Casting and machining drawings 10

[EngJW]

Not sure how to do this: I have a solid model of a casting completed. I would like to make a copy of it and add all the machining features, which involves removing material from several surfaces and drilling a lot of holes. The question is, can these two models be linked, so that making a casting change will show up in the machined part?

Thanks,
John Woodward

 

[TheTick]

They can be linked. It does require that they reside in the same assembly file. Use "Insert --> Join" when editing the new (machined) part file in context of an assembly that also has the raw casting.

An alternative might be to have multiple configurations in one part file for raw casting and finished product.

"An object at rest can not be stopped."

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[ctopher]

Just make an assy with the casting and cut-remove material.

 

[rockguy]

How about a file with (2) configurations. Casting and Machined

 

[SBaugh]

I agree with Rockguy on this. It's way easier to keep track like this then it is joining a part.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[TheTick]

Gee, whiz, ctopher! I like that idea. That way there is no extra file to manage. If all you do is remove material, that should work.

The only disadvantage I see is thet one is limited to cut with extrude and revolve only.

"An object at rest can not be stopped."

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[macPT]

I would create another part, the machined part (this reflects the real MRP in my company).

The first feature in this part is an INSERT PART (inserting the casted part).

Then all the features riquired for machining are added.

All modifications in the casted part will be reflected on the machined part. But an inspection to the machined part should be performed. The modifications on the casted part can cause machining features do fail.

Regards

 

[ctopher]

Thanks Scott. All you can do in an assy is remove material, which is what you would do from a casting anyway. And the casting model is always referenced with the machining model assy. And you can still have separate dwgs for the casting and machining. One more point, pay attention to where the cuts are started. For example, if you offset a plane from one of the main planes in the machining assy, and you change a casting feature, it is possible a machining feature will not update. Hope I made sense. Good luck

 

[Dennyd]

It is more approrpiate to use the Base Part approach. Open a new part file that will be your machined version. Then use Insert-->Part and select the file that is your molded part. Now your first "feature" is the casting. From here you can add all your machining features. I usually make sure all my new features, which are usualy cuts, are a different color from the base part.

This Base Part feature was specifically designed for this purpose. If you change the base part (the casting) it will show up and will precede any features you create in the machined part file.

- - -Dennyd

 

[ctopher]

Dennyd, good idea ... I have not created one that way, but that will also work.

 

[rocheey]

Use a derived configuration. That way each config is linked.

 

[pdybeck]

I wholeheartedly agree with Dennyd. IMO the base part approach is the best way to go. We use that here all the time - I have instructed all our users on this method as part of a best practice approach. We use PDMWorks and I like having different parts and as separate entities from a data management perspective.

 

[TheTick]

I must confess, if I had known about the Base Part feature, I would have recommended it. Another star for Dennyd for teaching me something new.

"An object at rest can not be stopped."

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[engAlright]

If you use a base part you have to be aware that your two parts are now in-context. You have to be careful that the base part is never updated independently of the "machined" part (and vice versa).

Also - if you ever want to make a copy of the machined part (to give it a new part number), you have to re-create the base part. If you just copy the machined part, it will be referencing the base part of the original.

We use a machining configuration in an assembly for precisely these reasons.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Hey guys ... not to belittle Dennyd's good tip ... but if you look 2 posts prior to his you will see that macPT had suggested exactly the same!

 

[rockguy]

Configurations are still the most correct and easiest way to achieve this.

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I'm with you rockguy ... I would, & have, used configurations for similar situations. I don't have a PDM system to contend with, so it justs make more sense to me to deal with one file ... but each to their own.
That's one of the beautys of SW ... there are usually several ways to solve a problem ... each having its own merits for a particular users situation.

 

[macPT]

Thanks CBL for noticing my post. As you say, there can be several ways to solve a SW problem and, for almost all cases, is not possible do say each one is better. For this case, I would say that:
easiest way - configurations
"real" thing (at least for my company) - 2 parts, the machined part starting as a base part of the casted part

engAlright
"be aware that your two parts are now in-context". Yes, but they are really in-context. You can't modify one without verify the consequences in the other. That's the real thing.
"if you ever want to make a copy of the machined part (to give it a new part number), you have to re-create the base part". Why is that? Can't you give a different part numbers to each part?

Regards

 

[pdybeck]

Kudos to MacPT as well,

Another benefit we enjoy with the base part is the ability to use the geometry compare in SolidWorks Utilities to review all the material removed between the casting and machining part files. We do this during the checking phase and consider it a very handy tool. We save the results of the compare out to another file where we can take measurements to look at the nominal amount of material we plan to remove from the casting.

 

[Dennyd]

CBL,

macPT's post and mine are essentially the same. His wasn't there as I was writing mine. He must have hit SUBMIT just before me.

As the above posts indicate there are several ways to approach this situation. I love the ease of configurations and use them a ton. However, for this scenario the Base Part option is also appropriate. We have the situation where we buy a die cast part and then machine it into several different finished parts. For this we will use the die cast part as the Base Part for the machined part file. Our machined part file might have several different configurations to represent the various finished parts. It works cleanly and smoothly for us.

- - -Dennyd