements inside of Arrangements via the use of sub-Assemblies.

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.

 

[wiengines]

John,

Thanks for the response. Arrangements are something that I am studying for possible use.

I do have a question though. If I create a drawing of an assembly that has arrangements in it, I am able to select the arrangement that I want to use for my views (which is very nice!) However, when I add a parts list to the drawing, all of the components of the assembly are included in the parts list regardless of whether they are used in the arrangement that I specified to use during view creation.

Is there a easy way to get the parts list to show just what is in that particular arrangement?

Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division

 

[teookie]

What he said.

Arrangements are cool, just started using them myself. To get them to work, you need to select "apply to used" whenever you move a component, and then save the part before you change arrangements and/or move it again. This way, the part (component, really) will remember it's position based on your current arrangement.

The suppression of components based on current arrangement is handled via the "edit suppression state" button. This was confusing to me at first.

Give arrangements a look via this forum and the help file. They may prove helpful.

 

[JohnRBaker]

What you need to do is NOT duplicate your Components in the 'Default' Arrangement since that it what gets used to generate the Parts List in your drawing. Use Arrangements for ALL of the variations since that way the 'Default' Arrangement only represents a single 'configuration' and then set it up so that each 'configuration' has it's own unique Arrangement.

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.

 

[SiW979]

Ideally, if you are mirgating to a PLM system, I would hang fire or even ask them upfront if the system is able to mangage variant configuration. baasically this will allow you to configure a product based on alist of rules that you write and apply. Think of it as how you buy a car, in 8 or 9 clicks of mouse your there. E.g.

1 - What model of car are do you want? Picking a certain model will discard all the options that are not relevant to that vehicle.

2. What engine do you want? Picking say a Diesel engine will obviously discount all the petrol (gas) options.

3. What trim options do you want?.......

You get the idea, eventually you have configured an entire 100% build in a very short time via a filtration process.

However the more complex and divers your product range (like ours with over 350 models and 1000's of varients) the more complicated it is to set up the configuration.

You will hear phrases like 150% BoM and 600% BoM. 150% BoM is all the components and options which are related to a model range for example and 600% BoM is all the components you use throughout your organisation. I think that you should be quite successful using variant configuration as it sounds as though you have a nice concise product group.




Best regards

Simon NX4.0.4.2 MP10 - TCEng 9.1.3.6.c - (NX7.5 native)

http://www.jcb.com

Life shouldn't be measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of times when it's taken away...

 

[wiengines]

John,

Thanks, that worked perfect!

Simon,

Your post captured exactly what I feel our direction needs to be. The trick will be to convince others

Thanks again!

Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division

 

[wiengines]

Ok, I am slowly getting others to see the power of using arrangments. Now I am trying to answer some questions that others have, and one question that I don't have an answer for is if I have a component with different reference sets in it, can I have each arrangment refer to a different reference set for that particular component?

Typically, these components would be things like rubber hoses. We would have one reference set showing the hose as we recieve it, and then several additional reference sets of the hose modeled in the installed position, depending on the engine that it is used on.

Of course, this question also makes me wonder if this approach that we are using is the best approach?

Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division

 

[SiW979]

You won't handle hoses working like that I'm afraid, there are alternatives, but reference sets are not the way. We use over 9000 different hydraulic hoses and have yet to make the switch to using the mechanical routing tool which allows the creation of deformable hoses but we have developed a method which works very well using part families for hose creation, and variable positioning. It would be very difficult to try and explain it on here though.




Best regards

Simon NX4.0.4.2 MP10 - TCEng 9.1.3.6.c - (NX7.5 native)

http://www.jcb.com

Life shouldn't be measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the number of times when it's taken away...

 

[wiengines]

I was afraid that was the answer! I wish we had the mechanical routing module, but I don't see management coughing up the money to purchase it.

I'm going to play around with some different ideas to see what would work.

Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division

 

[JohnRBaker]

If you have a limited number of configurations for the hose, Family Table Parts maybe the best way to go, where each family member represents a specific use-case for the hose. An alternative would be look at deformable components, which does NOT require the Routing license.

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.

 

[JonSelby]

Hi Chris,
I used to work for Kohler Mira in the UK where we used NX with Teamcenter. That was 2 years ago and naturally things could well have changed.

Regarding Windchill, we did have some user licenses allocated for collaborative projects with Wisconsin. From my brief/limited dabble, it appeared to be a really well structured project tool, although I would suggest its design was formed from a desire to manage the project work-flow rather than handle CAD data (not that that's a bad thing per-se).

With my current employer, we are gearing up for a change to Teamcenter Unified (as I type, my PC is being 'patched' in anticipation for a change after Christmas). We don't really use the full PLM potential of Teamcenter at the moment but that may change.

Regarding Teamcenter vs. Windchill, I'm sure you would get some great input from the CAE guys at Mira. In my opinion they are really switched on and I've got a lot of time for them.
Try dropping Caine Williams a line - he's a great guy and I'm sure would be willing to give you some time for the benefit of the corporate mother-ship!

Best-of-luck,

ps. Just checked out your website - you've got some cracking products there - enough to get that 'engineers heart' beating of a morning ;-)

Jon S

Medical Design Engineer - Glos. UK
NX 6.0.4.3 / TCE V10.0.3.8.6

 

[wiengines]

John Baker - I'm going to look at both family tables and deformable parts to see what best suits our needs. Once I get some time, I will probably post some samples to get some feedback.

Jon Selby,

Thanks for the contact @ Mira! I will definitally drop him a line.

Chris T.
Project Design Analyst
Kohler Co. Engine Division