BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
(OP)
Hello,
My company is currently consolidating scattered CAD data into SolidWorks WPDM.
With this, arises an opportunity to organize the Feature Trees into multi-level BoMs which export into our ERP system.
There is hardware that bolts one sub-assembly to another.
Question is, is it appropriate for this hardware to appear at the top-level assembly? Or should the hardware 'belong' to one of the subassemblies?
The complication is that we require assembly documents for sub-assemblies, which would then require descriptions of features that are out of scope.
Thanks,
scrototee
My company is currently consolidating scattered CAD data into SolidWorks WPDM.
With this, arises an opportunity to organize the Feature Trees into multi-level BoMs which export into our ERP system.
There is hardware that bolts one sub-assembly to another.
Question is, is it appropriate for this hardware to appear at the top-level assembly? Or should the hardware 'belong' to one of the subassemblies?
The complication is that we require assembly documents for sub-assemblies, which would then require descriptions of features that are out of scope.
Thanks,
scrototee
Talk To Other Members
RE: BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
Generally the hardware should be specified at the assembly level at which it is used.
If "subassembly B" is mounted to "subassembly C" to create "assembly A" by 5X M5*20 Phillips Pan Head Screws then those screws should be in the parts list for assembly A.
From what I've seen rarely does anything good come from having loose hardware - or for that matter hardware that has to be removed and then reinstalled at the next assy level - as part of subassembly.
(Kits are another matter, upgrade or replacement kits etc. may well logically consist of the relevant sub assy plus mounting hardware plus a few spares of the mounting hardware.)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
I agree with 'subassy B' mates with 'subassy C' to create 'assy a' which contains the hardware under 'assy a'
However, with our instruments, it would be:
'Sub A', 'Sub B', 'Sub C', 'Sub D', ... , 'Sub n'
bolt together to make top-level 'Assembly K'
There is an awful lot of hardware / brackets / misc machined parts that report to the top-level node of the assembly.
Have you seen this to be a successful way of doing this?
RE: BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV
RE: BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
As ewh implies certainly most drawing packages for military equipment in the US & UK gets done that way.
You could of course introduce intermediary levels of assy, but I know ERP fans and the like are obsessed with flat BOM structures. However it can be easier to document things this way.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: BoM Hierarchy and Hardware
Yes, top level assemblies can be very complex. Not everything lends itself to modular build. This hardware will still need to be referenced in the assy into which it goes, regardless of where in the BOM hierarchy it is located, so you may as well help out the assemblers and specify it where it is used.
As KENAT notes, it seldom works well having loose hardware travel around with a part.
“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV