That doesn't need to be broken into a bunch of subassemblies. Lately, I've been doing small electronic assemblies with a couple of circuit boards with a couple of plastic parts holding them. I then create a drawing of the sheetmetal assembly rather than the part because I am going to order the sheetmetal assembly. Sheetmetal parts that get hardware added each get their own subassembly. BUT, sometimes it is a lot easier to make a drawing of a subassembly than to create the display state and explode steps in the top level than to have created the subassembly. The fewer subassemblies, the fewer drawings I have to create. I usually have subassemblies lined up with manufacturing steps. It depends on the size of my assembly and logical breaks. The larger the product the more sub divided. You might have 4-5 people working on the spindle assy and so on. Even those S/A are typically broken down further so the "Spindle assy" might be "Auto tool", "Feed", "Spindle", "Spindle drive". S/A's are typically assigned to another person. Again as an example here we have a top level assy that no one checks out unless they are adding, changing etc the top level. S/A to split up work - When you have large design projects this is often the easiest method to work concurrantly. If the entire assembly is only 20-30 parts then making S/A's becomes not only unnessary but in many cases it adds time, difficultly and complexity that is not needed or helpful. Almost never had S/A save imported library items like a "Go"/"No-Go" handles. S/A all at top level - I used to do a whole lot of Automotive gages. We often look at the machine and break it into these S/A's before we even begin the design. For us it's "Spindle assy", "Guarding assy", "Base assembly" and so on. For family of parts it's then typically to follow the same format so then this becomes "the norm". Typically those S/A are dictated by other factors mentioned here. Typically the design is completed before part numbers are applied so S/A become a part number on the BOM. S/A for BOM - I see this as kind of a chicken or the egg issue. Designing in such a way that does not allow this essentially means you have limited ability to check function. Assemblies designed around those motions become imperative for ease and effectiveness. S/A for motion - If you're designing a machine that has 50 axii.axis's.whatever.you're going to have to check for clearances, motions, travels etc. At some point an assy becomes unwieldy and breaking down for better mating, smaller size, usability, design resources etc becomes necessary. S/A Efficient use of mates - I think this is merely a factor in some of the other decisions. S/A's as stocked part numbers - We have a product here that uses an assembly that we stock as the base for other products. If you're designing a basic fixture as a one man show the most effective and effecient approach is not going to be the same as if you're designing an airplane with 1000 other people which is not going to be the same as if you're designing the equipment to make the wing spar of that plane with 10 other people.Īt one time or another I have used all of the approaches above. subassemblies structured to split up the CAD work (1 user = 1 subassembly)Īll of the above and then some depending on product, design type, resources available blah, blah, blah.Īs with all things CAD I do not believe there is a "One size fits all" approach. all at one top level (no subassemblies) structured to create assembly instructions document assembly/subassembly structure according to the mfg/assy BOM document assembly structured to allow motion in the assembly subassemblies allow efficient use of mates How do you set up your assembly/subassembly structure?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |