Parts and assemblies

Discussion in 'Pro/Engineer & Creo Elements/Pro' started by Peter, Aug 17, 2006.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    I have created several weldments made of different PIECES and each
    weldment becomes a single part. Then the parts are included in an
    Assembly.
    Now that it has come time to manufacture the unit, the company wants
    drawings of each PIECE that went to make up each PART (weldment). They
    didn't want this originally.
    Is there any way to convert a multi piece PART into an assembly, so
    that I can have each piece become a seperate PART?
    Or is there a way to save each piece of the weldment as separate PARTS,
    without redrawing everything from scratch again?

    Fingers crossed and thanks
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 17, 2006
    #1
  2. Peter

    Jeff Howard Guest

    Can't help with an answer (don't think there's a good one) but thought it might
    help if we were to determine if a PIECE is a part Feature and in essence you
    want to know if there's a way to turn the individual features into parts or
    otherwise be able to discretely detail each feature somehow (?).
     
    Jeff Howard, Aug 17, 2006
    #2
  3. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Hi Jeff,
    A PIECE is a part of a PART.
    it was decided early on that each complete weldment would be created as
    a single part.
    They didn't want individual parts to make up each weldment.
    To make this clearer, if a weldment consists of several different
    lengths of square tube, welded into a shape, then the complete weldment
    would be the part and each square tube piece would be named pieces.
    The original idea was to submit the idea for approval and individual
    drawings were not needed. However, it has now been decided to use the
    design and I was hoping to make my life easier by using the existing
    models instead of creating everything from the beginning.
    There are several weldments and each contains quite a few pieces.
    I don't imagine that it is possible, but I was hoping that someone has
    some ideas that can save me some time.
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Peter

    David Janes Guest

    When I worked at Caterpillar, their tool design department used a LOT of weldments
    for making machining fixtures. Weldment pieces were parts that became a welded
    component. The weldment, treated "like" a part was actually a Pro/e assembly.
    Inside another assembly, everything becomes a component, so a "part's" origins as
    part or assembly, was of no concern to Pro/e. The weldment components were named
    FX304-a, FX304-b, ....-c, ....-d, etc. With the dash numbers, the assembly could
    be treated as a part ~ IOW, as a weldment. Yet, the welded pieces could each, for
    the sake of a cut table, be two sizes. With a feature added to represent material
    removed for squaring, you'd get the rough cut size; with that feature suppressed,
    you'd be able to assemble the part, in a configuration, as if it had been
    machined. In the end, you got an assembly, with weldments of squared blocks; and
    you got a cut table, with actual pieces of rough cut stock sizes, to show on a
    weldment BOM. It was pretty neat and very effective in eliminating all the
    ridiculous contortions you're going through. Part FEATURES into Parts!?! Copy
    Geoms? or some other contortions? Don't be silly, just bite the bullet and model
    the crap. The only thing at stake here is the vaunted reputation of whatever
    shortsighted dumbass came up with this scheme in the first place. Purportedly,
    he's got too bigga head to admit he made a horrible mistake and say it's time to
    "rethink the old strategy". Hopefully, I'm way off base, 180 off the mark and
    owing someone an apology. Maybe I've just seen too much dumbass crap in my life.
    Or maybe I just lived long enough to tell the tale.
     
    David Janes, Aug 18, 2006
    #4
  5. Peter

    Peter Guest

    I guess that the answer to my original question is "NO, you will have
    to start again".
    I suppose that I knew that from the start. I was hoping for a short cut
    but life (especially life with Proe) isn't like that. Anyway, thanks
    for the replies.
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 18, 2006
    #5
  6. Peter

    Jeff Howard Guest

    Guess we know now who made the decision to model it as it was done now, huh?
    With any parametric / relational / history based modeler every decision you make
    has consequences either limiting or enabling downstream operations. It's the
    blessing and the bane of the systems. Learn them, learn to think ahead and use
    them to your advantage.

    Don't know if this'll help ya: Feature by Feature edit the section sketch
    definition and save it to disk with a descriptive name. When you go to create
    the new piece parts bring in the saved sections.

    David's allusion to some sorta Copy Geom wouldn't be that bad. Place each
    weldment into an assy, create new parts, project geometry, copy surfs, ..., etc.
    You could even drive the new assy from the original part representation if you
    do it right.

    If it 'twere me I'd just do it over. Practice makes perfect and at this point
    you don't want things to get too complicated.
     
    Jeff Howard, Aug 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Peter

    philandeux Guest

    That's often how it goes with shortcuts.
    One shortcut got you in trouble and now
    you're looking for another to get you out.
    Never ending process. <G>
     
    philandeux, Aug 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Peter

    David Janes Guest

    Well, Jeff, since you opened Pandora's box, there's always the Master Model
    approach.
    * In part mode, figure out how you want your model carved up into parts;
    * Add the geometry to facilitate that (usually consists of trimming surfaces)
    * Trim away the unwanted surfaces, solidify them and save as Part_A
    * Move the insert arrow up, pretend nothing happened previously and repeat for
    Part_B (it may be nessary to create duplicate trimming surfaces where geometry is
    adjacent and contiguous.)

    I've done this a few times, not the "easy way", and for good or ill, it retains a
    common CSsys for each of the parts. If you'd started this process in an assembly,
    they'd still be there, in their original positions, married to that CSsys, no
    other assembly constraints required/allowed. And that is precisely their
    limitation as parts: they are slaves of the assembly and nothing exists ouside of
    their dependency to the original, master part. So, yeah, I could have said that
    Pro/e provides these "workarounds" (read as "Pro/e is the Capital of the Kludge
    Nation, the Sun of the Kludge Ethos, the Moon of the Kludge Soul, the Heart of the
    Kludge Psychology and the Backbone of the Kludge Movement: Long Live the Kludge,
    May Your Fortunes Ever Wane!"). Not the simple remedy to splitting a single part
    into four.
    I second the motion. Why I didn't get into this in the first place.
     
    David Janes, Aug 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Peter

    KP Guest

    The master part suggestion is not a bad one. You could also try two other
    ways.

    1) Make multiple copies of the parts you want to seperate giving each one a
    different name. Then, either supress or cut (with a new feature) off the
    unwanted sections. Once this is done you can assemble them all back
    together in an assembly using only the default location.

    2) Take the drawings you hopefully used for the proposal and make them into
    line drawings. The best way to do this is probably to do a "save as" to
    either .DXF or .DWG format and then import it back into Pro/Detail. Once
    this is done you can use the drawing to create a Pro/Notebook, skeleton
    model, parts and assemblies.

    Although aproach 2 might take longer even than any of the other suggestions
    (including starting from skratch) it might still be a good idea to use
    Pro/Notebook anyway to help with future changes to the welded assemblies.
    The way I look at it, if your customer changed how he wanted to do things
    once what are the odds he won't change his mind again.

    Good Luck.
     
    KP, Aug 26, 2006
    #9
  10. Peter

    Peter Guest

    The original question resulted in several interesting options but as
    most of you suggested, I started from scratch. It wasn't (quite) as
    painful as I first imagined.
    Thanks for the input.
    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 26, 2006
    #10
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.