Hole Feature - Symmetric and Asymmetric Hole Depth Options

[EScales]

Whenever I add an angled hole using the On Point placement option, it always leaves a small wedge of material left over at the top of the hole.  So, I have to go and create a second hole with the same options, except I have to "flip" the direction to cut out that small wedge.  I end up creating two hole features to get one hole the way I want it.  Why not eliminate the "flip" button and add the same direction buttons that we use in the extrude feature?  The options "Direction 1", "Direction 2", "Symmetric" and "Asymmetric".

[dan_inv09]

1 & 3. I would be nice if we could sketch on the midplane to drill through both walls of a pipe with a single feature. If you need a different tap I would think it's okay to have a different feature.

2. My interest is primarily cases such as:

I would like to put the hole on flat and counterbore the other way for clearance for the bolt head or nut on castings and similarly on welded parts where the weld might need to be cleaned up.

While khosking and others jumped on with the idea of thru holes from a midplane which is also a good idea, the solution you seem to be working on has gotten away from the initial problem. Don't stop what you're doing, but I think it's misleading to package it as solving EScales's issue. (While it would work for that specific case, it's really kind of a workaround to use it that way.)

[Curtis_Waguespack]

Holes Example (Inventor 2015).ipt ‏177 KB

Assumption #1:  A symmetric or asymmetric hole type would primarily benefit usages where they are applied to symmetric components.

I think the "symmetric components" part of that statement might not hold true. I might have a part that has a flat face that is offset from the center of the part, that I want to use to create a hole and have it the hole run through all in both directions, see Hole 5 and 6 in the attached example.  It could be that a From/To or Between solution is needed for these cases.

Question 1 - Can anyone provide additional benefits, or use cases that are not satisfied by existing hole creation methodologies?  Or simply confirm our assumption.

I've provided several uses cases in the attached example, that I think cover many of the situations where extra features are needed to acheive a result.

Assumption #2: Symmetric or asymmetric hole types would be restricted to drilled types with simple or clearance hole designations only.  Counterbores, spotface and counter sink would not be supported as the current hole architecture only supports a single entry point.  The work around for this workflow need would be to simply create two separate holes.

Question 2 – Does anyone have a concern with this solution proposal?

I'm not sure that I agree with this assumption and proposed solution. See hole 1, 2, 3 for examples where I would expect to be able to use Counterbores and tapped holes. See dan_inv09's example for a case where extending a counter bore up from the placement plane would be ideal.

Assumption #3: Threads would be applied to a single direction only.  A single hole (set to symmetric or asymmetric) cannot support varying thread designations (LH, RH for example).

Question 3 – Is there any concern with this solution proposal?

If I understand correctly, then I agree with this assumption. See the attached examples Hole 4, 5 and 6 for holes that use mirror features to create symeetric and assemtric threaded holes. I would expect the same result from the improved feature, but without the mirror features.

[drawings]

Hi Dan,

Making multiple holes to bore both ways or add features (countersink,
counterbore, spotface & threads) will create the feature. It requires
more steps than a hole feature that incorporates them. It also is listed
as two or more holes instead of one in the hole feature.

It is not unusual to combine two of these features in one hole.: To
spotface before a counter bore or countersink. To place a countersink
inset in the face (short counterbore - Countersink tools have an outer
diameter). To place threads at the bottom of a counterbore (so the
threads pull from in the block and don't distort the surface or more
bolt is put in tension.

To bore a hole through a pipe requires an offset plane tangent to the
surface. Upon this plane a sketch is made to locate the holes and then
the hole is bored to match the pipe/shaft diameter. This gets one hole
with appropriate depth.

It is simpler to place the sketch on the existing plane in the center
and then bore both ways. This creates two separate holes with half the
depth each.

workarounds get the job done but then have repercussions.

Dave O.

--
Dave Oliver
Aggregate Machinery Inc.
Salem Oregon
drawings@thunderbird2.com
503-390-6284

[Anonymous]

I dont have a whole lot to add here as I think you guys covered it. I'm basically keen on 'Eliminating the resultant fragment' that sticks up after the first hole. basically reduce the steps Curtis used in his model to 'Delete Faces'.

I'm not sure exactly what I need - but I usually have a pressure vessel, with a laser cut hole on only one side of the wall.

Below mock-up example using 2 holes, that could be done with one. (I cant remember what my exact problem was that lead me to this forum thread in the first place!):

Usually only need a simple drilled hole - but a thread and countersink might be nice sometimes

Assumption #1 - I might actually need 'Through All' in one direction (Hole 2) and 'To Next' on the other (inward direction - Hole 1), but Symetric will probably be enough..most of the time

Assumption #2 - Is it possible to, if chosen, at least force a counter sink/counter bore on one side and have the option to 'toggle' which side it lands on?

Assumption #3 - Single direction threads OK, but with a toggle for switching direction? 

Just some of my crazy ideas - always possible to make 2 hole workarounds for these cases..

Keep up the good work

[JLeeSaxon]

If the bi-directional hole could not have spotfaces/countersinks/etc, I think it would be of very limited usefulness. Yes, occasionally you see the "angled hole" "clipping" problem from the original post, but that's not the main issue for me. See, I put a counterbore at both the top and bottom of nearly all my threaded holes. The first for the screw head and the second to prevent backthreading when using captive (partially threaded) fasteners. Currently this is a pain - two sketches on different planes which both have to be updated if I change anything - and that's the main thing I want to see addressed.

[JLeeSaxon]

Also, another primary use for bi-directional holes would be when you don't want to deal with Work Planes. I'm sorry, but Work Planes are a pain and they make a mess of the Model Stack. So whenever I can I build my parts with bi-directional extrusions from the Origin Planes. For me, at least, these extrusions are asymmetrical 999 out of 1000 times. Symmetrical-only bi-directional holes would, again, be of only limited help.

[dan_szymanski]

Awesome feedback everyone – Thank You!

Hello @dan_inv09, @Curtis_Waguespack, @Allplay-Community, @Anonymous, @JLeeSaxon & All (who have yet to comment).  I am addressing each of you as you all weighed in on varying aspects of our general assumptive solution proposals.  We have chewed up your feedback and have prepared some additional responses.  Please continue to share feedback you may have regarding any of the following proposals.

Regarding dan_inv09’s image for 2.

Question 4 - What if we made it possible to support a negative value within a Spot Face or Counterbore Hole Feature to support the workflow need outlined within the image?  Would this eliminate the need to support bi-directional holes that possess different diameters?  After all, a bi-directional extrusion (supported today) only supports a single sketch, bi-directionally.

Regarding 2 - Eliminate resultant fragment when a hole is created on a face via a “on point” placement, and is not planar parallel to the face

Question 5 - What if we were to update the compute behavior of all holes to automatically remove any fragments that would not physically remain due to the manufacturing practices required to drill them?  For example Curtis_Waguespack’s Hole1, Hole2 & Hole3 would extend (ever so slightly) in the opposite direction to remove resultant material so the fragment never appeared without it impacting the hole note info or specified hole depth?  Would everyone feel comfortable with this solution? 

Question 6 - Would you feel comfortable with the auto compute behavior removal (mentioned above in Question 5) or would you expect this to be an option within the hole creation/edit dialogs & mini-toolbars called “Extend start” (or something similar)?

We hope to improve general usability, speed & efficiency & allow you to get what you need designed in less time (by breaking as few CAD and MFG rules as possible along the way ).  We expect post process steps (like applying a thread after the creation of a hole) to still work.

Heathos88,

We are reviewing your other comments/suggestions.  Thanks!

JLeeSaxon,

Could you please provide a sample image or data set of the design need you outlined and need addressed?  I am not familiar with “backthreading prevention”.  Thanks!

We greatly appreciate your partnership in flushing out potential solutions.  Thanks!

Dan Szymanski

[dan_inv09]

For Question 4, that sounds like it should work.

5 seems okay as well, for 6 I would think it's always better to have options - as far as a "drilled" hole it should always apply, but someone out there might have some novel way of using the feature to do something else - but I don't see me being personally affected if it's always on.

[DRoam]

dan.szymanski: "Question 5 - What if we were to update the compute behavior of all holes to automatically remove any fragments that would not physically remain due to the manufacturing practices required to drill them?"

My answer: 42

I think if you could implement this, it would be the answer to life, the universe, and every hole. After all, this is how holes are made in real life. Doing this would address the concern Curtis brought up to Assumption #1. It would even make the proposed solution in Question 4 unnecessary, as long as we could add a counterbore and specify a depth of "0" from the starting plane, to achieve the result in dan_inv09's picture.

dan.szymanski: "Question 6 - Would you feel comfortable with the auto compute behavior removal (mentioned above in Question 5) or would you expect this to be an option within the hole creation/edit dialogs & mini-toolbars called “Extend start” (or something similar)?

I think making this an option would definitely be necessary. Some parts with holes are made using methods other than machining, such as injection-molding or 3D-printing. Users making these types of parts would need to be able to turn off the "Extend start" option (I do like that name as well, by the way. I think it's about as intuitive as you could hope for).

Actually, if we could specify an "Extend start distance", that would be even more ideal (more ideal?... kind of like more infinite). This would take care of a situation where our part somehow has some geometry a few inches above where the hole is meant to be drilled, enough for a machinist to fit the necessary drilling tool. Perhaps a situation like this:

We might want to extend the start for the counterbore, but not so far that it went through the upper leg of the channel.

[Anonymous]

This would be a fantastic improvement!

Says it's "accepted" but as of IV 2017 not implemented...

[Cadmanto]

This is definitely needed.  Like it describes, one has to create to hole features in opposite directions to get this to work.

[dan_szymanski]

This idea has been implemented within Autodesk Inventor 2018 via three individual enhancements within the Hole feature. Special thanks to everyone who cast a vote for it & appended additional comments & suggestive improvements.

1 - A new "Extend Start" is available when creating or editing a hole.  Enabling the "Extend Start" option will remove material in the opposite direction to allow the hole to be manufactured.  This will be useful in situations where a resultant fragment of material remains above the termination plane of where the hole was placed (a hole placed from a point on an angle, near a bend in a sheet metal part, or near a fillet).

2 - A new "Symmetric" option for simple, thru all hole types

3 - The ability to specify zero, as the major diameter, spotface depth for spotface holes.

[jeanie.wayker]

See here for more info: What's New 2018 Hole