AnsweredAssumed Answered

Best Workflow for Large Assemblies: Multi-Body Part/Weldment inserted into assembly vs. Multi-Body Part broke out into parts using various master modeling methods?

Question asked by Michael Bechtolt on Feb 5, 2018
Latest reply on Feb 12, 2018 by Elmar Klammer

Hello Everyone!

 

I'm relatively new to this whole forum posting thing and to the Soildworks community, so any comments on how to properly format a discussion would be greatly appreciated!

 

As the title implied, I'm looking for some advise on the best modeling workflow for my current situation.

I recently started working for a company that is trying to covert their product lines from auto-cad to Solidworks.

The company sells custom Concrete Batching Plants. These Plants consist of (large/multiple) Structural/Sheet metal sub-assemblies.

Each major sub-assembly consists of some bent sheet metal parts that need to fit together a certain way and usually at odd angles. This has caused the need to use top-down modeling. We are in the process of trying to come up best modeling approach to model each major sub-assembly. All of our end product is custom, but we do have a base product that we work from and each major sub-assembly can have multiple "standard options". When focusing on just one major sub-assembly, we would like to to set up these options up so they can be driven by one model or have multiple assemblies set up (for each option/configuration) and be able to drive a part change through all the standard options.

 

Here is a picture of the plant as a whole and a picture of a major sub-component for reference.LP327S  10790-L.JPGBatcher.png

We have quickly found out that regular in-context modeling was not going to work for us because we could not use the same in-context components in different assemblies.

 

We are now considering two different methods for modeling a "major component" and its "standard options".

 

Method 1: model a multi-body part around shared geometry of a master solid body or sketch. Then, take multi-body part/weldment and insert into an assembly to add any stock components/hardware that is also welded to form a "welded assembly". Lastly, take the "welded assembly" make another assembly to add on bolt-on components and hardware. Standard options could then be made as configurations or copy-tree'd assemblies that share the same multi-body weldment.

 

Or

 

Method 2: Model any components (of the weldment) that require shared geometry as a multi-body part around a master solid body/sketch. Then derive out bodies as parts and make my assemblies. I have tried the various methods for deriving out my bodies as parts. The best way I have been able to do this is to create my master solid body/sketch and save it be itself as a part. Then, to create each part, i first insert the master solid part and make my part body, then use delete/keep to remove the master solid and just keep the derived body. Here is a picture for reference:

bent sheet.png

 

Both methods seem to be pretty stable at this major sub-component level. We are torn as to which is going to be better for the Top-level Plant assembly (all major sub-component/assembly in one assembly). Also, we are unsure to which method will be better when we need to make a change to a major sub-component and have that change carried out through all of its "Standard options" whether they are configuration or separate assemblies for each standard option.

 

Hopefully I wrote this in a way that you guys can understand my delima! and i look forward to any feedback that you guys can give me!

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

Outcomes