*** I apologive before hand for the length of this post, especially for it being my first ***
==============================================================================
Current Software
NX 8.5 integrated with Teamcenter 10.2
Teamcenter has mostly been used as a content management database with the ability to use engineering release workflows and engineering change notice workflows. Models did not drive any demand for physical parts. Oracle was used for creating BOMs seperate from the CAD database.
Impending Future Software (Within the next month)
NX 11 integrated with Teamcenter 11 (GloBus)
Teamcenter will be used more like it supposed to be used. Structure Manager will be used to create BOMs that planners will use to create demand. Initialy there will be an intermediate step of using an attachemnt with Oracle to hold us over until we bring SAP in that will work directly with Teamcenter. What models/drawings we have created will be used in the structure manager, and "reference parts" (not the correct wording as refernce parts are seen by structure manager) will be used for all other parts on the BOMs.
==============================================================================
The issue that I am stuggling with as we are moving towards having teamcenter drive the demand is that I would like to structure our models more like the BOMs are actually structured. I have ideas on how I think we should do it but there are some unknowns.
Today we create a Master Model for all of our customer arrangement drawings. This master model starts with a frame assembly placed in the middle of the "Master" and fixed. The frame model is a couple of layers deep itself to begin with. To complicated things we have a group that handles all of the BOMs for these frames but they do not have models of any of their assemblies. We have a mish mash of old legacy "dummy" parts that were created using standard BOMs back when UG was intorduced in I believe 1999. A lot of there are entire frame assemblies with their cylinder trains modeled in one part, they are not made up of component parts. Literal sketches and extrusions of parts that should be seperate components. We have in recent years made some assemblies but there are a lot of these older dummy models around.
Structure
XXXXX-A Master Model
- Frame Complete Assembly (Another Groups Scope with My groups items added)
- Assembled into Above: Frame Minimum Assembly (Another Groups Scope)
- Concrete Base or Skid Base
- Major Components from Suppliers Mated at Master Level (Vessels, Motors, consoles etc.,)
- Piping Models (Multiple systems)
- Lifting Hardware
Components are shifted to different layers and added to their reference sets.
Master Model Reference sets (Named for the arrangement drawings we create for customers)
- General Arrangement (Most of the Master Model is selected)
- Lifting Arrangement (Frame with lifting hardware, and components not being removed from frame)
- Parts Drive End (Frame, Motor, Interconnecting Components between the two)
- Coolant Piping (Small sub assemblies that mount to each cylinder, if there is scope manifold piping between these)
- Gas Piping (may be small spool pieces, up to complete manifolded piping)
Drawing Structure
The drawings for each of the above reference sets are set with a template part that is also a master model concept.
- XXXXX-A-001 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT/A ITEM MASTER
- XXXXX-A-001 GENERAL ARRANGMENT/A UG MASTER (Import XXXXX-A Master Model with reference sets)
- XXXXX-A-001_DWG GENERAL ARRANGEMENT/A UGPART (Import XXXXX-A-001 GERNERAL ARRANGEMENT/A)
- XXXXX-A-001 LIFTING ARRANGEMENT/A ITEM MASTER
- XXXXX-A-001 LIFTING ARRANGEMENT/A UGMASTER
- XXXXX-A-001_DWG LIFTING ARRANGEMENT/A UGPART
...and so on...
Workflow Current Practice vs. Proposed
The Master Model (XXXXX-A) is imported as a component into the General Arrangement UGMaster (XXXXX-A-001) layers are synchonized from the master down to the general arrangement ("master"). The General Arrangement Master is then added as a component in the General Arrangement UGPART DWG (XXXXX-A-001_DWG) file. Layers are synchonized down to the DWG file and the drafting is layed out....new views almost all of the time.
This is how it has historically been completed and I am thinking, and have thought in the past, that there is a redundant step in this process and that is the General Arrangement UGMASTER. I believe that we should probably be creating the XXXXX-A-001_DWG under the XXXXX-A and importing the master using the specific reference set and synching the layers down. Is this correct? If we don't use an intermediate Master Model will the Structure Manager load everything in the master to it?
Additonal Purchase/Manufactured Drawing Requirements and Stucturing Thoughts
The other issue that I am having is that the frame has oil piping connected to it, the cylinder have these small piping sub assemblies hooked to them. The frame itself and the cylinders themselves are required for running the routing to know that you have connected everything properly. With regards to proper structuring and creating BOMs, I know about using the properties command in the assembly navigator to make a part a refernce item and it disappears from the Teamcenter BOM, but we have a couple of competing philosophies on how the drawings for these piping arrangements should be created. The "Master Model" is not used in the process of making these piping assemblies but the frame assembly model that was mentioned above is used to create these, or just a single cylinder assembly model (that would normally be assembled into the "Frame Complete Assemby" model) will be used for the coolant piping that mates to that. I have typically assembled the "Frame Assembly (Another Groups Scope)" or Cylinder Assembly into a UGMASTER part fixed it, ran my piping, created a reference set that is Piping, and one that is Drawing. Imported the UGASTER lets call it XXXXX-OIL-LEVEL-PIPING into the XXXXX-OIL-LEVEL-PIPING_DWG using the drawing reference set, created the drawing that would be used to purcahse or manufacture the piping and mated the XXXXX-OIL-LEVEL-PIPING into the "Frame Complete Assembly (Another Groups Scope with My groups items added)" with the solid reference set. It is the belief that others that this "Frame Assembly (Another Groups Scope)" should not be in the XXXXX-OIL-LEVEL-PIPING UGMASTER when the piping is finished. That it should either be deleted out completey or that the component should be drug into the XXXXX-OIL-LEVEL-PIPING_DWG file so that it could be shown on the drawing in phantom but not be in the Model Structure that is being mated into the upper assemblies.
Going to the Structure Manager controlling ordering of parts we have started discussing how we should apporach building our models differently and I am haing a difficult time wrapping my head around what the best answer is. I still feel that the Master Model apporach that I use is correct and there shouldn't be actual components in the DWG file, only an added assembly for drawings of assemblies. Also it is beng discussed that when we move to changing how we structure that we will still create our master model but when we are done assembling it we will drag and drop the piping sub-assembly into each system, esentially losing all mating and positioning of components to other components.
Conclusion
Ultimatley we dont, if we have a model named for what our frame group normally calls for, we don't want to duplicate demand for an entire seperate frame but a lot of our components positioning rely on the associativity to other groups components. I can't seem to find a good example online of how other people handle large assemblies, and the drawings that are created from those assemblies let alone throwing the ordering of material with structure manager into the mix. If anyone has any insight to even a portion of this post it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you