Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Suggested techniques for documenting assembly modifications? 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

mloew

Automotive
Apr 3, 2002
1,073
All,

I am working on a project where we will be making major changes to an existing assembly (a real one) and would like to document and control the required changes with Pro/E. I may have a reasonably complete Pro/E assembly of the real thing. Changes will be things like removing components, relocating components, cutting off lengths of parts, making new holes, etc.

I can easily just make a new assembly of what the final assembly might look like, but this will not communicate the Work Instructions to make the changes. Just to be clear, I have a handle on how to do the modeling; I just do not have a clear strategy for how to architect the model to document the required changes. I am thinking of using assembly cuts for the new hole patterns and cut-offs, perhaps BMX features to move components, etc. Can a family table be of use here? Other suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

hai MLoew,
as u said u can use family table for different instances of assembly.to document the assembly with the changes u done(replacing components)use add model option in the drawing menu to get the different instances in a single sheet of drawing
note:if my answer is not meets you.plz tell me.
regards,
prakash
 
Hi Matthew

We here have a format that seems to work for us. We (anyone can) write an ECP (engineering change proposal) which describes the changes to be made, then a weekly meeting of ECP group (elders) agrees to, and offers any changes that the proposal may have over looked. The Drawing is then updated. The drawing format has a revision block in the upper right hand corner to list the changes from one rev to the next, also referencing the ecp # in the Rev Block

We have purchased a drafting book we call it the bible, from It has everything in it, things like abbreviations, symbols, and how to control revisions.

Thanks

Tofflemire
 
Thank you for your replies. I still don't think I have what I need just yet.

Prakash,

I will give this a try. What information is there maintained in Pro/E that will signal the differences in the Family Table? How can this be displayed in the drawing?


Tofflemire,

The ECP process is working in reverse here. I know what the changes will be and what the model will look like, although I have not modeled them yet. I want the information to be maintained in the Pro/E modeling hierarchy, not just text in a revision block. Also, this is not a change to the existing assembly; it is a modification of an assembly that will become a unique assembly number so there is no formal ECP protocol for this effort.



Thanks again to you both. I am looking forward to getting to where I think I need to be with your assistance! :)


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Hi Matthew

I have a couple of questions.
Are you asking how to add different instances to the family table, which is what I think you are asking or are you asking about seeing history which leads me to the next question.
Are you Intralink, this controls history.

If you are asking how to set up different instances
I think Prakash has answer your question, you can create a new family table instance, you can also name this instance the new part number in the family table is you wish. You add columns to the family table that will be different from one instance to another (turn on/off or suppress objects). Then you can create your new drawing and place the new instance down to show, and drive your Bill of Materials if you show BOM's on drawings.
You can also add comments to the family table to explain what you are doing, for you in the future or for other users that may open up at a later date.

Just remember that you will bring all the other family table info with you into your new Higher level Assemblies.

Do I understand you question or am I out in left field??

Thanks
Tofflemire
 
Tofflemire,

Thank you for the reply.

I am using Intralink, and know how to use family tables. I am looking for the mechanism to have the design intent of replacing or deleting components driven from a Pro/E operation (an instance of a family table). Simply replacing a component or deleting one does not generate a "trail" the models will just be different. I want to be able to document the changes with something other than text in a note. In the drawing for the modified assembly, what information is available to be documented on the changes? For example, an assembly cut will have dimensions I can show on the print. What "tags" are there that will be able to display "component A replaced by component B" or "component C deleted"?

Also, it was suggested to me to use the interchange assembly functionality. I will play around with this, any clues on this topic?

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Hi Matthew

I ment no harm in explaining family tables to you, I needed more info understand your question.

This is great question you propose, I guess I would like to know the answer to this as well, I do alot of multi sheet drawings with variations and rely on my memory to what has changed, but a list or Tags/flags would be nice.


I'll shut up now and wait for others to add their valuable info

Thanks

Tofflemire
 
Tofflemire,

No harm done, indeed. I am sorry that I was not able to initially explain my situation. I will keep searching for techniques.

Thank you again for your contributions. I am sure an answer will come up.



Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
A family table is great tool, and it works in many situations. I think you can use one, with instances for the top-level assembly, using different instances for the parts from that assembly, to show the differences between the initial and the final assembly. For removing parts it’s easy because you just don’t have to show the component in the family table. For parts that change, you can have for example in your initial assembly a part named “part_1”, and in the instance assembly showing the changes, you should have an instance of “part_1” named for example “part_1_with cut” (if there’s a cut added to the part), or any suggestive names depending of what changes you’re going to do for each part. Practically for the second instance of the assembly (the changed one), you’ll have different instances of the components, each of them showing the changes.
Using hole patterns and cut-offs in assembly mode, will not show these features in the parts.
When you go to your next rev. for your drawing you have to have anyway some notes either on your drawing, ECN, or whatever you use for releasing drawings. Also, you can attach 3D notes to your assembly, and turn them on and off as needed.
I think I already said things already said, but I'm in a big hurry right now.

im4cad
Pro Design Services, Inc.
 
Matthew,

Is the assembly an item whose entire design is controlled by your company, or are you making modifications to a purchased or salvageded unit? How likely is it that you will make additional copies of this assembly? If you did build additional units, would they also be modified from existing ones, or would they be built to the current configuration from the ground up? I think that the answer s to these questions will determine the modelling and drawing requirements for this assembly.

Andy
 
Andy,

Very good questions. I hope this helps.

Q: Is the assembly an item whose entire design is controlled by your company, or are you making modifications to a purchased or salvaged unit?
A: Yes, the final assembly is controlled by my company. In fact, the reference assembly may well be (re)created by me to include new skeleton functionality.

Q: How likely is it that you will make additional copies of this assembly?
A: Not very likely, this is a one off for a special project. I am willing to make some compromises to the architecture of the two assemblies (original and extra-crispy) to drive the work instructions for this project. It would be nice if the system is robust enough to have general applicability, however.

Q: If you did build additional units, would they also be modified from existing ones, or would they be built to the current configuration from the ground up?
A: Future builds or variants would likely be constructed from drawings generated from a model of parts dedicated to this variation.

Thank you for your input. I am looking forward to your ideas.

Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
All,

Prompted by Andy’s questions, and my answers, I did some more thinking about this. It seems to me that two major options exist:

1) Two assemblies are unique and represent the assemblies, as they need to be. That is, the new model can stand by itself and be used later to make the drawings to make this assembly from scratch. To capture the design intent of making the modifications to the original assembly for the problem I have now, use a “collector” assembly with both assemblies in it and add a skeleton part and other features to document the changes.
2) Somehow use BMX features, Pro/Program, etc. to force the changes for a new model based on the original.

Basically the two approaches represent a post-documented procedure and a pre-documented procedure, respectively. Any thoughts or experiences on how to make this work now?

Thanks again to all those who contribute.


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
Matthew,

As I see it you have two options:

1) Create an altered item drawing which would only define the modifications that you would like made to the assembly. For the most part only added, deleted, or relocated components would need to be noted on the drawing, as well as added holes, cuts, etc. Components in their previous locations, or deleted components should be shown, but their display should be set to phantom transparent and their current status noted (eg prior bracket location, deleted motor). A family table or simplified rep could be used to control this assembly. It would have to contain three states: new, old and both. "Both" would be displayed on the drawing and would include all added and deleted components, and duplicates of repositioned components.

2) Create a model and complete drawing of the assembly in its current configuration. Check these into Pro/I for historical records. Revise the assembly and drawing to the new configuration. Document modifications to the assembly using a change description in the revision block on the drawing.

Since this is a one of a kind item you could use option 1. This would probably be quicker and clearer for the people doing the work. However, method 2 would more completely define the entire assembly, and would be more useful if you have to make other modifications in the future, or if a second unit is ever built.

Andy
 
Hi Matthew and Andy

I’m back, but just to say that I gave Andy a star, he nailed it.

Andy you did a great job understanding the problem and solving it. The hardest problem to conveying the solution to others is using words, but I understand you answer.

Again this is my opinion; Matthew will be the real judge

Thanks

Tofflemire
 
Andy,

I think your first solution is the way to go. I gave you a star as well.

I will be trying this out over the next few weeks and report my progress back to this thread.

One item still remains of interest to me, however. Is there an elegant way to have a component in an assembly replaced by another component with the original still shown in the model tree? BMX can change dimensions based on analysis features in such a way that the original dimensions are intact if you roll back in the model tree? Can a combination of BMX and Pro/Program, perhaps, do this for swapping components?

Thanks again to all that contributed.


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
 
I too have a similar problem. When I update drawings, how can I know what changed, and get back to the original. I have been changing the revision level of the parts and drawings in intralink. I don't think that this will allow me to get to the originals or will it. It sounds like Tofflemire's method of ECP is most relvant in my case, but without all of the meetings for approvals. I would like to be able to keep a record directly in Intralink of my changes.

Jcam
 
hello mloew,
((((MLoew (Automotive) May 5, 2003
Thank you for your replies. I still don't think I have what I need just yet.

Prakash,

I will give this a try. What information is there maintained in Pro/E that will signal the differences in the Family Table? How can this be displayed in the drawing?)))

use add model option in the drawing to show the different instances in the drawing,
reg,
prakash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor