Pyramid machining

[brian_p1]

Hi,

Is anybody using a pyramid with 3 vices on a 5 axis machine for machining 3 components at the same time?

If so what is the best way of posting the program out, I looked at tombstone machining but there is no option that I can see to add angled faces, if I try to post it as a multi fixture program then it does not change the offset as the offset is fixed to the first fixture offset in the post.

[kelbie.ockey · Accepted solution]

There are a couple of ways of doing this. The first is to simply program one instance of the part and call it out three times on your machine, hand modifying the fixture ID each time. You could even just throw together a simple subroutine by hand. This method is definitely the easiest method, but will not allow you to minimize tool changes between each of the three instances.

To output a single program that cuts all three, and minimizes tool changes, do the following:

1. Import the desired part model(s) and fixture model.
2. Use the transform tool to position the three part models as desired on the fixture model.
3. Right-click the fixture model, and set it as a clamp (ensure that clamp avoidance is turned on in your machining attributes).
4. Use the combine solids function in the solid wizard to perform a union between the three part models, and then select that newly combined single solid as the stock solid in the stock properties. This is the critical step in this process. 
5. Program the part as desired. 
6. Ensure that the operations are ordered as desired. 
7. Post Code
8. ??????
9. $$$$$

This is a rather advanced task. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you need any help. 

[brian_p1]

Thanks for the reply, I had thought that the first way you described would be the easiest but its not the most efficient.

Combining solids together is easy enough but i can see the programming getting very tedious for complex parts as you would be programming everything 3 times. I have attached a quick sample program, is this how you would go about it?

[kelbie.ockey]

You know, you probably can just pattern and/or transform your features around. This may require creating a central setup/ucs to either patter or transform around. If you are working from multiple fixture offsets, it could be a bit tricky, but should work fine. Does that make sense?

[brian_p1]

Have created a new setup with 1st U.C.S central to pyramid, if you transform copy and rotate the facing feature in setup 2 then the preview looks ok but when you accept the facing operations are still in the same setup.

If you copy the feature into setup 2 & 3 then it will work.

When it comes to doing the hole on the side you cannot copy the feature into the other setups, but you can transform copy and rotate the hole to the other 2 components.

I think this will be limited to easier components and could end up getting complicated unless there is another way of transforming.

[kelbie.ockey]

What you are describing is the best method. Holes should be easy enough, and can actually be recognized (if using recognition that is) in your global setup if you would like. Copying and pasting is actually a great solution, so long as the setup is in the same relative location for each part. As you mentioned, this could get a bit spicy with complex parts. 

I'd say this is particularly helpful when doing production runs. Just do the quick mental math on a project as to whether you'd be better off spending some extra time on the front end really dialing it in, or if it's just better to do the hand programming subroutine method. 

I have seen a development request for multi-axis functionality in .mf documents. I think this would really get to the heart of this issue, and many more. I'm going to go ahead and add this thread to that internal development task. Just for your records, that task is FCAM-2667.

[brian_p1]

It definitely comes down to batch size and complexity of components as we would want to be running this lights out using the auto power on function of the machine. Sometimes just posting out 3 programs with 3 separate offsets would be the quickest way to get it going but if it was a repeat run then probably worth spending the time copying and pasting although this method is not time efficient from a programming point of view.

Thanks for your answers it is good to see someone from Autodesk actively answering questions and implementing development requests as this forum has been lacking that recently.

[kelbie.ockey]

I'm happy to help! Good luck on this project!