29 Replies Latest reply on Feb 19, 2019 3:23 AM by Rob Edwards

    Features to not be machined till later

    Rob Edwards

      Hi Everyone

       

      I'm currently working on panelling job and need an efficient/safe way to differentiate between features that should be done in the shop or on-site.

      I just wondered if anyone has any ideas as to the best way to go about it.

      Ideally I'd like to just make the change in one place.. probably setting a custom property?

      ..and then have a comment in the cutlist and a note on the drawing. Also be nice to suppress the feature or it will combine with the other items in the cutlist.

      Seems feasible but I don't really have too much time to mess around with it.

      Any suggestions would be very welcome.

      The top assembly is multiple configurations of a sub containing multiple multi-body parts and a few extra multibody parts at the top level.

      The features will be applied to some bodies in some parts in some configurations... if that makes sense

      Here's an example.

      Just a simple groove.

       

       

      Thanks for looking

        • Re: Features to not be machined till later
          Dennis Dohogne

          Rob, my first thought is to use configurations.  If that doesn't really suit your needs then perhaps making the on-site machined features a different color and grouping the Shop-made and On-Site features into folders will work for you.

          • Re: Features to not be machined till later
            ömür tokman

            if I understand it correctly.

            Just an idea.

            2019-02-16_22-50-19.png

            • Re: Features to not be machined till later
              Deepak Gupta

              Rob Edwards wrote:

               

              ..and then have a comment in the cutlist and a note on the drawing. Also be nice to suppress the feature or it will combine with the other items in the cutlist.

              May a onsite note (like we do in welding with the flag symbol which means on site welding)

              • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                Paul Salvador

                Hello Rob,.. when I read this, it makes me think of Casting-Machine or Rough-Finish parts.. and it depends.. for simple to med additions.. configs,.. for "a lot" of additional features another sldprt is created using "Insert Part" (rough.sldprt)... where your notes for the Rough.sldprt would refer to the Finish.sldprt file using Insert Part (rough sldprt).

                • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                  Glenn Schroeder

                  I'll add my vote for using configurations to manage this, but, like Nadia, I never use derived configurations.  Configurations can get confusing enough without adding another layer of complexity.

                  • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                    John Stoltzfus

                    My first question would be....

                     

                    Are these grooves being machined before or after assembly??

                      • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                        Rob Edwards

                        John Stoltzfus wrote:

                         

                        My first question would be....

                         

                        Are these grooves being machined before or after assembly??

                        Hi John

                        I used the groove as an example, it could be a long mitre or a simple butt joint that get's scribed in on site.

                        Where possible we would do as much as we can in the workshop before any assembly.  I reckon it takes about 5 times as long on site than in the workshop!

                        Sometimes the site cuts will have to be done on a fully assembled piece, but in the example of the panelling I'm talking about it will be delivered disassembled and put together in the room.  The groove would be added during this re-assembly after final cut to fit.

                      • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                        S. Casale

                        Model is via configurations, as others have mentioned.

                         

                        We have processes where we have parts which have helical inserts added to them and we still consider there use as a part (not assembly). The last sheet of the drawing shows the part in part explosion. Controlled by configurations.

                         

                        Part in Part modeling would be beneficially used if additional features need be added (weldments and etc.).

                        • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                          Dan Pihlaja

                          Personally, I tend to separate things.  We do things like this all the time.

                          We have different operations that leave the parts in different machining states.

                           

                          Use configurations, yes.  Create configurations in steps.

                          Step 1: first machining process

                          Step 2: 2nd machining process.

                          etc...

                           

                          Then, if you are creating drawings, create a drawing for each one.  Or, at the very least create a page on the drawing for each one.

                          Putting all the things that are going to be machined in separate steps all in one page is very confusing.

                           

                          Attached is a SW 2017 example of one of our cathodes.   You will see that I have added each step to a separate sheet of the drawing.  This makes it easy to see the differences and nicely separates the steps.

                          • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                            Rob Edwards

                            Thanks everyone

                            We've been re-working this today (I didn't even check the forum once!) and made a good start.

                            We're hoping to configure our profiles themselves to achieve this.

                            Here's a snip of a drawing we showed the client.  The features to be done on site will mostly be the where anything meets, especially the end corners

                            Unless we decide to rip out our configs into separate files I think we're stuck with derived configs like it or not.

                            This is the assembly structure we used for the concept..  each section is already a configuration.

                            We haven't set up the correct details yet, but have added derived configs to all our profiles, and then will insert them part in part.

                            Hopefully this leaves me the option to make each 'section' it's own file (If it blows up) but still be able to change everything from this one SSP.

                             

                            I'm pretty scared TBH

                              • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                John Stoltzfus

                                The reason I asked when you'll be doing the actual detail is basically where you could show it...  Here if two or three pcs get glued together making a block of wood to be machined later, I show the individual raw material parts as a rectangle pc and the Assembly is shown the parts cut, but this information is not fed back into the part file.   Now if the actual work is where we would machine those blocks prior to glueing then that's when I show the parts individually detailed...  I know everybody tends to do it the easy way, but the easy way for us is to follow the exact part construction path in SW as on the Shop Floor.  That is the only way you'll be consistent with your information etc...

                              • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                Dennis Dohogne

                                Rob,

                                Your work is in the area of carpentry/construction and mine is in the area machine design.  After reading the responses in this thread I would like to suggest using Part-in-Part or Insert ==> Part for all the different steps where a new/different operation is performed.

                                 

                                In my case I use this all the time over configurations for the simple reason that it is MUCH more robust and foolproof than using configurations (and I love and use configurations all the time.)  An example in my case is the following:

                                1. Part1 is an investment cast part.

                                2. Part 2 is a lathe machining made from the casting.  It has as its first feature Part1 and in this case all the subsequent features are revolved cuts.

                                3. Part3 is the 3-axis milled features performed after the lathe operations.  It has as its first feature Part2, the turned operations.

                                Separate drawings are made for each of these Parts, which also tend to be simpler since they only need to dimension the features for that part's operations (and maybe a few reference dims to the previous operations).

                                 

                                This really works well for when we are doing all the operations in-house.  These intermediate part and drawing files are really very valuable for the manufacturing engineering and different machining cells.  We of course still have a final drawing for the finished part with all the features dimensioned.

                                 

                                Yes, all of this can be done in one part file using configurations.  HOWEVER, doing this with configurations it is so easy to make a change to something that affects another configuration when we did not want it to.  That is the danger in trying to do the progressive operations with configurations.  By using Insert ==> Part the beginning stock for each operation is easily separated and stands alone.  You cannot make a change in Part3, the milling operations, that affect the casting nor the lathe features.  However, any change made to an upstream part is reflected in the downstream versions.

                                  • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                    Dan Pihlaja

                                    Dennis Dohogne wrote:

                                     

                                    Rob,

                                    Your work is in the area of carpentry/construction and mine is in the area machine design. After reading the responses in this thread I would like to suggest using Part-in-Part or Insert ==> Part for all the different steps where a new/different operation is performed.

                                     

                                    In my case I use this all the time over configurations for the simple reason that it is MUCH more robust and foolproof than using configurations (and I love and use configurations all the time.) An example in my case is the following:

                                    1. Part1 is an investment cast part.

                                    2. Part 2 is a lathe machining made from the casting. It has as its first feature Part1 and in this case all the subsequent features are revolved cuts.

                                    3. Part3 is the 3-axis milled features performed after the lathe operations. It has as its first feature Part2, the turned operations.

                                    Separate drawings are made for each of these Parts, which also tend to be simpler since they only need to dimension the features for that part's operations (and maybe a few reference dims to the previous operations).

                                     

                                    This really works well for when we are doing all the operations in-house. These intermediate part and drawing files are really very valuable for the manufacturing engineering and different machining cells. We of course still have a final drawing for the finished part with all the features dimensioned.

                                     

                                    Yes, all of this can be done in one part file using configurations. HOWEVER, doing this with configurations it is so easy to make a change to something that affects another configuration when we did not want it to. That is the danger in trying to do the progressive operations with configurations. By using Insert ==> Part the beginning stock for each operation is easily separated and stands alone. You cannot make a change in Part3, the milling operations, that affect the casting nor the lathe features. However, any change made to an upstream part is reflected in the downstream versions.

                                    We have things very similar to this as well.  Our customer parts are done this way. (obviously, I can't share any of those).

                                    Edit:

                                    The only drawback to this method is that, if you decide to change the order of events, you almost have to start over.

                                    In the use case of configurations, you can potentially reorder the features and drop them into different folders, then redo the suppression states.

                                    I think that both cases have their uses.  It just depends on how often you might need to reorder things (hopefully none....but things have hit us like this before)

                                    • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                      Rob Edwards

                                      Dennis Dohogne wrote:

                                       

                                      Rob,

                                      Your work is in the area of carpentry/construction and mine is in the area machine design. After reading the responses in this thread I would like to suggest using Part-in-Part or Insert ==> Part for all the different steps where a new/different operation is performed.

                                       

                                      In my case I use this all the time over configurations for the simple reason that it is MUCH more robust and foolproof than using configurations (and I love and use configurations all the time.) An example in my case is the following:

                                      1. Part1 is an investment cast part.

                                      2. Part 2 is a lathe machining made from the casting. It has as its first feature Part1 and in this case all the subsequent features are revolved cuts.

                                      3. Part3 is the 3-axis milled features performed after the lathe operations. It has as its first feature Part2, the turned operations.

                                      Separate drawings are made for each of these Parts, which also tend to be simpler since they only need to dimension the features for that part's operations (and maybe a few reference dims to the previous operations).

                                       

                                      This really works well for when we are doing all the operations in-house. These intermediate part and drawing files are really very valuable for the manufacturing engineering and different machining cells. We of course still have a final drawing for the finished part with all the features dimensioned.

                                       

                                      Yes, all of this can be done in one part file using configurations. HOWEVER, doing this with configurations it is so easy to make a change to something that affects another configuration when we did not want it to. That is the danger in trying to do the progressive operations with configurations. By using Insert ==> Part the beginning stock for each operation is easily separated and stands alone. You cannot make a change in Part3, the milling operations, that affect the casting nor the lathe features. However, any change made to an upstream part is reflected in the downstream versions.

                                      Thanks Dennis

                                      I really like this idea.  It would allow me to really nail down the workshop process.  In particular the order of operations makes a massive difference in the efficient production of the job.

                                      I've been wracking my brains overnight how I should organise it and I have a tenuous glimmer this morning.

                                      I'm still unsure how to handle patterns.  But doing it this way does make more sense as the rails width number and spacing can be calculated before the mortises are cut.

                                      As it stands I have 11 multibody parts in my assembly

                                      Am I right in thinking that I can continue to use this setup to make my Part1's.

                                      Would I have a new Assembly for each Layer?

                                      Sorry I don't really have the time to write this up properly...  gotta start work

                                      Thanks again

                                    • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                      Ken Maren

                                      I loathe configurations.  I find them too difficult for the average user to control.   Odds are stacked against you that you are going to change something you didn't mean to change, possibly screwing up a whole lot of downstream files and manufactured parts.  So I am going to give an alternate method.   I would model the manufactured part as one part number, then start a new part with a job site part number and use insert part for a derived part.   Now add the job site features for that file.   It might mean more files, but it's going to keep things separate which in turn, in my opinion, will keep things more manageable.  

                                       

                                      This way you never have to worry if you are making changes to "this configuration", "all configurations or "these configurations.  As an admin, nothing terrifies me more than when a user asks for help with a file with configurations and I ask, "Did you make the changes to... this, all or these..." and the answer is "I don't know" followed up with, "How do you do that?"  

                                      • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                        Ken Maren

                                        PDM.  Even if I was a one-man shop I wouldn't work in SolidWorks without PDM.  Trying to remember where used, etc. by myself...   I don't trust myself. 

                                        • Re: Features to not be machined till later
                                          Alex Lachance

                                          Hey Rob,


                                          The way I work is features that need to be done in the shop are done on the part and features that need to be made on-site are done in the assembly where the part is installed. Of course, it all depends on the complexity of your need. Configurations could be one way to go if it's a single body being modified. If it's bodies being added to bodies then you could perhaps unmerge them and have display states to show each state the part is being modified.

                                           

                                          I think you'd need to be more precise for your needs if you'd like people to expand on some of the ways it could be achieved.