Revision description for MBDs 1

[halfshaft]

I am on a program in which all engineering is defined through MBD.
We are now beginning to revise some detail models.
I can find no concrete guidance on where the revision description should reside.
We are using CATIA V5, and the customer does have a Revision Description geo-set which allows for description in their seed model.
However, we are creating an annotation capture that is also used to list revision details.
I have reviewed ASME Y14.41-2003 and can find nothing in the standard that addresses this issue.
Thoughts?

Thank you

 

[pmarc]

Have you read paragraph 3.4 of Y14.41-2003?

 

[halfshaft]

Thanks pmarc.
Right there, big as day.
I knew I would risk feeling like an idiot when I posted this.

 

[pmarc]

Glad I could help, halfshaft.

Actually I would not like to close the thread as I am really interested in any kind of opinions of other folks about their experience in implementing and working with Model Based Definition (MBD) approach at their workplace.

MBD is considered to be "a future" in a technical documentation management, eventually expecting to supercede classical 2D-drawing approach. Some of the companies have already switched to MBD, if not fully then at least partially. Have you guys had any chance to deal with it? What are the most important advantages and/or disadvantages of MBD? What prerequisites are required before starting to implement MBD at a company - apart of having proper software? Any feedback is really welcomed.

Thanks in advance!

 

[halfshaft]

I can tell you that the program I am on is totally MBD based; from detail through installation.
My personal opinion, and one shared by many others on this program, is that MBD works pretty well for details when done correctly and with some forethought.
Some assemblies are fine being defined by MBDs, but once you get to more complex assemblies and installations, I REALLY miss drawings.
I just find it is sometimes difficult to really understand "context" when working with MBDs at the assembly and installation level.
And I am particularly concerned when the engineering hits the factory floor, where, in most cases, manufacturing has even less experience working with MBDs.
Furthermore, I have seen what I would call "shortcuts" on some elements of MBDs. An example is lack of section cuts and auxillary views on the MBD, because annotation and dimensions SHOULD BE linked to the appropriate solid or related surface.
I guess that is my initial opinion, and like everyone else, will be forced to someday to accept that the world of drawings might be gone forever.

 

[ewh]

I guess I don't understand how the lack of section cuts or auxillary views can be considered shortcuts. The model is there for the user to interrogate as he sees fit, whether it be rotating the model or using a dynamic section cut; the tools should be there available to use.
My understanding of the original standard is that it is more of a guide for the software developers to use before full MBD can be implemented, and I have seen impressive progress made so far.
I have yet to work with full MBD parts, but have worked with files where the only drawing included is the equivalent of a cover sheet with notes and approval history on it, and the model containing all other information. These were files of composite parts that tended to be quite complex. As far as working with full assemblies or installations, I have yet to experience that.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[KENAT]

We don't have an integrated supply chain so can't do pure MBD as we don't share a compatible CAD interface with all parties.

However, for complex molded parts and the odd machined part etc. we've done the hybrid drawing model approach - not without problems.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​