How do you put the sum of part property in the drawing of an assembly?

Hello everyone,

I am looking for a way to show in the drawing of an assembly the sum of all the properties of the parts present in this same assembly.

To be more precise: in each of my parts I have the "LongDeveloppe" property, in my assembly the only way I have found to make this sum is to generate the momenclature array and make the SUM of the "LongDeveloppe" column and then manually insert in the assembly properties the value I found.

My problem is that when changing the length of the pieces, the value in the property becomes wrong.

 

So I'm looking for a solution to do this automatically

 

Thank you all  .

Hello

Can't use constrained planes on either side of your developed length in your assembly? If so, you just have to put a rating between these 2 plans.

Hello a.leblanc,

This is not possible because the product I am using moves in all three XYZ axes.

Thank you for this proposal

Yes, unless the elements to be measured are in several axes, or any axis, or with curvatures...

So that explains the problem of guillaume.gaillard

And at first glance I don't see a simple solution/function to do this.

 

There is the famous trick which is to go through "measure" configs on the PRTs,

with a defined section common to all,

to do the same in the ASM,

And then to measure the total mass, and to calculate the length of it by the defined section.

The radii of curvature may slightly distort the result, but this is still acceptable.

If I want I would put this kind of text  $PRPSHEET: TOTAL"LongDeveloped".

I think the only way is to create a macro?

What if you made a phony sketch in each part with a line taking up the developed length, and in your assembly you used a property to make the sum of these line lengths?

           "used a property to sum these line lengths?"

What do you mean?

A property of the style ="1@esq1"+"1@esq2"?

 

With each new assembly must recreate this link?

 

That's why I proposed the method by going through a "defined section / total mass".

 

Whatever is in the ASM, it calculates globally.

After that, all that remains is to create a property in the ASM.

 

No, it is possible to dimension  the lines directly in the assembly, and to bind the sum of these dimensions to a property.

Why do you want to use values in the coins? Wouldn't it be easier to make sure you have them from the assembly stage?

I totally agree with you to have the data in the assembly but I don't understand your solution.

 

 

Here is a short video to explain the idea


vlc-record-2017-04-20-11h46m19s-2017-04-20_at_11-43-39.mp4-.mp4

The method I propose is free of any constraint of PRTs, whatever the number of PRTs, because it calculates the length in relation to 3D gemometrics (only curvatures can generate a measurement defect that remains acceptable, depending on the desired final accuracy).

you just have to create/manage "measurement" configs in the PRTs

create the "measurement" config in the ASM

create an equation in the ASM to calculate the length.

Create the property that will read the value of this equation.

 

disadvantage, we go through the "equation" module of SW which is not "top top" in reliability during reconstructions (will sometimes require ctrl+B or ctrl+Q)

1 Like

Olivier42, don't you have some images to illustrate your proposal? or a file with the ASM?

On the left, the classic ASM,

In the middle the "Measurement" config

on the right, the recalculation by hand (so slight measurement defect, but acceptable)

 

each file has a "Measurement" configuration with the function of the measurement scan

The measuring position can also be selected differently from the construction.

(in my example example: Bar 1 = center, Bar 2 = center, Bar 3 = outside)

 

By putting as the "Measurement" section a round Ø1.12837917 mm

Volume = length

 

disadvantage of this method: requires you to know how to manage your configs

Advantage: Measurement in all axes, even any axis, or curvatures.


capture.png
1 Like

3D file,

 


asm_01.rar
1 Like

In addition to my initial idea, I simplified it a little.

We don't use the equations in ASM anymore (so it's one less problem).

Thank you, the idea is good.