Show part in BOM list, but exclude from count

[anjewierden]

Hello everyone,

I'm currently working on an assembly with parts that are delivered to us as a set.

On the drawing I want to show them like normal, but because they are delivered as one set I must exclude them from count. Otherwise there is a risk that the warehouse is given it double to the mechanic.

(for example an engine is delivered including oil filter and fuel pump, but they are mounted separately on a frame, than on that drawing I want to let them know which part they need, but the count must be on 0 because the mechanic should have it already)

Normally I would go to the Bill of Materials of the assembly and put them on 0 there and that works fine on the drawing as well. But now I use it on the drawing with a BOM splitted in view representations, With the limit QTY on and then they are counted in that BOM again.

This hints me to think that I does not use the proper method to exclude parts from count without removing them completely from the BOM, I have searched for a check box exclude from count but I could not find it.

Thanks in advance

Greeting Bryan

[Gabriel_Watson]

Have you tried marking those components as "Reference" type in your assembly BOM?

[mcgyvr]

There really isn't any functionality in Inventor to handle that situation.

Best workaround I can think of is to make that "set" its own assembly (if not already) and set it to "purchased" which won't include any of the components in the parts list/bom. The engine, its oil filter and fuel pump would all be ballooned with the same item number but then I would use a leader locked to the balloon stating "oil filter" or whatever. 

[anjewierden]

Hallo @Gabriel_Watson,

Reference parts will get removed completely from the BOM list.

I want to be able to attach a Pos. Bollon to it and show the mechanic what part it must be, as far as I know this is not possible with reference.

[johnsonshiue · Accepted solution]

Hi! I think the only way sort of doing that is to set the unit as an Inseparable item. Go to the BOM table and set the subassembly BOM structure to "Inseparable."

In terms of documentation, you could create drawing views for this subassembly by itself and show its own BOM in the drawing.

Many thanks!

[anjewierden]

Hello @mcgyvr ,

The first part of the workaround you mentioned is exactly what I’m doing now. But the fact that you place manual leaders to balloons is asking for human errors. If every part has its own balloon than you can check in the bill of materials if you have them all drawn.

Hello @johnsonshiue,

When I look at your reaction I read this as folding the BOM table open so you get the purchased assembly as POS. X and al the parts that are in that as POS. x1, X2, … This could be a solution that I will discuss with my colleagues, the risky part of this what I can think of now is that I need to place the parts in the purchased assembly on planes and other invisible stuff. And if there is an other machine where we use the same purchased assembly in another mount configuration there must be a positional representation be made for that.

[mcgyvr · Accepted solution]

---

@anjewierden wrote:

the risky part of this what I can think of now is that I need to place the parts in the purchased assembly on planes and other invisible stuff. And if there is an other machine where we use the same purchased assembly in another mount configuration there must be a positional representation be made for that.

---

@anjewierden  You can simply leave all the parts floating (unconstrained) in space in the subassembly and then when you place that purchased sub into its top level assembly right click on it and select "flexible".. Then you can constrain each piece as needed. 

[anjewierden]

@mcgyvr, I know that you can make things move with flexible, we use a lot of hydraulic cylinders, gas springs and other rotating/ movable parts, but when there is a small problem in a flexible part it can make the assembly verry unstable. So if they are not 100% necessary I like to avoid flexible and use position representations instead.

[mcgyvr]

Yes while generally reliable, there are a few issues with the flexibility solver that can cause quirks at times. Personally I haven't run into anything that is enough of an issue to prevent me from using it.