Complex mechanically welded body: multibody tolerated or assembly of parts?

3D Design Sheet Metal / Machine Welded
1

Hi all

I am currently designing a machine body entirely in sheet metal under SolidWorks (folded sheets, hoods, reinforcements, etc.), and I am wondering about the best way to organize the structure of the model.

Rather than making all the sheet metal parts one by one (.sldprt by .sldprt) to assemble them later, I'm thinking of a "mixed" approach:

Assemblies of interwelded sheets (e.g. the frame) would be modelled as multi-body welded parts. (Each welded group = 1 multibody part file.)
Parts that are not welded, but simply attached to the mechanically welded assembly (by screws, bolts, rivets, inserts, gluing, etc.) would remain as classic separate parts, inserted into an assembly with the multibody parts.

The idea would therefore be to have:

Welded sub-assemblies managed in multibody parts (with their drawing (part by piece + tolerances and weld marks at the part level),
Then a global assembly that includes:

  • mechanically welded multibody parts (sheets welded together),
    - independent non-welded parts (clipped housing, screwed part, glued support, etc.),
    - Screws / bolts.

My questions:

Does this mixed approach (multibody for the welded assemblies + separate parts for the rest) seem coherent and "clean" in practice?
Do you see any advantages/disadvantages to doing like this, especially for:
Drawings,
Tolerance management,
The nomenclature (BOM),
Manufacturing/assembly,
Plan and 3D exports. WWTP for my subcontractor Trôle

Do you have any feedback or best practices on how to structure this type of project (organization of files, division of welded sub-assemblies, naming, etc.)?

Below is a small image of the current set that I will redesign.
There are almost 100 different sheet metal parts in the set.
image

Thank you in advance for your feedback and ideas!

2

Hello;
For me, the approach envisaged seems rather relevant to me, at least in the sense that, well, it is the one we use in our society. :sweat_smile:
with a filename structure such as:

XXXXX-1BBB_0000 for complete assembly
(XXXX being our number assigned to the case=> invariable)
and
(1BBB corresponds to:
1=the amount of this component in the assembly
and BBB, the type of the assembly - e.g. group BBB is " Ventilation ")

In this XXXXX-1BBB_0000 Assembly, we would have:
Sub-Assembly XXXXX-1A01_1000 => Mechanically welded assembly + welded components. which would include:
component XXXXX-1B01_1001 =>Mechanically welded bodies (the chassis) +
component XXXXX-1B01_1002 =>Mechanically welded bodies (bracon)
then
Sub-Assembly XXXXX-1B02_1000 => Door and Left Hinge Assembly
Including XXXXX-1B02_1001 door sheet
then
then
Sub-Assembly XXXXX-1B02_2000 => Door and Right Hinge Assembly
Including XXXXX-1B02_2001 door sheet
…
Roughly speaking, here is our hierarchy of directories and therefore file names:

image
image655×788 111 KB

Each part has a unique layout with the same name as the 3D component (saved in the same directory). + Simple bill of materials with a quantity of parts to be produced.
Each assembly has a drawing with the same name + Detailed BOM + Revision.
The validation of a drawing implies under the index and the editing of a PDF => File Name + Revision in progress.
(Unfortunately, we don't have an ERP...)

Uh, there you have it... I'm not sure I was clear (I have a hard time reading myself ... :upside_down_face:)

But to sum up: Yes, I think your approach is in the right direction.

Kind regards.