We work with Siemens TeamCenter .Because of this while we design the 3D model , another person can prepare the 2D drawing. We save time.( called Simultaneous Engineering or Integrated Product Development )
Now, I have a critic problem : while the first person A design the 3D model , we want another person B to add the PMI on this 3D model. The problem is that the second person (B) after adding the PMI on the 3D model , he/she cannot save this part because the person A has the modifying rights (check in , check out).
Do you think that is correct what I said ?
If so, is there any solution for this problem ? Could you please share it with me ?
That is a problem, because alot of customer will may use inherit PMI instead of 2d drafing in the future.
What do you think about part module?
If two persons can work on same part at a time with part module. Same technic should be use for PMI.
Siemens PLM Community>NX Design>NX Design Knowledge Base>NX Quick Tips - Part Module
This is one question I've always had about PMI (but no one seems to answer...)
With "master model' concept drawing, you can "parallel process".
With PMI (unless you make a "single part" assembly) you can't.
Although (in theory) you need a lot less dimensions (with PMI, the model "speaks for itself"), for the dimensions you do need, the engineer & "drafting" people (if different people) can't do it at the same time.
Production: NX10.0.3.5 MP5 + patch/TC11.2
I'd rather be e-steemed than e-diseaseled
I have the same issue at my company. We have one team of designers who are responsible to create 3D models and a separate team responsible for the 2D drawing. We have gone down the road of a "single part assembly" to manage the two different types of data, but this solution is a bit clunky. I'm interested to hear feedback from other users who have overcome this problem. Does Seimens have any recommendations?
This is the traditional way of using master model. The drafting of the 2d drawing can begin when the model is about 85 percent complete. The drawing will update after reopening. The problem here is that the drafter needs to know where the datums are and what are the critical tolerances so conversation has to happen because the PMI was not in the model to describe this.
The PMI model based definition is a different work method. To be efficient, the responsible designer who is doing the modeling, thereby most likely deciding on datums and tolerances, should be adding the PMI as they work. When the design is completed, so is the minimum required PMI to define critical features. If you work with the premise of standard global tolerances you only have to define what would differ from the standard.
If you have one discipline doing design ( an engineer) and another doing detail documentation (a drafter) then there could be a hand-off by locking the part at a numeric revision. The second person rolls the revision to take ownership and complete the PMI defintion. This rolling of revisions when ownership changes will also afford you history of who did what and when.
The perfect world would be where the one responsible person does it all. The "drafting" of a 2D drawing (if needed) now becomes a practice of adding only the MBD views with PMI to the drawing and inheriting the PMI. There isn't any "drafting" being completed in the drawing anymore.
I think this is an excellent topic for discussion. Kudo's to Ed!
I would pose the question to those whose companies have the strategy to keep the modeling and associated Tolerancing and Datum Selection as separate workflows the following:
Which activity is more cognizant of the Design requirements? Dimensioning per ASME Y14.5 isn't a disassociated process from the Design Functional Requirements/Relationships as is may have been approached in the distant past before GD&T became prevalent and the ASME Standards started to take shape.
If you refer to the ASME Y14.5 Standard, your notice subtle yet distinct references which guide you as an Engineer that the selection of Datums and application of associated tolerances are inextricably tied to Design Intent, Functional Relationships, Mating Interfaces for the Design than how old school 2D drafting drawing communication traditionaly was implemented.
See sections of the ASME Y14.5-2009 Standard:
FOREWARD, 3rd paragraph
Basically, the Y14.5 Standard reinforces the concept that Datums, Tolerances, and the associated application of Feature Control Frames necessitates understanding the Design Intent and Functional Characteristics in order to perform the decision making process of applying GD&T to a Product Definition to meet the Functional Requirements.
PMI and MBD are the tools to help achieve those goals, which implies that we must/should change our traditional workflow approaches.
I agree that this is an interesting area for discussion.
At my company, the designer responsible for the 3D model and the engineer responsible for the 2D annotations are equal partners in the successful development of the product. The 2D engineer is a specialist in the application of GD&T and is responsible to develop a datum strategy, to calculate and apply feature control frames, and to identify and document critical characteristics. He gives input to the 3D designer (for example, the size of a clearance hole) so that, upon release, the product will meet it's functional requirements.
My company's drawings currently do not include any dimensions, but contain only datums, feature control frames, and so on. As such, I have not seen much benefit from 3D PMI.
In addition, because of this division of labor, parallel work steams (GD&T application as distinct from CAD design) are critical for us.