Stupid Noob Question of the day - Can I create predefined dimensions for bolts - screws - holes?

[ptc-3889175]

I'm in a bit of a quandry over the hole wizard. I've just started my 1st job as a designer and already I've got questions - go figure! When you click on the hole wizard you can choose the size of the tapped hole for a bolt or screw, but can you predefine the dimensions associated with that partiular hole size? Case and point, my company has a standard for 1/4-20 screws that follows this... Screw Dia: .250 Tap Dril: .201 Counter bore: .41 Dia & .26 deep or Counter sink: 82deg x .54 dia.

I'd like to go in and edit some predetermined parameters for the standard bolts & screws we use. Any help woud greatly be appreciated.

-john

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.

[Patriot_1776 · Accepted solution]

Well, the hole tables can e changed somewhat, and you can access the parameters several ways. I've attached a text file of this and some other choice strings that might help. "att_feat" pulls the listed parameters from whatever feature the dwg leader is attached to. If the leader fails, the note fails and you must delete it.

[KrisR]

Keep in mind that the standards that Pro E/Creo uses are the industry standards - such as from Machinery's Handbook, etc.

To change them isn't a good thing, unless your company is deviating from them. I didn't look up the standard for 1/4-20, so I'm not sure if what you posted is a deviation.

[Patriot_1776]

.201 dia IS standard for a .250-20 BUT, different sizes are going to be used for threads depending on whether you want 65% or 75% thread etc. You CAN change these tables to a point in Pro/E to get what you want. A lot of times, I use a cut and a cosmetic thread instead of the hole command so I can get exactly what I want.

[ptc-3889175]

Kris & Frank,

Thaks very much for the help. You definitly got me started down the correct path!

[Patriot_1776]

Did that text file help in any way?

[BrianMartin]

Yes Frank...

Thanks for your cheat sheet! I knew most of these things just from experience but it's good that someone wrote down this information in a file. You should turn this into a fancy document and post it.

And for what it's worth... I also do not use the standard holes. I find the predefined holes too restrictive and I like the flexibility of defining my own hole and threads separately. For working in various materials the hole tables aren't complete enough. There's also a few additional annoyances with them.

For example... let's say you create a standard hole and then assemble hardware to it. Later you realize you needed a larger bolt so you change the standard hole to a large size. Immediately your hardware fails. When you redefine a standard hole to a new size it's effectively removed and a new one put in it's place. You lose the references to the hole... and your previously assembled hardware fails. If I use my own hole... I can resize it and change it's thread profile without losing my hardware.

They never seem to tell you about that one... but it's been like that since WF2. Maybe I should try again in Creo?

[Patriot_1776]

Hmmm, the failure thing is good to know, thanks Brian! For years I'd resisted using the "hole" command and just used cuts and cosmetic threads because of some very weird behavoir when using the "radial" hole option, so, I never ran into that issue. Glad I know now. I might have to rethink using the hole command now.

[BrianMartin]

Yep...

The Hole command itself works just fine. I use it all the time... I just don't use the standard holes. I know the developers keep adding more eye candy to the standard holes but until I've verified the values in the standard tables, I can't trust it. They're supposed to be based on standard industry values but I remember finding errors. Once I found errors, I immediately stopped using them. For the work I do, I can't take chances.

While the feature works well, there are some annoying idiosyncrasies as I mentioned. For example, to perform a Coaxial Hole, you have to select the axis first... else the Coaxial hole type doesn't even appear as a possibility.

Long time users have expressed frustration over issues such as this. By removing Coaxial as a type, I'm sure the developers feel they've reduced mouse clicks. However, what they've really done is buried the command so new people won't even know it exists. If you didn't know it USED to be there, you'd never know it was possible. Sometimes even long time users just assume the command has been removed. This is really unfortunate.

Some of the commands are now buried so deep you can't find them... but rely on your memory. As long as you recall that you USED to be able to add a hole to an on-surface point, you'll still be able to do it.

Good luck!

-Brian