Autodesk Process Analysis- Setting up two assembly tables for hydroforming

[natamor131]

I have a problem with setting up the model, which consists in taking the sheet metal from the buffer to the table, where the operator mounts the sheet and goes to forming. During this time, the operator should mount the plate on the second table. I made the tables as 2 processors that have an output for the hydroforming processor. The problem is that the assembly process continues even though the hydroforming is not complete and continues to send the components to the hydroforming processor. I want it to be done in the right way that the processor of table 1 waits for the hydroforming process on table 2 to end and for a change. can I ask for advice on this matter? I am sending the ss of the current model.

[liqinomickey]

Hi @natamor131 ,

It is not easy to tell computer the logic of wait for the processing before it could load another raw material. Because they were created as different processor.

The way I would do it, of course it is still a workaround. Is to use 2 sequential processors instead of 3 processors. 2 identical processor has 2 operations, OP1 is to load the raw material, OP2 is to do the hydroforming. use 1 real opeartor to take care of 2 OP1s, which is the real world. Use another "virtual" operator to take care of 2 OP2s. In this case 2 OP2s will only have 1 running. But the report need to add up the 2 processors.

So my question to you is to what situation are you trying to simulate? what is the insight would you like to gain after successfully create this simulation model? Thank you.

Mickey

[natamor131]

Hello @liqinomickey  , 

thanks for the answer. Did you mean such a solution as in ss? 

The simulation is still uncontrolled. operations are waiting for each other, and the "tables" do not exchange each other. I'm just learning in this program, and the final effect I would like to achieve is a report for the table operator and for the hydroforming process. so that the model is also legible. Thank you 🙂

[liqinomickey]

pardon I do not have PA at hand, so I drawed this:

The 2 Processors are identical, containing 2 operations, Table+Hydroforming.

[natamor131]

Hi @liqinomickey ,

Thank you for your help. it works really well.

When I have a problem, I will definitely report it.

[natamor131]

Hey @liqinomickey ,

it's me again. I wanted to extend my simulation according to your scheme. I wanted the tables to work in a change as above. Operation 1-7 is part assembly, operation 7 is hydroforming, operations 8-12 are part disassembly. It should be correct that the operator is assembling (op. 1-6), hydroforming is in progress, the operator at this time performs assembly on table 2, when it ends, goes to disassembly on table 1 (op. 8-12), ends disassembly, starts assembly on this table the table itself and so on. In the model from the photo, he does it chaotically, eg after operation 5 he jumps to the 2nd table then comes back, etc. He does not do it chronologically.

Sorry to ask a lot of questions but this is my beginning and I can't find the tutorials I need. If you had any idea I would be grateful. thank you.

[natamor131]

Hello @liqinomickey ,

I still try to solve it, i added 3 "virtual operator" which is responsible for disassembly. Again, there is an error that it performs assembly and disassembly at the same time, which is physically impossible. Do you have any idea to work around this.
P.S. I don't know why the processor doesn't finish all operations, but the "green" bar reloads to 3/4 and goes to the next operation.
Thank you for your help.

[liqinomickey]

Hey @natamor131 ,

Sorry I missed the previous message. 

1. If Op1~6 were supposed to be peformed in a row without interuption, shall we merge them into 1 op? or are you trying to simulate some other circumstance that need to split them into 6 ops?
2. green bar? Would that be the optimization gauge? I am not sure about that. or if you could forward the .adskfpa model to us and we could take a closer look.

But I have to recommend you trying ProModel, who is parterning with Autodesk. And they have better, more professional simulation solutions, and more supporting services than Process Analysis. Thank you.

[natamor131]

Hi, @liqinomickey 

I wanted to divide each operation due to the easy manipulation of data in order to check / improve the production line. That's why I wanted each operation to be listed, I tried several ways to make each operation have its own processor, etc. Nothing worked what I expected If this is not possible. It will try to continue looking for a solution 
The company is currently working on APA and I do not have much room for maneuver in terms of programs.
Thank you for your help.

[natamor131]

Hi @liqinomickey ,

you may have missed my answer. Would you have any interesting idea about my project?

Thanks, N.

[liqinomickey]

Sorry @natamor131 ,

I did missed that. Sorry that I do not have more insights around this. Since PA does not have a signal flow and pull model, it is hard to simulate these kind of situation. 

Mickey