In many companies with more traditional number systems in place, the drawing number and “part number” are shared.  The difference between the instances are often “dash” numbers added to the end of the unique identifying number.  For example, a drawing number would be 200345 and the part number for the item detailed in the drawing is 200345-001.  To add another flavor to the mix, variants of the part itself are often detailed on the same drawing.  200345-001 might represent the part with a blue paint applied and 200345-003 might represent a green painted part.  This no doubt can be handy in that changes to either part can be quickly made through a single drawing.  This makes a lot of sense when you have “families” of parts that are similar and the design of these parts are tied together.

When you take traditional approaches such as this and introduce the data into a PLM system, this is where things can get interesting.  The process I mentioned above has been in use in various forms at the company I work for for many years.  Currently I am working on defining how our SolidWorks data will be stored in our soon to be implemented PLM system.  SolidWorks Enterprise PDM (EPDM) will also play a role in this process, but will mainly be used as the MCAD data vault whose sole responsibility is to track the versions of the CAD data only.  One of the things I am interested to know from some of you our there is how you are doing this.  Our current train of thought would be to name the SolidWorks model (part or assembly) by the unique identifying number.  Examples would be 200345.sldprt and 200345.slddrw.  The variants (if used) would then be stored as configurations inside the Part or Assembly model.

In more traditional systems, a revision to the Drawing would be considered a revision to the part.  When you organize  your data simply from a CAD standpoint there are many situations where this would make sense.  A “side effect” of this though is that if you have variants for the model (i.e. 200345-001 & 200345-003), BOTH variants are often considered “revised” even if the change to the Drawing only effects one variant and not the other.  This is where the PLM system can add some capability in that it has the ability to track revisions of items, yet treat the CAD data as “reference” data used to build or manufacture a part.  Essentially, it can track the part itself and the CAD data for the part SEPARATELY.  In our example noted above, the PLM system can have separate entries for the variants (200345-001 & 200345-003).  If a change is made to 200345-003 (lets just say a color change in the paint) that doesn’t effect the 200345-001, then the CAD data (200345.sldprt and 200345.slddrw) would be revised with CAD revisions synced for both model and drawing.  The revision to the items (separately stored) in PLM does not have to be incremented for the part that did not change.  (200345-001 would still be at the original revision).  The upside to this is that handling the disposition of any parts in production or on the shelf is much easier in that you don’t have to make unnecessary revisions to components that have NOT changed.  The downside to this is that if someone picks up a drawing and sees a “Revision A” on the drawing, they can no longer assume that each variant (200345-001 & 200345-003) in the form of a final “part” is at the same revision.  In this case, the documentation has been revised but only one of the the two items in PLM have received a revision as a result to changes in the documentation.  Notation CAN however be put on the drawing to indicate this, but the biggest difference is that the PLM system will have to be the controlling authority on revisions of the component itself.   This is can be a big change for anyone that touches a component during the manufacturing process.  The biggest hurdle often is training people to separate items or “parts” from the documentation used to create them.  CAD data whether it is a 3D model or a drawing is still documentation used to create the final item.

So…after this long winded explanation…I get to one of the points of this post.  I’d like to hear how some of you have dealt with this when taking your data from the CAD/PDM world into the PLM world.  In particular, are you using configurations for part variations or do you treat variants as separate part files?  I’ve read where some companies get rid of variants altogether when using PLM.  (Personally, I think we would be giving up a lot of flexibility if we did this.)  I’ve even seen scenarios where CAD data is stored as a completely separate unique number altogether.  (Although it may sound foreign to some, I can see how this could work.)

So now…I turn it over to you.  I’d like to hear some of your experiences in this area if you have the time to share it.

Stay tuned…more to come!

No related posts.

The first thing I usually do when asked to verify dimensions of ANY purchased part is to check for a 3D model.  If there is a 3D model available, I usually double check a few dimentions on the supplied 2D Drawings.  Thankfully most industrial connector companies have finally seen the light and are making most of their product line available in 3D format.  This connector was made by Weidmuller.  For some reason, we haven’t used their products much in the past and I wasn’t really that familiar with their site or their product line.  I quickly found the connector in their online product catalog and was grateful to see a link to download a CAD model.  A screen popped up and I quickly discovered that the part was available in what seemed an almost endless list of 3D CAD formats.  Usually on purchased components, I prefer to download a Parasolid, STEP, or IGES model rather than a native SolidWorks model.  Afterall, if the model is detailed enough, you shouldn’t have to add or modify any features.  When you go this route you can cut down on some overhead which can be advantageous if the component will be part of a large assembly.  They had a model available in SolidWorks format, so since it was my first time on their site, I checked it out.  I filled out a my name, company name, and e-mail address and the model was emailed to me within a minute.  I usually prefer to download the model directly via a download link, but as long as it is sent quickly, this route works well too.

When I opened the zip file, I was surprised to see that there was NOT a SolidWorks part file present.  There was however a SolidWorks macro!  Of all the models I have downloaded in the past, this was the first time I have seen this approach.  I ran the macro from within SolidWorks and it created a pretty detailed feature based model!  As I mentioned earlier, if I was constructing a PCB assembly with this connector, I would probably opt for a neutral file that would result in a featureless model.  Since this is the first time I have seen this type of model download approach, I thought it was noteworthy.    Below is a screenshot of the model created by the macro.

I browsed around the Weidmuller site a bit more and it appears that their PCB components were available in the same way I described above.  Some of their other product lines such as terminal blocks and circuit breakers went a bit of a different route and just had a direct download for a STEP file.  I was pretty impressed with the site and have bookmarked it for future use.

As more and more companies are going 3D, a majority of industrial component suppliers are making their products available in 3D format.  It is finally becoming more the “norm” rather than the exception.  As an engineer selecting components for a design, I will almost ALWAYS go with a manufacturer who makes their products available via 3D download when compared head to head with a product from a company that DOESN’T offer 3D downloads.  (Assuming the products are equivalent of course.)  There is an ever growing list of manufacturers with 3D downloads at 3D Content Central, so these companies are becoming easier and easier to find.  I’d also like to mention a few other sites that we use often which are not listed on 3D Content Central.  Molex, AMP, & Deutsch top our list of common connector suppliers who offer 3D model downloads on most of their products.

On a slightly related note, I am looking forward to sharing more about custom PCB design in SolidWorks in my upcoming SolidWorks World 2009 presentation.  The presentation will outline the development of a custom PCB from start to finish.  Along the way, I’ll share some documentation methods for PCB layout so that you can communicate your design intent effectivly.  The presentation will also include methods of using the ECAD data once the board is through layout.  Methods show will be utilize Sketch Blocks, CircuitWorks Lite, and full blown CircuitWorks.

That’s all for now.  Stay tuned….more to come!

Related posts:

1. CB Model Pro – First Cut
2. Download and RENDER The Mach 4 Racer!
3. Model Mania & Design Contest Winners