Machined Part From a Casting

Your best bet would probably be make a configuration for cast and one for machined... For example, if you have a hole that is cast at 0.50" and finished machined is 0.55", when you select the dimension for the size of the hole, you can define which configuration it applies to by going into the properties of the dimension, and selecting the "specify configs" box... another option would be to create a design table and build from there... Hope that helps...

Jeff

Howard wrote:

If each stage has a different part number you could create a derived part.

Create a new part file Insert>Part select your casting Cut it up and save

I would suggest creating a standard part as the casting and using the casting to create a derived part that will be the machined part. There are several advantages to this approach.

First, this approach guarantees that all features in the casting are applied to the machined part. Second, the casting and machined part are separate (but linked) files allowing you to easily assign independent part numbers. Third, this approach resembles the actual process used to produce the finished part. The casting model (and associated drawing) can be used to inspect the finished casting. Then, the casting is machined as shown by the machined model (and associated drawing). Finally, by keeping the casting and machined features in separate files, cast versus machined features are easily identified.

By the way, I use this method every time I need to model the machining of a cast part. It works extremely well and is easily understood by anyone else that needs to work with the files.

"John Eric Voltin" wrote in news:H96Af.22794$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.texas.rr.com:

I agree. That's how I've been doing it recently, after experimenting with configurations. We don't use configurations very often, and I find it awkward to manage the feature and be constantly aware of "this configuration" or "all configurations". Its npt too bad when you can design a casting complete and then add simple machining features, but if you have to go back and make any siginificant changes it takes more thought (and potential for mistakes) than using the derived part method.

John pretty much mentioned the advantages I've found. The separate part number advantage is big for me.

This has been discussed here before with similar results. For more opinions, and some of the same, search groups.google.com.

MHill

John, Thanks for that tip, to do that, are you talking about opening an empty part then insert part (the casting). From here do all the machining on the new part? I am using Solidworks 2005

Howard

Hello Howard,

Yes, that is correct. I did this often in SolidWorks 2005 and just recently switched to 2006.

Prior to 2005, I believe the wording of the feature used to insert the part (casting) was slightly different - maybe "derived part" or "base part". Unfortunately, I don't have access to any older copies of SolidWorks and I don't remember the details. Regardless, it worked the same way.

That depends.

If the model for the casting has a feature tree that is small to midling then you can create the casting as one configuration and then create the machined part as another configuration. I have done cast parts in the past as one sldprt file with the casting, machining, both patterns and core all in one part. However, if you have PDM constraints or if the casting has a large feature tree then you might consider making a part for the casting and another part for the machined version. The reason for this is that when SW rebuilds each configuration the file size will balloon up. A PDM constraint frequently encountered is that versions of configurations cannot be tracked.