An assembly pre-3D CAD was just a drawing represented as a schematic of the parts assembled with a variety of standard, auxiliary and section views, somewhat of an illustrated parts list. It would come in a variety of forms, mostly orthographic views, but there were a few that would do isometric illustrations. The drawing was used by planning to develop assembly procedures. A good portion of the time they had the parts available.

Part Design Defined

The ancient drawing below is called a detailed assembly with an isometric view showing how the parts were assembled.

Here is an AID (Associated Information Document) of the above drawing sans dimensions and annotation recreated in ZW3D done in a single file.

Learning 3D Mechanical CAD

The Integrated AID (Drawing) in 3D CAD

But the manual isometric view was far too time consuming and we depended on the the engineering professional having the ability to "read" a drawing: The ability to see the part in 3D from the orthographic views. But you can see this concept continued into the CAD world with Autocad, which of course was nothing more than an electronic drafting package. Incorrectly call the “2D Drawing”, this misnomer is still hampering our industry. Manual or electronic it was still a drawing.

Engineering Ignorance Defined IV
Defining the “2D Drawing” 
Redundant? Of course!
Educating the PLM Guru!

This is an Autocad drawing with a 2D created isometric illustration.  Yes, a bit easier than on the board but still very time consuming. Realize this is an inseparable welded assembly.

But remember assembly drawings were mostly used in-house or shared with closely monitored suppliers due to proprietary reasons. The parts were denoted by the part numbers or item bubbles. Item bubbles allowed much easier part number changes. The part list was usually on the first drawing sheet but could expand to other sheets as necessary. It was delivered as a blue print. As computers showed up the the part list was also provided in the form of computer printouts showing the assemblies, sub-assemblies and used on assemblies that were available for a variety of purposes in the company.

Parts List or BOM?

The Secret of Part Numbers

Enter 3D CAD

Today we have the 3D assembly which is nothing but an associated part accumulator in the Solidworks clones. There are a few 3D CAD systems that have a single model environment and have the complete assembly in one work space, such as IronCAD and ZW3D. The single model environment is much, much more productive when working with assemblies. Both of these packages come with the option of having external associated parts.

I gave the above company a presentation of 3D IronCAD. Just took an hour to create the assembly and showed them how fast they could create the AID (Associated Information Document) which many incorrectly called the drawing.

It is quite shocking to me to see the industry have such a problem with engineering documentation since it is so incredibly simple to create any level of documentation in the documentation modules.

Engineering Documentation Today!

The resulting AID sans dimensions and annotation, created in minutes. Yes they bought IronCAD. Many fabrications do not require CNC so the 3D model are not required. This throws quite a wrench in today's MBE (Model Based Enterprise)

Associated Assemblies in the Solidworks Clones are problematic. You have to have all the referenced parts available. So it is very important to plan the assembly. If there are standard or common parts used where the link could be lost if the assembly file itself is sent out. Onshape only imports Solidworks in the Pack and Go .zip files. My favorite import from Solidworks is exported as a Parasolid. I am not sure what format Catia, Creo and Inventor export their assemblies, more than likely STEP. I have read the native assembly files of those products without a problem. But all of the associated parts were all in the same folder.

Here is a very large assembly imported into both ZW3D and IronCAD. It was created in Solid Edge and exported as a parasolid file.  I only used IronCAD and ZW3D as an example of how we can use a generic neutral CAD import, both can bring the complete assembly into one file which is much more productive. Of course, with a Solidworks clone importing these would fill a folder with all the referenced parts and sub-assemblies.

So, what "HAS" gone wrong with Engineering? Part III
We haven't made a Drawing Since 3D CAD was Introduced!

IronCAD 

If you look at the history all of the parts and assemblies are defined, the small arrows indicate that these are linked or duplicated parts or assemblies to be used in Parts lists.

ZW3D 

ZW3D also imports the part and sub-assembly names

Handling Assembly Files 

Now we really should not be passing assemblies back and forth. I believe they should never leave the native system due to the engineering proprietary information. But as I show you can move to IronCAD or ZW3D and actually use the assembly for new product design. With robust direct edit functionally, history becomes a thing of the past. Take a look how easy I create a complete new product line from a variety of existing products.

Reusing 3D CAD Models for a New Product Line

PDM is a bit of a tough process and can be problematic. I rarely comment on PDM since it is used only by those trained in the CAD system whether integrated or a 3rd party outside system and in my opinion should be treated like the drawing vault was in the past. We have the part file and the associated assembly file in all Solidworks Clones. The parts always have to be accessible. So how do we archive completed projects, I am sure there is a packing procedure like Solidworks Pack and go, that will include all of the parts.

The major problem with engineering is the myriad of CAD systems we use. This locks many companies into non-productive history only based CAD systems. It may have been state of the art in 1988, but as we know many technologies advance with new 3D CAD products. Productive increases with the single model environment cannot be denied. Maybe their here now.

Is 3D CAD Productivity an Oxymoron?

Five Functions that Increase 3D CAD Productivity!

The Integrated AID (Drawing) in 3D CAD

We can easily archive our assemblies in a non-native neutral format and still keep the current information at the time of release available. I have defined this in this article. We just add what I call the embedded title block. Imagine this in an assembly CAD file, all parts have the necessary description.

 

The Embedded Title Block! A PLM Solution!

Many of those that have very little applicable knowledge think that the model is sacrosanct. It is hardly so. When you send a part to CNC they may hide or remove many features. Most have very robust direct editing 3D CAD software that allows this. They can easily eliminate the "Embedded Title Block" whether engraved, embossed or added as a tab. Due to the limitations of the Pro/e clones this information has to included in the single part.

Checking, Design Review, Manufacturing and Data Extraction!

Once a standard is set up then you can use any system to modify any of these parts in the future. The future CAD system will produce basically dumb models that will be modified with smart robust direct edit/hybrid modeling systems. They will not be limited by the complex history only Pro/e paradigm.

Just think of the cost savings. A common standard file format that can be accessed by any system. Once we standardize on this paradigm we can develop much more effective processes. Here is a video of ZW3D modifying an existing product to create a new one. Realize this took less than 5 minutes with a learning curve. My associate was not familiar with Boolean design. Just think of doing this in your solidworks clone?

   

The Very Large Assembly 

What about very large assemblies? We never work on very large assemblies. If they even exist they are under the control of what you would call a configuration control group.

Let’s take a Boeing airplane. Airplanes are built in sections each being a separate assembly. Each is assembled in a separate process. Do we need the complete assembled Airplane? Of course, not. But we could if we were willing to waste a lot of time and resources.

"Airplanes are thousands of parts flying in close proximity!"

 

While at Boeing in 1986 I was introduced to PC based CADKEY. It was a 3D wireframe system and we would work in aircraft space. Which was at a certain WL (waterline), BL (butt line) and STA (station line). These were the 3D location of the parts in an aircraft. Looking at the left side of the aircraft, WL was y, BL was z and STA was x. We would get the loft lines (defined outer mold lines) from Catia 2 to design in aircraft space. I am sure you can get the frames and other structure today, this wireframe design was just in the beginning. In the beginning of 3D CAD this was a problem until we could set user defined coordinate system, prior to that we only had the system X0Y0Z0.

An airplane, an automobile or any large assembly is broken down to specific groups. In an airplane it is primary and secondary structures, controls, landing gear, wings, payloads, avionics etc. Automotive: brakes, power train (engine, transmission and other components), body, glass, electronics, interior, etc. Each group has their documentation coordinated with the different relative groups, making assembly much easier. Actually it is a somewhat simple process with a bit of documentation logistics in design with virtual parts and assemblies available and in manufacturing with the actual parts in front of them. Manufacturing planning is much, much easier today with the availability of a virtual assembly. But they really need a much more flexible system than a Pro/e clone.

This is the Redback Spyder

Here is the scene browser: Notice even in this smaller assembly the sub-assemblies are separated. Shown here is the power train. Now these assemblies can be reference if we have different design groups making the assembly nothing but an accumulator for a configuration group that can control the overall project.

---

What do we "really" need?

I feel it is time for the industry to really step outside the box and evaluate how the CAD systems are being using. The major CAD companies just have too much influence over engineering and deliverable to manufacturing. We need to break the hold they have by creating a standard they must be compatible. It really is not that hard, we just have a massive amount of ignorance, laziness and vested interest standing in the way.

The ROI would be in months, not years. While the current CAD systems are very clunky they still can easily be the basis of a much more productive process.

Engineering Documentation Today!

The Space Between Engineering and Manufacturing

The CAD systems can be easily standardized. We have to expand the capabilities of the system to a highly productive hybrid modeling. Sadly, the current popular CAD systems are based on the dated Pro/e paradigm that “CANNOT” incorporate this hybrid functionality locking companies into a limited complex history only based system.

Once we base our engineering on such a flexible standard the possibilities are endless.

This is how I have been designing for two decades.

Next Generation 3D CAD Technology Applied!

The Worst to Best 3D CAD System and Why

3D Modeling Techniques Defined

---

The Future of Document Control

Standard Cloud Based
Engineering Document Control

Standard Cloud Based
Engineering Document Control Part II

I had a comment on Linkedin on my Onshape Posted Article.

Onshape! A View from the Clouds

“These types of cloud based tools require your information to be stored on line. what prevents the people/company from accessing that information? I see a lot of stolen info.”

My answer

“Having the parts available on line would be just like the blue print. The AID (Associated Information Document) as a PDF with the 3D model as a pattern. Assemblies would not include the models since it is basically an illustrated parts list. So it would be a chore to get all of the components for any assembly, mostly with arbitrary documentation numbers. Remember, all engineering is done in the native local CAD system. Now I agree doing your complete engineering on line would a too risky.”

An interesting aside on this would be the
complete control of approved model translation.
The model validation would be an automatic process.

"The total purpose of engineering is to make available concise,
complete and unambiguous documentation to manufacturing."

Does manufacturing need a 3D CAD assembly model?

Engineering Documentation - A Primer for the PLM Guru!

"Standards are only used for guidelines"

The Future of Document Control

Update: Onshape, now does not offer the 10 free projects. All work is public. If you can allow that then the collaboration option is still viable. But I am sure a few professional seats would be well worth it for large companies with large projects. Or a small group of designers with the available budget.

Onshape! The Party is over!

In a nut shell: 

Assemblies are relatively simple and just need to have concise, complete and unambiguous documentation defined in an easily accessible format. And remember when a project is done (if small enough) this needs to be archived in a single file if possible. Only to be pulled out for the basis of a new product or for a future investigation as in any legal situations.