Checking of nonparametrical features

[xJaM]

Due to exporting local files (of an assembly) from one department to another via Teamcenter, in our department there is a demand to check NX parts for some requirements like full constrained sketches, nonsuppressed features, number of fixed datum planes/axes, layers of sketches and so forth. These mentioned ones are not so hard to deal/repair.

The hardest ones in my opinion are nonparametrical features - like bodies and such. Is there any workaround to tell NX that particular body is not noparametrical, so it can pass testing? I know this is a little bit strange question, but it is practical almost impossible (and to my opinion fruitless job) to rebuild nonparametrical body to parametrical one from scratch. I am talking about solids for industrial design. You can lose floor under your feet in a second during this painfull 'activity'.

 

[looslib]

Why are you exporting files from TeamCenter if you are in a different department and I assume sharing the same TeamCenter?

What format are you exporting the files in? If you export a NX part file out, it retains the full parametric structure. If you export in a neutral file format, then you lose that structure.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[Tomerl]

What is your definition for nonparametric feature/body? if your data is from STEP/IGES/PARASOLID than all the bodies are not parametric. But if you have a body that is build from 2 non parametric bodies and unite between them is it non parametric? I think the answer to this is not so clear. You'll have to define more precisely what is "nonparametric body".

Once you define it, one possible solution is to use NX API, to iterate all the features of a given body, ask the types of these features and make a decision. NX API can also help you find fixed datums / layers / sketch constraints status etc...

 

[JohnRBaker]

Before I would invest any time or resources into writing (or have written for me) a customixed NX Open programs I would seriously investigate using the 'NX Check Mate' product instead. This provides you with a large library of predefined 'tests' which you can run against one or more part files and which will generate reports providing Pass/Fail and other stutus information. There are literally hundreds of available tests (and you can add your own customized tests using KF) covering all aspects of NX, including a 'Modeling' test which will identify any 'Unparameterized Features'.

For more information about Check Mate, go to:

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/Images/2504_tcm1023-11882.pdf

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/Images/17072_tcm1023-82170.pdf

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[xJaM]

Thank you guys very much for such fast and thorough replies!

@looslib & @ Tomerl :: I am not 100 % familiar with the Teamcenter (TC) (just using it as it is commanded) and probably I did not defined properly action of 'exporting'. I should, I guess, said "transfering" parts to other department - which I guess is constituded with merely 'transfering' of some arguments - let say ownership and so on. So, to summarize, we will transfer purely NX 6.0 native files (3D models with separated files with 2D drawings, which is common in TC). We were also told that in some near future "checking function" will be obligatory in Teamcenter, so parts will have to meet some requirements from these checks. Currently this is not so, but they're planning to do so - our sister department is most probably already preparing for this. Currently entire assembly has approx. 200 parts, of which some (about 20 to 30 of them) are pretty complex (within of world of industrial design (in household appliances), of course), and during development and premanufacturing phases gained some nonparameterized features, which are well defined in NX itself. For instance if we in one time simply remove parameters to one solid body, then it simply becomes nonparameterized feature, which is hard, as I've said, to rebuild from scratch with ordinary NX features (Extrudes with Booleans, Revolves, Edge Blends, ..., and even with new synchronous ones). So forget translators. I am talking about nonparameterized features in NX itself.

@JohnRBaker :: I do not know how do checking utilities in other companies look like, and ours is I think custom made - but nevertheless checking nonparameterized structure can not be much different as components which deal them are the same for every NX. We currently also do not use any KF tools. Although in Check-Mate Author Tools this 'standard' checker is listed (and there are 153 files of type DFA in checkmate subdfolder (of course in "read only" mode for ordinary user), which are I guess components of this particular 'check-mate', and which currently has 81 items in Validation Results).

I also do not understand 1000% for instance what is difference between fully correct nonparameterized body and its parameterized counterpart, if we forget parameterization, and think of for instance usability (exporting with translators, generating CNC codes, STL, ...) of this body. And of cource from this - what in fact we gain if we please these kind of checkers for parameterization? A lot of reparameterization is now possible via synchronous functions, and we do not have full nonparameterized stuff, so why checking this, if 3D models are otherwise satisfactory. Actions like this take precolus time from developers, designers and other ordinary technician-mortals

Best regards.