Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

Assy Merge

jacksaab

New member
Hi folks,

I'm still relarively new to pro_E. What I have is a cast version and a
machined version of the same part that I would like to merge
together so that any changes made to my cast part will automatically be
reflected in my machined version. I created an assy of the two versions
and merged the machined version into the cast version using "cut-out".
After trying all variations of the process I receive an error message
telling me that it "couldn't intersect part with feature". Is there
some subtle thing I'm missing here? Or is there some way that I could
find out if there is a specific item that is causing it to crash?



Thanks in advance.
 
Is it really two different parts or did you intend to machine the casting part?


If you are machining the casting part you should make the machine part an assembly.


Charles
 

jeff4136

New member
Could you explain the logic supporting what you are doing? You have modeled a cast version, modeled a machined version and now want to make the machined version dependant on the cast version? I don't think I'm getting the picture.
 

jacksaab

New member
What I'm attempting to do is to be able to make changes to my cast part and have those changes reflected in my machined version.
 

jeff4136

New member
"... in my machined version."

Which has not been modeled independently of the cast part?

I think there are a few options available to you, but there are others that are better qualified to offer advice; I'm a relative newbie to Pro/E myself.

Family table part, one version is the casting with the machined features suppressed.

Insert, Shared data, Merge. Start with an empty part, create a dependent copy of the cast part and add the machined features to that.

Copy Geom function if you have AAX?
 

dr_gallup

Moderator
I think you will have to start all over making your machined part. The best way to do this is merge the cast part into the machined part as the FIRST solid feature, then make all the machining cuts on the machined part. Another way to do this is make the cast part then add all the machining features as cuts. Put all the machining features in the family table table and set their status to NO in the cast instance. I find this harder to keep straight, it is easy to inadvertantly change the casting while you are working on the machining as all the casting dimensions show up in the machined part.
 

jayuy

New member
Jacksaab,


There are many ways to do this and using family table is one of them, you can also use copy_geometry, cutout, merge from other model, and Inheritance, You should try each one and notice the difference. Try using Inheritance its like using copy_geometry, merge from other model and family Table at once because it can copy all the geometry, you can also exclude features, change dimensions. One thing i like with Inheretance is that you canmake a dimensions independent to the original part.
 

jacksaab

New member
jayuy, I tried to do the merge thing, but, as I mentioned initially, I
received an error meessage telling me that "COULD NOT INTERSECT
PART WITH FEATURE" and the procedure failed. I would sure like to know
if there is some way to find out what caused the failure specifically
so that I could make the necessary modifications. Also, do you first
have to merge the two models together prior to doing the cut-out or is
it done as a "MERGE" or "CUT-OUT"; the two being independent of each
other ? BTW, I am currently using the 2001 version of PRO and don't
know if the "Inheretance" feature is available.
 

cristelino

New member
JACKSAAB


you must create a new asssemblly and put the pieces inside


Becarefull after merged dont erase this assembly;keep it alive in your directory


After merge create a new part and in this part copy with Sharing Geometry solid model of your merged parts


Save and after thet you can erase your assemblly


Now is dosen"t matter


BUT the components in your assembly must be FULLY CONSTRAINED


If the parts are identical you must save as with an other name erase all from memory and after that create the assemblies


Today i work inthe similar situation





Is the only logic explanation in your case


If you have doubt mail me


Cristelino
Edited by: cristelino
 

jacksaab

New member
Christelino,



I'm sorry, I failed to mention that I did assemble the two pars
together prior to doing the "merge" funcrion. That's when i
received the error.
 

jeff4136

New member
This is all a bit confusing. It might be worth stating whether you are using Foundation or have AAX as some of the solutions provided require AAX (Copy Geom, ...).

The way your original post is worded it indicates you have something like cast.prt and machined.prt, both with geometry, solid, ... already modeled and you want to merge using cut-out. Cut-out will boolean subtract one body from another; i.e. subtract a part from a mold block.

If you do, in fact, have two independant solid models there is no way to make one dependant on the other such that changing the basic form of the cast part will drive the shape of the machined part, at least to my thinking and understanding of your goal. (Actually you could link dims, parameters, etc. to do something of the sort, but it's not going to happen by way of any of the menu functions.)
 

AHA-D

New member
Thinking "real life" is what helps here. Two possible logical workflows follow.


1.


You model the cast part as it will be produced. This is one file. Then you insert this geometry into a second file. Copy geometry is one of the ways out of which you can produce a solid that follows the casting. In this second file you do the necessary machining : take away material, drill holes, etc.


2.


Start with the final part in one file. Insert this geometry into a second one. In this file you add material where necessary. That is : fill holes or add material so that they can be post-drilled, add material to allow for machining in order to get flat surfaces, ...


It's easier to do the first thing with the CAD tools that are available, but it demands some "reverse thinking" in order to design a part that is larger than it finally will be.


Alex
 

jacksaab

New member
Jeff4136,

You are correct. I first created a cast model and named it one thing
then I backed that same model into another folder and renamed it. This
re-named part then became my machined model with all necessary
cut-outs. Later I realized that any changes I made to my 'cast" model
would have to be physically repeated again in my "machined" version.
Since there are numerous machining cuts in my second model I was hoping
to somehow combine the two in order to save myself a considerable
amount of time re-doing one or the the other. I truly apologize for any
confusion I may be creating but my company is too cheap to send people
for advanced training.
 

jeff4136

New member
Ok. I don't know how I'd proceed at this point and guess it would depend on how complex the part is, how much additional development might go into it, etc. Either use the Family table method to salvage what you've got or back out and Merge your original cast model, re-do all the "machined" features.

Are you working with just the Foundation Advantage package or do you have AAX. Copy Geom, Inheritance, .... solutions won't help you if you don't have AAX.


Edited by: jeff4136
 

jeff4136

New member
I'm not sure that's such a "dis-advantage"

So, do I.

... I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or comments regarding the best (?) way to approach this from the standpoint of "robustness", e.g. do any of the methods make it easier or more difficult to recover dependant features that fail as a result of a change to the parent part or a casting level feature?
Edited by: jeff4136
 

dr_gallup

Moderator
jacksaab said:
Jeff4136,
You are correct. I first created a cast model and named it one thing
then I backed that same model into another folder and renamed it. This
re-named part then became my machined model with all necessary
cut-outs. Later I realized that any changes I made to my 'cast" model
would have to be physically repeated again in my "machined" version.
Since there are numerous machining cuts in my second model I was hoping
to somehow combine the two in order to save myself a considerable
amount of time re-doing one or the the other. I truly apologize for any
confusion I may be creating but my company is too cheap to send people
for advanced training.
In this case you want to go the family table route. Just throw your cast part away because all the geometry is already in your machined part. Add all the maching features to the family table and set them to No (suppressed) for the cast instance. Can make for a really big family table if there is a lot of machining. Also gets complex if you make a lot of different parts from the same casting. Next time, plan ahead and use merge or gopy geom. These painful trial and error experiences develope character!
 

Sponsor

Top