If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Developing a way to layout your models can be daunting. It’s kind of like having shards of glass thrown at you by a very small man with beady eyes named Karl. A modeling methodology defines how you construct your models and keeps it consistent across the models and the company. For this reason alone, it’s pretty important that you develop one if you haven’t already.
If you’re working for a company that has been using SolidWorks for a while, you may have some procedures on how to go about modeling. However, if you’re starting from scratch or trying to develop a methodology, where do you start? This post gives three ways you can start to develop a methodology to get your models and your team organized while deflecting things people may throw at you.
Modeling Methodologies make my head hurt.
It shouldn’t, so before your head swells to disproportionate measures, lets talk. A methodology is just a big word for how you do stuff. Most are familiar with Bottom-up, mating parts into an assembly, and Top-Down, building parts in an assembly. A simple Bottom-up methodology may look like this attached PDF. As you can see, even for a simple bottom-up approach, there’s a bit of thought that can go into the process.
Bottom-up and Top-down are pretty typical methodologies, but is there something that could work better? Well, while those should be developed also, here are three unique approaches that may provide you with a solution to defining a better methodology for your team.
Bodies as Parts Methodology
Purpose:
To quickly define all parts in one file to develop concepts quickly and reduce the amount of filesMethod:
- Create all geometry in a part.
- When creating feature for another part uncheck Merge Results.
- Right click on Solid Bodies Folder, select Save Bodies and Create Assembly
What this does:
When you save the bodies as parts you get derived parts and an assembly that are still controlled by the part you created everything in. You can also set up templates so all your part properties are pre-defined.Disadvantage:
Unable to modify derived parts and assembly.
Sketches Driven Assemblies Methodology
Purpose:
To keep all definition in a single sketch in order to define interactions between components, reduce mates and automate design.Method:
- Create a Part or Assembly that contains only sketches.
- Put this into an assembly.
- Insert parts and define them using only the sketches.
What this does:
This is an approach to top-down that allows you to control everything from the sketch. If a part changes the other parts will not be affected. The sketch drives everything.Disadvantage:
Makes it difficult to create assemblies that move.
Import models methodology
Purpose:
To simplify component creation by using existing data to define weight, space requirements and interaction between components.Method:
- Import model
- Make simple configuration
- Add properties and weight
What this does:
This allows you to use someone else’s hard work to make your job easier. This can be used for purchased parts or legacy models from a different system. You can also export your models, import them and then do this to reduce file size, but of course you loose all your features.Disadvantage:
Makes it difficult to have multiple configurations.
What do I do next?
After you decide what methodology to use, here’s 5 things to do to bring a smile to your face and a sense of purpose to your team.
- Put it into a document
- Make a quickstep guide
- Control it with Revisions
- Distribute it to your team
- Make sure everyone understands it
Do you have other methodologies that have worked for you?
If you haven't already, consider subscribing to SolidSmack so you can easily receive updates when new articles are published or announcements are made.
Wow this sounds like a dynamite way to do something like a good sized project. However, I don’t have the foggiest idea of what it all meant. I’m sure it works great but I’m not working in a team effort. I’m a loner, retired and trying to teach SolidWorks if and when the chance comes up. Only beginners that is. Very nice ideas. I hope they help someone out there and maybe lots of people.
Richard, thanks for the honest comment. I’m not sure what it all means either sometimes
Really, though, I’ve found these to be helpful in both team and consultant environments. The idea behind the first two is to be able to make changes quickly. The first works well for small assemblies and the second works best for large assemblies (in my opinion)
The idea behind the last one is to not spend a lot of time when there’s existing models available. There’s been time when I’ll take a SolidWorks model that has been created somewhere else that I only need for reference, so I’ll save it as a parasolid (.x_t) file so it’s easier to use.
I’ll try to write some post that explains each of these in more detail. Thanks.
Josh - I am trying to figure out and digest what all you say here, but being new to Solidworks, I am not sure which is best for me. Or what is considered a LARGE assembly. I have started a project and I have the Model completed, however, I am not certain I drew it correctly. And due dates are looming for fabrication drawings. If you have some time, I would like to corresponde with you and get your opinion as to which approach would be best for me and what I should do with my first project (assuming I went down the wrong path).
BTW - This is the first tutorial of yours I have read, and I can already see I will be spending more time here soaking in all the expert info I can. Thanks!
J.D. - thanks. from the comments and emails I’ve gotten, it seems I threw out a lot all at once. I’m planning on breaking each down a bit in a future post.
SolidWorks sets thier default Large Assembly Mode (Tool, Options, Assemblies) at 500. You can change it, because this may be a lot if your parts are very complex or you’re working on an older computer system.
If you have some time before your deadline, we can look at improvements, otherwise I would use what you have for the time being.
I can help you go over your approach and modeling practice. just shoot me an email from the contact page.
I am a Biginer- In Sri Lanka
Thanks
This is a great way to organize parts, components, and assemblies. I am actually more of a beginner and was wondering what is the easiest way to add features/sketches to circular (i.e. cylindrical and spherical) surfaces. The only one I have found is by using the 3-D feature with parallel planes, but this seems incredibly tedious and inefficient.
Thanks!
Gerald, hi. Adding features/sketches to cylidrical or spherical surface is going to depend a little on what you’re doing. 3D sketches are an option, but you can also do some features or use surfaces to do some things. What in particular are you trying to do?
I have created a layout part and it drives other parts in an assembly.
I created a variable in the assembly called “thick” and link it to the part thickness dimension.
I then have to create an equation in the assembly for every thickness of each part. This will work.
I was wondering if there is a quicker and simpler way to “link” to create an equation in the assembly for every part.
I tried the link to value, but I seem to have difficulty linking the value externally.
Note: I’m using the “thicken” command and can’t create an external “extrude to surface” or other type of external reference.
I’ve done it before by defining a thickness in a layout sketch and linking the dimensions there. That way I don’t have to set use equations or run the risk of creating circular references between parts that could be referencing each others thickness. Sketch layout work real well for this because everything, for the most part, is controlled from a single location.
An example would be a wood box. each side is the same thickness.
-I create a layout sketch in an assembly that defines the size and thickness of each and link the ones I need to.
-I insert new parts into the assembly and use the layout sketch to create the wood panels.
If I need to change the size I go back to the layout sketch. If I need one to be a differeent thickness, I unlink it and change just that one.
I actually work with that guy Karl.