«

»

Dec
11

Working with large assemblies

Categories:

First, an apology. I’ve been absolutely slammed at work lately and just haven’t been able to put the time aside to write. I’m sorry.

On to the subject of this post, though the title may be a bit misleading. I know that there are people out there who are creating 20-, 30-, even 100,000 part assemblies. Mine isn’t that big; It’s hovering around 3900 parts +/-. However, it also encompasses 300,000 square feet. It also includes large amounts of imported data. One drawing, with only six sheets in it, is already at 30MB and isn’t close to being done. I think I’m rambling a bit now…

How does one go about managing all this data in SolidWorks? Carefully. When the project started, we sat down and looked at the overall scope. I was tasked with setting up templates, work flow and management of the overall assembly. Here’s where the meat of this post starts. When you’re going to be dealing with large assemblies, you can’t just start throwing parts in willy-nilly. You’ll end up regretting it. Take some time and think about how you can break it into more easily digestible chunks. Even these chunks can often be broken down. Create your sub-assemblies independently. (There are those who will argue that in-context relationships are no big deal. Personally, I avoid them whenever possible. I’ve been bitten in the ass one too many times.) Combine your sub-assemblies into assemblies. Combine these assemblies into another assembly. This isn’t an exact science, though. How small you break things down and how you decide to combine them depend on the overall size of the design, as well as the design itself. When all is said and done, you want as few mates in your upper-level assembly as possible. (Right now mine has 17.)

By utilizing sub-assemblies, and sub-sub-assemblies, it’ll make it easier to have multiple people working on the project together. It was because of this that we were able to assemble the building as quickly as we did, much to the delight of the customer. Sub-assemblies work well when it comes to creating configurations and drawings, too. A subject for another post perhaps?

Large assemblies can be quite manageable, so long as you spend some time thinking about it.   

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Blogosphere News
  • LinkedIn
  • Pownce
  • StumbleUpon

Related Posts

  • No Related Post

This post has no tag

  • http://www.MikesCadBlog.com Mike Puclett

    Jeff,
    You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world.

  • http://www.MikesCadBlog.com Mike Puclett

    Jeff,
    You certainly are pushing the envelope by designing buildings in Solidworks. Not too many people are, so it must be quite a task to manage. Too bad your not able to share the design with the world.

  • SWPriest

    Jeff,
    I think this post should be developed furthermore. I’m working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management.
    Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don’t know if this is the best way, so I’m asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances.
    Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area?

  • SWPriest

    Jeff,
    I think this post should be developed furthermore. I’m working with some teams across the world on the same project, and from my experience the very first and important thing is the layout (or the skeleton for Pro/E users). We spent few days (for a six-eight months project) thinking of how is the best to split the main assembly in functional areas and sub-assemblies. Then we work on setting the work-flow and project management.
    Many of us are ex-Pro/E users, so we borrowed some ideas for skeletons : for example we use 2 or 3 sketches, linked each-other by relations and/or equations, as layouts , together with axes, planes and origins. I don’t know if this is the best way, so I’m asking if you use all of these and in what circumstances.
    Another problem working with several teams is the CAD culture. Despite common best practice methodology, common start-parts, common templates, common checklists and checking tools, common specifications, there always will be some differences between models, assemblies and drawings made by different teams. I know that is normal, but adding all of these to the same level is time consuming. Have you some suggestions in this area?

  • http://profile.typekey.com/jmirisola/ Jeff Mirisola

    SWPriest,
    Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies.
    Jeff

  • http://profile.typekey.com/jmirisola/ Jeff Mirisola

    SWPriest,
    Your comments bring up quite a few good points. Rather than trying to address them here, watch for another post on large assemblies.
    Jeff

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline