Date: | 7 November 96 - Rev3 24 September 96 - Rev2 |
Originated by: | Bev Sugarbaker, Steelcase Inc. Phillip Pidgeon, OTIS Elevators. |
Many Industries create parts and assemblies that require as drawn
("as-shown") and mirrored versions ("opposites") in order to meet handed product requirements. Often these parts are not simply complete mirrors of the original with completely different part numbers but contain the same parts used symmetrically combined with opposite parts with different partnumbers.
We define by way of a table on the drawing an "opposite" version of the part and give it a different partno.
We would like to be able to create opposites of our parts automatically and include them in a family table as an instance.
Additionally we would like to replace or interchange as-shown and opposite parts in assemblies manually and automatically by specifying their component names in a assembly family table.
Instead of COMPONENT, CREATE, PART, (name), MIRROR part (in assembly mode), the new command could be CREATE MIRROR (in both part and sheetmet- al mode), SETUP PLANE/MAKE DATUM.
All previous features, would be "transformed" by mirroring them about the user specified datum plane to create the 'opposite' part." In a sheetmetal part the flat pattern feature would still remain the last feature (as this could be placed after the mirror feature for mirrored flat-patterns).
The new mirror feature (merge) and the flat pattern, could then be included in the part/sheetmetal family table and independently be present or suppressed.
The transformed opposite part would be dependent to the original unmirrored part. Revisions could be made by picking the resulting model with or without the mirror feature being applied.
When modifying dimensions on the model in part, sheetmetal, assembly and showing and creating dimensions in drawing mode, dimensions of the "opposite" part, should be located correctly on the mirrored model. All text should be correctly oriented.
Now that "opposite" parts are in a family table they should then be interchangeable with their "as-showns".
This would require some special attention.
The references used to assemble swappable "as shown" part should be such that the wazzu interchange with its opposite be seamless. ie all the opposite's referenc- es are equivalent to the as shown. Surface ids would either need to remain the same or have some mapping that allows the swapping/interchange of handed parts in assemblies.
This would involve datum plane's color directions being flipped, mates changing to aligns or visa versa and maybe dimensions becoming negative.
By building a family table of the assembly and including the generic's "as shown" components, instances of the assembly could be added to the assembly family ta- ble, that replaced the generic "as showns" with their "opposite" instances names producing automatic opposite assemblies.
Features unique to an instance should be able to be created in an instance (family table would show the feature as suppressed in the other instances and generic). If the unique feature(s) are created in the generic, the features should be able to be added to the family table and suppressed in any or all instances.
This would be a real asset in improving productivity and checking of symmetrical assemblies.
Disadvantages, with these methods are: