cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Need help navigating or using the PTC Community? Contact the community team. X

Lets play that game again....What is it?

rrich
2-Guest

Lets play that game again....What is it?


Someone in MFG brought this to me and asked what it is. I believe it is some sort of cable stripper or tubing scriber but not sure, what do you think?

Pictures were attached but you may need to follow the PTC user link. I tried to reduce size as much as possible without loosing detail.

Ron

This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
4 REPLIES 4

I am wondering what others are doing for Flex CCAs (our name for two or more rigid circuit card assemblies joined by a flexible circuit)?

We are implementing a best practice here as we have users doing many different methods and some leave room for error.

There is a flat state that goes to the circuit card design group, and a formed state that sits in the assembly model.

Optimally we would like one part file. The closest thing is a sheetmetal part file, but sheetmetal does not allow different thickness (the flex circuit it thinner) to exist in one part. I have been able to fudge in different thicknesses but then it will not properly flatten out.

Some users have used two separate files, one for the formed version and one for the flat version. Red Flag here! Put a feature on one part, but it doesn't make it to the other part. This has happened. 😞

So far the best method I have come up with is to have one part file for each rigid card, and one sheet metal part for each flexible circuit, and put them into their own assembly, utilizing the sheet metal part to flatten out via a family table and create the formed and flat versions. This way everyone gets the same file.

Note this should be an interim solution that is hopefully shorter than longer. It has been said that sometime in the future, Creo 2.0 will have the ability for flexible circuits. Not sure what this means. Possibly leveraging off sheetmetal and allowing different thicknesses. NX does allow different thicknesses in its sheetmetal module right now.

All input is appreciated.


Doug Pogatetz

Mechanical Design Engineer
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Electronic Systems
600 Hicks Road
Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008-1098


Hi Doug,
We use the assembly method you describe. Tedious but it works so long as
you are careful about the assembly references of the rigid "parts" to the
sheetmetal flex PCB.

We call them Rigid Flex PCB.


Regards,

*Brent Drysdale*
*Senior Design Engineer*
Tait Communications
eslotty
1-Newbie
(To:rrich)

(WF4)



Using sheet-metal to generate formed flex circuits works nice, but the
resulting unfolded flats do not appear to export as an IDF database...
the "surface" segments seem to be the culprit.



We end up creating a "detail assembly" by developing a flat flex model
using the unformed flat as reference and re-assembling key components-
usually connectors and backer boards.....



Eric Slotty

- <">mailto:->

414-362-2552


rrich
2-Guest
(To:rrich)

Possible option would be to use the Warp feature. However you may not be able to do double bends, it has been some time since I have played with warp. We use sheetmetal parts for ribbon cables because we can show exact folds needed and direction of folds. (similar to flex circuit) I can see where a flex circuit with components would not work well with sheet metal but warp or spinal bend may get you what you want. Or a combination of both may be needed if your flex circuit is making multiple bends.

Ron
Top Tags