We are in a transition period at my company right now, where we are bringing several global databases together soon with PLM, as well as trying to roll out standardized components for DFM purposes. There are a few aspects of these efforts (new library parts, globally standardized hole tables) that are causing us to reevaluate how we model threaded holes and fasteners.
Historically we have not closely controlled how our users have modeled threaded solid geometry, cosmetic thread features, or threaded holes. Some discussion on "what we want" makes it seem like there will be some trade-offs between one practice and another. The general wish list is:
We have tossed around ideas such as making the solid feature for male fasteners maximum thread diameter, making hole solid feature size minor diameter or a fraction of major diameter, using pitch diameter, and so on. Before we grind out the details, I thought it might help to poll the user community to see what works for other companies. Any feedback is appreciated!
Good to see post on DFM topic! From the points described we are working on most of the areas. The clearance and interference checks are critical aspects of assembly validation. We have resolved the problem of those checks by providing a facility to add a database and provide standard clearance values. Also Check for axial and radial clearance for fasteners. The facility for validation of standard holes and diameters is available. The biggest problem I have observed is people using callouts to explain about features for fastners For most of the manufacturing these call outs are useful but for design / CAE upstream it is difficult to process such manual information. Till the time we have solid Geometry in place automating DFM checks are easy but more the manual inputs it takes long time. You may want to check how we do it in this Creo Parametric video.http://communities.ptc.com/videos/3028
Design and Manufacturing Group