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

Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X

machined casting models

JLG
1-Newbie
1-Newbie

machined casting models

My experience has been that typically parts machined from a casting are represented in Creo using a merged feature for the casting model (or possibly an inheritance feature, or even copy geometry). Recently I came across a model that assembles the casting into an assembly and uses assembly cuts for the machining. My gut reaction is that assembly cuts aren't a good idea, but I can't give a good reason why. Maybe I'm wrong and it's perfectly okay. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts, opinions, and experiences on this.

Thanks for your time and input!

Kind regards,
Janet Grove


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.
18 REPLIES 18
jmoody-2
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

Another option is family table and put all the machining cuts on the
machined instance.





John




StephenW
23-Emerald II
(To:JLG)

I did a comparison a few years ago (WF2 I think) and assembly cuts significantly slowed the models down. It was at a different company so I don't have the results of that testing anymore.

Also, in my opinion, assembly cuts seem to be more prone to unexpected failures but I don't have any real testing to back that up, just anecdotal.

I personally use the merge model method. I have also used inheritance.

rreifsnyder
13-Aquamarine
(To:JLG)

Personally, I work it from the other direction anyway. I design the part I need to have in my assembly, then use merge model to ADD material for the casting model.

Rob Reifsnyder
Mechanical Design Engineer/ Producibility Engineer / Components Engineer / Pro/E SME / Pro/E Librarian
[LM_Logo_Tag_RGB_NoR_r06]
TomU
23-Emerald IV
(To:JLG)

I prefer this method as well. Much easier to do an inheritance model, turn off features that haven't been machined yet and then add rough stock where necessary.

Tom U.
StephenW
23-Emerald II
(To:JLG)

Inheritance models scare me simply because you never know who may change a dimension that isn't supposed to be changed. Just a fear of mine, I've never seen it happen but I've seen too many other "accidents".

Honestly I do it completely backwards. I design my finished part and then build my forging/casting and then rebuild my finished part from that part. It's my process. It's always changing anyway so it really doesn't matter what I start from, it'll be something completely different than what I expected in the beginning.

mlocascio
4-Participant
(To:JLG)

Steve,



What you have said "may" have some specific relevance to where you work, and
how you work.



Personally I have seen both sides of this argument and I am in favor of
using the MERGE options in an assembly.



What this gives you is a CLEAN model for your casting. Then that casting is
used to make the machined part. After all isn't this the way that they do it
in real life? That is what we should be designing, in this case.



Michael P. Locascio


mlocascio
4-Participant
(To:JLG)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........


I have had good experiences with the family table method.
The casting instance, the machined instance and the pattern instance with a scale factor to accommodate shrinkage.
Everything is in 1 model and I have found this approach to be stable/reliable and not require the advanced assembly extension.
My experience with assembly cuts has been more Creo issues pop up like regeneration stability & time, losing time wrestling with Creo rather than getting the job done, plus now you have the additional model & drawing to manage.

Regards,
Walt Weiss


pdkoren
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

Well, just to complete the cycle... I design it "concurrently", so to speak... I build a simple cast part, maybe just a cylinder to start with, merge it into my machining and work both together somewhat simultaneously. I'll add features to both as needed,chunks to start withon the casting, that get refined to consistent "machine stock" as the finish machiningis defined. Usually, in an "Work In Progress" assembly of both where I use a style to set the casting to show in WIREFRAME...
In the past, I've also had multiple CORES to deal with filled with high pressure fluids so maintaining wall thickness was critical. I would model them as solids, use PUBLISH GEOMETRY to pull that information into my cast part, then various combinations of offsets, thicken, solidify, cutouts, ect. would get me perfect wall thickness. That casting then merges into my finish part as noted above...

ahh... the good ole days! what fun!!!!

just another thought... Everyone have a nice weekend!
DonSenchuk
7-Bedrock
(To:JLG)

That's a dispute I constantly get in with Manufacturing.

The drawing is what I want. I've outlined exactly the parts that I care about. How you get there for the rest of it is your business and responsibility. No, it is not product engineering's responsibility to draw a big cylinder and call it a barrel blank.

Same thing applied with sheet metal flat patterns at previous jobs.
JLG
1-Newbie
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

So far, only one person has addressed the issue of assembly cuts.  Are there any other thoughts on that?

Thanks for all the answers; I love all the different ideas for accomplishing the same thing.

Janet Grove


----------
DonSenchuk
7-Bedrock
(To:JLG)

Assembly cuts absolutely slow down your model response time, increase regen time, etc. It's the worst option of those presented.

jvanasse
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

I agree with the person who stated the assembly cuts are less robust and they are also limited in type. In the past I have created assembly level surfaces, then an assembly level cut using the created surface to intersect the components. Too much work.

Assembly features require more resources to regenerate the assembly. It is essentially an under-the-covers Family Table operation, first regenerating the models, then the features.

Also if the automatic intersection is left on, you can end up with unintended cuts.

My choice for castings is a full as-cast model, an External Copy Geom of that into the as-machined model, and WTPart and drawings links to keep them all together. A useful trick with this method is to define the as-machined part as one color and then set all external surfaces to another color. As you machine the part, the machined surfaces automatically display in a different color.

Inheritance models do not lock out the as-cast features and they can be changed.

The Family Table method also allows for as-cast features to be changed. And it's a Family Table.

J.P. Vanasse
Global IT, R&D Surgical Franchises

20511 Lake Forest Dr., Lake Forest, CA 92630, USA
T +1 949.505.7804 | F +1 949.505.6270 | M +1 714.612.3823

[cid:image001.png@01CE1FC3.11B93FC0]
tski
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

I have not had long term success with assembly cuts. I usually resort to family tables or other techniques to get long term stability of features.

I am currently having issues with our CNC software recognizing assembly cuts. If you are using your data to machine parts, make sure your models are useable.



Anthony Mahynski
Advanced CAD Development Specialist
Engineering Services
hermanmiller.com
kimndave9
1-Newbie
(To:JLG)

The main value in assembly level cuts is when the part will be cut differently depending on where it is installed - and it does a fine job of simulating match machining. The price that's paid for it, as others have mentioned, is that it is building a hidden family table of each part being cut (so you don't have to) and managing all the variant models (which makes it seem slow).


The problems I've seen people have explicitly is making poor reference choices. One that I recall offhand is someone who used the part surface that was being removed as a reference. The first time the assembly regens, it was all good, but the next regen sees the surface has been removed and the reference with it - causing a failure.


Also, as mentioned already, is the need to prevent auto-select from selecting items you didn't intend to get cut. I don't know how smart PTC is about this but it's possible they would generate a hidden family table for items that don't actually intersect. This also means errors about failing to intersect with the assembly cuts.


For this particular case, I find building a casting model and then creating a separate part using the casting as an inheritance feature works fine. It gives a chance to create alternative machined versions from the same casting without tying the resulting machined versions together. If they needed to be tied together, they could have a family table in the machined part model.


Giving the finished part drawing to the casting people is a good way to get draft where it isn't wanted resulting in interferences where it is unexpected. The alternative is to provide complete coverage in terms of tolerances, which is also workable, but often as much work as laying out a precise shape, and is more likely to cause problems moving the part to a different supplier who will also start from scratch figuring out what they need to do to cast the part correctly.


Aside from that, I can't fault other options for the conditions people operate under. Each place has it's own environment and each has its own best solution.

As for Mentor Graphics Creo Flo/EFD cfd package for creo you are not able to perform a cfd analyis in creo on an assembly that contains an assembly cut. Don Anderson

DonSenchuk
7-Bedrock
(To:JLG)

“Also, as mentioned already, is the need to prevent auto-select from selecting items you didn't intend to get cut. I don't know how smart PTC is about this but it's possible they would generate a hidden family table for items that don't actually intersect. This also means errors about failing to intersect with the assembly cuts.”

If I remember correctly, it does exactly that; auto-select calculates for every part whether it intersects or not. I’ve heard it mentioned more than once over the years by PTC application engineers that one should always select the intersected parts to improve performance. Of course, they’re not infallible either, but anecdotal evidence seems to bear that out.
dgallup
4-Participant
(To:JLG)

I also like the MERGE functionality. Mainly because I don't want the casting/forging/molding part to be modifiable in my machined part, secondly because we frequently machine several different parts from one casting/forging/molding part.


One thing I have found useful is to create several datum curves from cross sections immediately after the merge. These can help you see how much stock removal you are doing and eliminate the need to start with the finished part and work backwards towards the casting. These datum curves can be surpressed or hidden when you don't need them.


I definately stay away from assembly cuts, they add too much overhead and can be unstable. Maybe they are better today but we once tried to assemble two parts that were brazed together and then machine them into a family of finshed parts in assembly. Everything would work, we saved the files and the next day everything failed.


In Reply to Michael Locascio:


Steve,



What you have said "may" have some specific relevance to where you work, and
how you work.



Personally I have seen both sides of this argument and I am in favor of
using the MERGE options in an assembly.



What this gives you is a CLEAN model for your casting. Then that casting is
used to make the machined part. After all isn't this the way that they do it
in real life? That is what we should be designing, in this case.



Michael P. Locascio










PTC quality philosophy: We've upped our quality standards. Up yours.

Top Tags