At least two sections consolidated together/gathered under Assembly Workbench. Later the catparts are given imperatives like counterbalance, point or
surface requirements, and so on between one another. This regular technique will be appropriate in the event that we know the situation of the parts forthright.
Be that as it may, in the event of some unforeseen issue, If we have to choose the situation of the part during gathering plan – like planning a format for a segment, or
planning directing for wiring and so on, we may need to do the accompanying:
1) We have to amass the segment with the base part,
2) Need to the get together in the design gathering to perceive the amount it conflicts or clears the adjoining part or segment.
3) Need to compute the clearances between other accessible segments in the design.
Under the previously mentioned condition, we have to look at the get together and continue changing our segment/part position to discover the ideal situation in the design. On the off chance that we continue changing the part position more occasions in the mind boggling get together, we will free
track of the limitations for the positions which we give without fail.
Since we will choose the best position, we will consistently need to contrast new position and the old position and pick the best-consequently we will hold old limitations and begin giving new imperatives for new position and at one purpose of time, we will discover heaps of position requirements given to our Layout get together.
To dodge such disarray in position requirements, let us embrace the best practice to explain this.
Conventional assembly method in simple terms:
Position 1 Product
Part 1 is given with position constraints and assembly with the Base part.
This process is for position1. Now we want to try to move this part1 to another place in the Base part to decide its best position and also to see its interference/best clearance with other components. For example, We use 2 position constraints to assemble with the base part.
Position 2 Product
Part 1 is given with new position constraints and assembly with the Base part in different places.
Since we got to decide the best position, we will not delete the previously created constraints. Rather we will deactivate the old constraints and give new constraints to this new position2.
Suppose we are working on complex assembly and deciding the best position, I need to try out 2 or 3 best positions. In such a case, at one point in time, we can find lots of constraints created by us.
For example: we use 2 additional position constraints to assemble with base part and deactivating the previously created constraints
Instead of giving constraints every time for a new position, let us adopt the best practice of creating separate catpart for various positions and using them in assembly as shown below:
Let us use 2 position constraints to assembly with base part as we do in the conventional method.
Part 2 – will contain the position details (location points) for position 1. Similarly, we will be creating the location points which we want to try out in our layout, as separate catparts as part 3, part 4, etc.
Each time when we need to change the position of my part1 to check clearance/clash with the Base part, we will replace the old position catpart – Part2 with the new position catpart – say part3. we need not change the constraints given to the assembly. This method gives the flexibility to try out more number of position, also we can get back to the position we wish to have finally, without disturbing the constraints given in the assembly
Demonstration : A Simple situation is explained here
The situation is like, we need to decide the best mounting position for L-Brkt. We got to mount this brkt to frame and check the
We have a frame and have two components already available at a fixed position. Now we got to optimize our L brkt position in the
assembly. Under the conventional assembly method, we will give constraints to mount the L brkt in one position, then deactivate these
constraints and give new position constraints to try out and see its correctness as per clearance. Similarly, if we need to try out
different positions, we will keep on creating constraints.
Created a catpart containing details for the Position of L-Brkt as shown in the tree. This part will contain the
position points which we like to try out for the first case. Using these points, the L-brkt is assembly by giving
position constraints as shown.
Created one more catpart contains location points, for the Lbrkt which we like to try out for case 2 as shown below:
Now, select the catpart which contains the location details for case1 and go to components > Replace Component.
Browse and select the catpart which contains the location details for case2 and say OK.
Once we replace the catpart with the new position catpart, the constraints will automatically map with the new location points and will try to update the same existing constraints which we gave earlier. Say OK to this
Once if we update, we can find the Lbrkt automatically updates itself in a new position.
A simple case is explained here, If we work on complex assemblies or when we need to try out more
possible positions and select the best, we can adopt this method, which saves time and can avoid lots of
Incase of Complex assemblies or cases where we need to try out more assembly options for the parts, then we can go for this method,
as this method:
1) Eliminates the necessity of giving constraints for every option
2) Helps in keeping track of the constraints we are given.
3) Saves time
4) Can compare and choose the best option for assembly.