Results of ap238 dis comment resolution
Download
1 / 86

Results of AP238 DIS Comment Resolution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 208 Views
  • Uploaded on

Results of AP238 DIS Comment Resolution. WG3 N2095 2006-07-14. David Loffredo [email protected] STEP Tools, Inc. 14 First Street, Troy, NY 12180 (518) 687-2848 / (518) 687-4420 fax http://www.steptools.com. AP-238 Status. Final AP238 ready for ISO publication

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Results of AP238 DIS Comment Resolution' - olathe


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Results of ap238 dis comment resolution l.jpg

Results ofAP238 DIS Comment Resolution

WG3 N2095

2006-07-14

David Loffredo

[email protected]

STEP Tools, Inc.

14 First Street, Troy, NY 12180

(518) 687-2848 / (518) 687-4420 fax

http://www.steptools.com


Ap 238 status l.jpg
AP-238 Status

  • Final AP238 ready for ISO publication

    • Held DIS ballot workshop, Valencia June 2005, developed resolutions for all comments

    • Part 121 updated to follow new style of Part 111, mappings now match final 111/121 definitions.

    • ISO 14649-12, 121 published in 2005

    • AIC 522e2 published in 2006

  • AP238 IS Documents

    • wg3n2101 AP-238 document

    • wg3n2096 EXPRESS short form schema

    • wg3n2097 EXPRESS long form schema

    • wg3n2099 Comment log

    • wg3n2098 AP validation report

    • wg3n2100 SEDS on ISO 14649 parts to SC1/WG7


Ap 238 testing forums l.jpg

AP-238

AP-238 Testing Forums

  • Since Seattle, running AP-238 testing activities in conjunction with OMAC STEP-NC working group.

    • Weekly conference calls w/CAD-CAM vendors, NC control vendors and several OEMs.

    • January 2005 forum in Orlando focused on 5axis testing with cutter location paths, four data sources and two controls configured for different machine geometry

AB Tool Tilt

BC Table Tilt


Ap 238 testing forums4 l.jpg
AP-238 Testing Forums

  • 5-axis machining tests at Boeing and NIST producing test articles using AP-238

    • NAS 979 circle/diamond/square with inverted cone

    • Representative aerospace part with 1-2degree inclines and tightly constrained positioning holes


Ap 238 testing forums5 l.jpg
AP-238 Testing Forums

  • In May, focused on closed-loop machining testing cutter contact paths, probing operations

    • Presented results at EASTEC 2005 in Springfield MA.

  • Testing forum is creating and processing AP-238:

    • CC1 (toolpath only) and CC2 (toolpath + geometry) programs

    • Cutter location paths described using a variety of 3axis and 5axis basis curves

    • Cutter contact paths using surface normal vector

    • Machining programs using english and metric units, geometry as well as speed, feed, and other process data

    • Workpiece single point probing operation

    • Driving Siemens 840D with TRAORI for 5axis, Fanuc 30i with TCP for 5axis, and initial work on Heidenhain

    • Direct AP-238 export from UGS NX, MasterCAM, GibbsCAM, and AP-238 via APT from CATIA.


Ap 238 testing forums6 l.jpg
AP-238 Testing Forums

  • Creating a large archive of AP-238 machining test data sets for distribution to future testers.

    • Currently ~100 data sets spanning a variety of machining programs with STP files, screen dumps, reports and such.

    • CC1 and CC2 files, simple 2.5D as well as multi-axis paths, surfacing and high-speed paths


Reality check arm savings l.jpg
Reality Check: “ARM Savings”

  • Now that we have an large body of AIM test sets for reasonable parts, we can get hard numbers on the ARM implementation “savings”

  • Look at a realistic high-speed milling program

    • Roughing and finishing program using a high-speed technique called trochoidal milling.

    • Tool moves forward in loops to improve cooling, tool wear and accuracy.


Reality check arm savings8 l.jpg
Reality Check: “ARM Savings”

  • The AP-238 CC1 file:

    • One project, workpiece, and workplan.

    • Two each of workingsteps, operations, technology, machine functions, toolpath features and tools (one each for roughing, finishing)

    • 26 cutter location toolpaths (23 roughing, 3 finishing)

    • All of the associated AIM property and relationship objects necessary to describe the non-geometric parameters on them.

  • All the rest is Part 42 curve geometry, describing the toolpaths, which would be identical in an ISO 14649 ARM implementation.

    • Strip all non-geometric information from the AP-238 file to find the minimum size of an equivalent ARM implementation.


Reality check arm file size savings l.jpg
Reality Check: “ARM File Size Savings”

  • Manually strip everything but the curve geometry

    • Complete file 25.8meg (25842485 bytes)

    • Geometry only 25.8meg (25786744 bytes)

    • ARM Savings: 0.2% (55741 bytes)

  • This is still too generous, because some of the savings were just /* */ comments in the file.

    • 17273 bytes were from comments, the savings attributable to entity data was just 38468 bytes (0.15%)

  • Assumes that ISO 14649 implementation uses zero bytes to describe:

    • workplan, workingsteps, workpiece, features, technology and machine functions parameters.

    • Actual savings would be less than 0.15%


Reality check arm instance count savings l.jpg
Reality Check: “ARM Instance Count Savings”

  • Response: Bytes are one thing, but what about the so-called AIM “explosion” in instance count?

    • Complete File: 300200 instances (74 types)

      • The geometry as below, plus:

      • 482 instances spread over 66 extra types

    • Geometry Only: 299718 instances (8 types)

      • 1 plane (w/ 1 axis2_placement)

      • 12 composite curves (w/57258 composite curve segments)

      • 16748 polylines

      • 40524 trimmed curves

      • 40524 circles (w/ 40524 axis2_placements)

      • 104126 cartesian points

  • Even less savings by this metric, only 0.1%


Reality check arm processing speed l.jpg
Reality Check: “ARM Processing Speed”

  • Response: Toolpath geometry is one thing, but a file that big is not usable.

    • The file is good sized, but not unreasonable. 100meg+ files in common use on the CAD side.

  • Wall clock timing tests on Dave’s wimpy ~4 year old laptop with 800mhz PIII

    • Time to parse P21 file and create objects in memory:

      • 26 sec

    • Once in memory, time to process and convert the toolpaths to a form amenable to Siemens 840D or FANUC control:

      • ~3 sec


Reality check other files l.jpg
Reality Check: Other Files

  • Response: You picked some crazy special case to rig the statistics in your favor.

    • I did start with the biggest file I had handy, but the results hold up for other realistic parts as well.

    • About 100 CC1 test files that rangefrom 15k to 8meg

    • 5-axis Airfoil Surfacing

      • 3.5meg, save 32874 bytes 0.9%

      • 38529 instances, save 300 0.7%

    • 3-axis Wheel Cover Surfacing

      • 816k, save 17222 bytes 2%

      • 8888 instances, save 221 2.5%


Reality check other files13 l.jpg
Reality Check: Other Files

  • Did find a little more savings looking at small 2D files, with many small toolpaths.

    • 2.5D Pocketing

      • 443k, save 138k 31%

      • 4794 instances, save 1467 30%

      • A bit more savings, but hardly overwhelming

  • Numbers still assume ARM implementation can use zero bytes / zero instances to describe:

    • One project, workpiece, and workplan.

    • Two each of workingsteps, operations, toolpath features and tools, 5 technologies, 1 machine functions

    • 106 cutter location toolpaths


Reality check conclusions l.jpg
Reality Check: Conclusions

  • The numbers show ARM “efficiency” arguments just don’t hold any water.

    • On real CC1 parts, only 0.2% to 2% savings at the cost of all integration and interoperability.

    • Once you add workpiece BREP geometry to be able to view the part (CC2), these percentages will become even smaller!

    • Only place with non-trivial savings are trivial files, which aren’t a performance concern anyway!


Ap 238 status15 l.jpg
AP-238 Status

  • DIS ballot ran six months ending 2005-05-31

    • wg3n1534 AP-238 document

    • wg3n1540 EXPRESS short form schema

    • wg3n1541 EXPRESS long form schema

    • wg3n1542 Comment log

    • wg3n1538 AP validation report

  • DIS passed, 15 yes votes, no FDIS needed

    • Swiss “no” vote later changed to abstention

    • Ballot results available in sc4n1929

    • 119 comments from 7 countries, discussed in Valencia

      • CH - 54 FR - 5

      • JP - 11 KR - 16

      • SE - 1 UK - 6

      • US - 26


Comment summary l.jpg
Comment Summary

  • Comments can be grouped as follows:

    • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

    • Harmonization of information requirements

    • General document wording and structure

    • Missing information requirements

    • Usage clarifications needed

    • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

    • Editorial bugs

  • The following slides walk through the discussion and handling of each.


Comment resolution l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Relationship between 238 14649 others l.jpg
Relationship between 238/14649/others

  • CH 1-2,4-6,8

    • Intent of these comments seems to be to rework our scope to forbid us from using AP-238 on a machine tool control.

    • Reject, AP-238 is input to the machine tool control. AP-238 is the AIM encoding of the information requirements ISO 14649

    • Work to make changes and clarify where we can, but we are under the following constraints

      • SC4 boilerplate text cannot be changed without SC4 resolution

      • The normative scope that was approved can not be changed without another DIS ballot cycle.


Relationship between 238 14649 others19 l.jpg
Relationship between 238/14649/others

  • JP1

    • ACCEPT – The current document is milling and turning, but the scope includes any NC process. Added note below for clarity.

    • NOTE The ISO 14649 documents available at the time of publication cover milling, drilling, and turning processes (ISO 14649-11 and 12). Future editions of this part of ISO 10303 may include additional numerically-controlled processes if additional ISO 14649 descriptions become available.


Relationship between 238 14649 others20 l.jpg
Relationship between 238/14649/others

  • JP2

    • Already limited to CNC machining by first sentance of scope statement. In addition, the use of the term "manufacturing process description" only appears in reference to ISO 14649.

    • Wording carefully developed in Seoul with AP-240 editor to limit use to numerically controlled processes. AP-240 also handles non-NC processes and but was constrained against having sufficient information for automatic execution.

    • REJECT, but added following note explaining position within the suite of step manufacturing aps.

    • NOTE This part of ISO 10303 is an element of the “STEP Manufacturing Suite” of ISO 10303 application protocols, which cover a wide range of information associated with the manufacture of a product, such as the input to process planning (AP224), the output from macro-process planning (AP240), numerically-controlled machining (AP238), casting (AP223), forging (AP229) and the output from dimensional inspection (AP219). While each application protocol has some unique scope elements, other elements, such as manufacturing feature and manufacturing tolerance descriptions, are common to many of these application protocols.


Relationship between 238 14649 others21 l.jpg
Relationship between 238/14649/others

  • JP3

    • REJECT - Agree that the wording is awkward, but the design discipline statement is required by Clause 9.3 of the SC4 supplemental directives.


Comment resolution22 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Harmonization of information requirements l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • CH 10-13,15-21, 23-30, 32-51

  • Philosophy for handling additional requirements.

    • How can we handle integration with AP-224 features when necessary fields are missing from ISO 14649?

    • How can we handle requirements discovered during testing and AP development when SC1 is no longer developing 14649?

    • Reason for UOFs beyond what is in 14649. This integrated data must be present and does not preclude use on the control.

  • General approach

    • Document information in AP-238 for publication in this edition, then submit a SEDS on ISO 14649 and send it to SC1/WG7.

    • When added to future editions of ISO 14647, future editions of AP-238 can just reference instead of maintaining two copies of the definition (as we did with AIC522)


Harmonization of information requirements24 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • All comments discussed and resolutions developed

    • CH 9,39,41,44,47 Remove multiple units

    • CH 11-12, 21,29,33-35,38,40,42,43,45,51 Remove things added to AP-238 for feature harmonization with AP-224

    • FR5 Handling of transition features

    • UK1 Requirement for Final Features

    • CH 18,27,28,30,46,50 GDT Data

    • CH 19,23,24 PDM Data

    • CH 14 Add 5-axis and free form operations

    • CH 13,37 Remove nc_legacy_functions

    • CH 15,25,26,49 Remove toolpath maximum deviation

    • CH 15, 49 Remove relation on speed curve

    • CH 16,32,KR1 Remove machine axis constraint

    • CH 17,36 Remove tool holder profile


Harmonization of information requirements25 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • CH 9,39,41,44,47: Remove support for explicit units for geometry and process parameters

    • All STEP APs supports multiple units in a file, a large number of existing designs have mixed units. Capability to explicitly state the natural units. Why shouldn’t STEP-NC.

    • AP-238 testing activities encountered mixed units in every round, because data is developed by multiple people at multiple times so this is a common requirement.

    • REJECT - Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649 suggesting that units be added and send it to SC1/WG7.


Harmonization of information requirements26 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • CH 11-12, 21,29,33-35,38,40,42,43,45,51, UK1

    • Remove various aspects of feature harmonization with AP-224, final featues, transition feature face/param, CH34 workingstep and final feature link, explicit representation.

    • REJECT if comment says “remove”

    • ACCEPT if comment just says “harmonize”

    • Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649 and send it to SC1/WG7. Note that AIC522 has been updated to add parametric description of transition features.

    • For final and intermediate features, clarify descriptions and explain how they are used.

    • UK1 Requirement for Final Features -- also handled by clarification.


Harmonization of information requirements27 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • FR5 Handling of transition features

    • ACCEPT We do need to support these features but believe that the current edge round feature and fillet radius parameters can support this so no change is needed.


Harmonization of information requirements28 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • CH 19,23,24: PDM

    • presented Poitiers October 2003, Bath July 2004, Review copy June 2004, CH23-24 says PDM not needed by ctl

    • REJECT - AIM P41 data for PDM already referenced by 14649, but does not provide enough context for SC4 use. ARM definitions are needed to give context to the approvals, dates, person/org etc.

    • Submit SEDS to 14649 to provide the additional context.


Harmonization of information requirements29 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements

  • CH 18,27,28,30,46,50: GDT

    • CH18 says add GDT to 14649, CH27 says GDT not needed by ctl, CH28,30,46 remove part of GDT definitions. CH50 is also an editorial

    • CH18 ACCEPT - SC1 and SC4 agree that the GD&T definitions shared by AP-203/214/224/238/240 and 219 should also be in ISO-14649.

    • CH27 REJECT - This is the opposite of CH18

    • CH28,30,46 REJECT - The entire set of definitions should be used without modification as per CH18

    • CH50 ACCEPT Add figure for total runout and other tolerances to clarify.


Harmonization of information requirements cont l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 15, 25, 26 Remove toolpath maximum deviation

    • Technological rationale for this is clear.

    • Came out of BCL (EIA494) definition, so we know that it is sufficient to convey the info.

    • All agree that this should also be in ISO-14649-10

    • Need to put in AP-238 because we need to reference a published version of ISO 14649 because of ISO rules.

      • Could issue a TC on 14649-10

    • REJECT - Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649-10 and send it to SC1/WG7. Harmonize in future editions if necessary.


Harmonization of information requirements cont31 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 15, 49 Remove relation on speed curve

    • Relaxes constraint on curve to correct asymmetry in 14649-10

    • SC4 believes this should also be in ISO-14649-10

    • Need to put in AP-238 because we need to reference a published version of ISO 14649 because of ISO rules.

      • Could issue a TC on 14649-10

    • REJECT - Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649-10 and send it to SC1/WG7. Harmonize in future editions if necessary


Harmonization of information requirements cont32 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 16,32,KR1 Remove machine axis constraint

    • SC4 believes this should also be in ISO-14649-11

    • SC1 has agreed to discuss this for future editions

    • Need to put in AP-238 because we need to reference a published version of ISO 14649 because of ISO rules.

    • REJECT - Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649-11 and send it to SC1/WG7. Harmonize in future editions if necessary


Harmonization of information requirements cont33 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 17,36 Remove tool holder profile

    • CH36 says tool holder not needed by ctl, only upstream at macro level (not true, as long as generative is present, need holder)

    • P111 does not define complete volume for milling tool from gage line to tip.

    • Within AP-238 clarify that the profile define the maximum envelope within which an actual tool holder must exist.

    • All believe this should also be in ISO-14649-111

    • REJECT - Keep in AP-238 document, write up SEDS on ISO 14649-111 and send it to SC1/WG7. Harmonize in future editions if necessary


Harmonization of information requirements cont34 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 14 Add 5-axis and free form operations

    • ACCEPT These definitions are present in the document, but in section 4.1.8. Add note to this section reminding the reader that the technology specific parts are in other clauses.


Harmonization of information requirements cont35 l.jpg
Harmonization of Information Requirements (cont)

  • CH 13,37: Remove nc_legacy_functions

    • The name “legacy” is highly objectionable.

    • Rename extended_nc_function (externally defined?)

    • extended_nc_function --> is a subtype of nc_function

      • description string which identifies the function.

    • ACCEPT - Replace nc_legacy_function with extended_nc_function defined as on next slide.

    • Write up SEDS on ISO 14649-10 and send it to SC1/WG7, including the example of active clamping.


Extended nc function l.jpg
Extended NC Function

  • Extended NC Function

    • An extended_nc_function is a type of NC_function which specifies a manufacturing or handling operation which does not involve the interpolation of axes and for which no other more specific type of NC_function exists.

  • The data associated with an Extended NC Function are the following:

    • description.

      • description string which identifies the function


Comment resolution37 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


General wording and structure l.jpg
General Wording and Structure

  • All comments discussed and resolutions developed

    • FR1 General on interfacing non-SC4 parts.

    • FR3 Reference to ISO 13399

    • FR2 AAM

    • JP4,5 Documentation of Imported AOs

    • KR9 Synchronize with latest P111/P121

    • CH 54,UK4 XML examples

    • CH52,53, JP7: Conformance Classes


Wording structure 1 l.jpg
Wording / Structure (1)

  • FR1: General on interfacing non-SC4 parts.

    • ACCEPT all T24 projects are interfacing with the other groups as there are requirements. Note that we are harmonizing across the 10303 APs, ISO 14649, PLIB, 13399, and metrology groups DMIS/DML/TC213.

    • Have stayed in liaison with MANDATE

  • FR3: Reference to ISO 13399

    • ACCEPT

    • Normative reference only possible if cited in normative text. Can cite it informatively in the bibliography.

    • When we move to latest 14649-111/121, will add a normative or informative reference as needed.


Wording structure 2 l.jpg
Wording / Structure (2)

  • FR2: AAM

    • ACCEPT

    • The activities of AP-238 are identical to those of ISO 14649

    • Need to update the ISO 14649-1 AAM so that it refers to AP-238, AP-240, AP-219 and any other that fits

    • It is preferable to have a single AAM referenced by both.

    • Maintain the reference to ISO 14649-1 in annex F and submit SEDS to SC1 to update AAM to refer to APs as above.

  • JP4,5: Documentation of Imported AOs

    • ACCEPT List of imported AOs present in Clause 4.1 UOF listings as well as Annex G ARM EXPRESS-G. All relationships documented in EXPRESS-G as well.

    • Added all AOs to clause 4.2. Imported ones contain a normative reference to the source document and an informative note with the express description.


Wording structure 3 l.jpg
Wording / Structure (3)

  • KR9: Synchronize with latest P111/P121

    • ACCEPT need to update mappings to accommodate the changes in those parts.

  • UK4 XML examples

    • REJECT turning workingstep is plural, milling is singular.


Wording structure 4 l.jpg
Wording / Structure (4)

  • CH 54 XML examples

    • ACCEPT XML did not work out to be particularly helpful. Will withdraw Annex K

    • Withdraw the XML examples, but keep the annex with annotated Part 21 AIM examples

    • Examples based on the 14649-11 and 12 examples

    • CC1 and CC2 examples for simple block with toolpath.


Wording structure 5 l.jpg
Wording / Structure (5)

  • CH52,53, JP7: Conformance Classes

    • SC4 CCs conform to business cases, if there are more business cases then we may need to add more CCs.

    • The 14649 CCs are a matrix of technical permutations but not explicitly tied to business cases.

    • Need documentation for any additional business cases that have been identified.

      • Possibly divide CC3 into machining of 2.5D features and full features?

      • Separate CCs for each technology (milling/turning?)

    • Rather than split CCs, expand the granularity of the PICS proforma questionnaire to call out the different groups of technologies or features.


Conformance classes l.jpg
Conformance Classes

  • Change to more appropriate names for the CCs

    • CC1: Tool path programming

    • CC2: Closed-loop programming

      • For non-linear machining programs. Will now include the probing, if/then/else and other types of advanced control flow entities.

    • CC3: Feature-based programming

    • CC4: Generative programming

  • Expand the granularity of the PICS proforma questionnaire to call out the different groups of technologies or features.

    • milling / turning for all

    • on CC3/CC4 (milling) 2.5d features, all features

    • on CC3/CC4 (turning) all features

    • CC2 and up, shape reps supported for workpiece


Comment resolution45 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Missing information requirements l.jpg
Missing Information Requirements

  • All comments discussed and resolutions developed

    • FR4 5-Axis Flank Milling

    • JP8 Need surface finish, general properties

    • US1 Toolpath ID

    • US3 Boolean values not optional

    • US4 Feature required when just doing toolpaths

    • US11 Cutting component should not be required

    • US14 Roughing and finishing for freeform milling

    • US18 Geometric validation properties

    • US21 Workpiece PDM fields

    • US22 Inconsistent defs for toolaxis curves

    • US19 Use of toolpaths in multiple locations

    • US20 Full range of shape representations

    • US26 Assumed machine tool characteristics.


Missing info 1 l.jpg
Missing Info (1)

  • FR4 5-Axis Flank Milling

    • Applies to ruled surfaces, pockets where one side is a surface

    • Can do today using explicit toolpaths

    • 5axis flank milling operation could be a new type of operation to call out generative machining for this thing

      • What are the process parameters?

    • Current features are process-free, there are a set of current features that could be machined using flank milling.

    • Reluctance to add process-specific features

      • Ruled surface feature instead?

    • DEFER to Edition 2 of AP-238 and 14649-11 e2

      • Can do today using explicit toolpaths.

      • We would prefer it be added to ISO 14649-11 e2

      • Could add to AP-238 if SC1 refuses, but need the extra time to discuss the process and feature parameters.


Missing info 2 l.jpg
Missing Info (2)

  • JP8 Need surface finish, general properties

    • ACCEPT - Harmonization with AP-224, adopt existing ARM and mappings for part properties (surface finish, heat treat, etc.)

    • Note that we are already using the AP-224 property for material, this is just bringing in the full description

    • Suggest to SC1 that they should be added to ISO 14649-10 as well. Send back using SEDS as with others.


Ap224 240 properties l.jpg
AP224/240 Properties

  • Original AP224/240 ARM unclear on AIM instance representing Property, link to part, shape aspects.

unspecified?

???

PART

pdf

property definition

relationship

property definition

relationship

property_definition?

property_definition

“part property”

property_definition

“surface property”

Is Property a separate

property_definition?

No rep for this?

Mapping for the link

to shape aspects conflicts

with link to the part

property definition

representation

property definition

representation

representation

representation


Ap224 240 properties50 l.jpg
AP224/240 Properties

  • Clarified ARM to match actual usage observed in AP224 data sets.

    • AIM representation unchanged.

    • Property (now General_property) supertype of other, more specific properties (surface, part, process, material)

    • Link from property to the part or a shape aspect clarified.

    • Can still group them with prop_def_relationship if desired.


Arm for properties 1 of 2 l.jpg
ARM For Properties (1 of 2)

TYPE general_property_item = SELECT (

Shape_element,

Workpiece

);

END_TYPE;

ENTITY general_property

ABSTRACT SUPERTYPE;

description: label;

owner: general_property_item;

related_properties: SET [0:?] OF general_property;

specifications: SET [0:?] OF specification;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY part_property

SUBTYPE OF (general_property);

part_characteristics: SET [0:?] OF property_parameter;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY surface_property

SUBTYPE OF (general_property);

is_surface_finish: BOOLEAN;

surface_characteristics: SET [0:?] OF property_parameter;

END_ENTITY;


Arm for properties 2 of 2 l.jpg
ARM For Properties (2 of 2)

ENTITY process_property

SUBTYPE OF (general_property);

process_name: label;

process_characteristics: SET [0:?] OF property_parameter;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY material_property

SUBTYPE OF (general_property);

material_characteristics: SET [0:?] OF property_parameter;

material_hardness: SET [0:?] OF hardness;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY hardness;

scale: label;

nominal: value_with_unit;

high_value: OPTIONAL value_with_unit;

low_value: OPTIONAL value_with_unit;

END_ENTITY;


Missing info 3 l.jpg
Missing Info (3)

  • US1 Toolpath ID

    • ACCEPT, added ID arm attribute mapped to action_method name as per the other IDs.

  • US3 Boolean values not optional

    • Would like to change ARM so they are optional with a well-defined default.

    • Mainly with technology feed/spindle override and machine functions flood/mist/through spindle coolant on/off, and toolpath priority.

    • Rationale is to reduce the coding effort for initial implementations

    • ACCEPT do for three cases above, and any other for which a reasonable default exists.


Missing info 4 l.jpg
Missing Info (4)

  • US3 Boolean values not optional

    • ARM change not needed. Added notes in the mapping table giving defaults for the following.

      • toolpath.its_priority,.its_type

      • trajectory.its_direction

      • technology.feedrate_reference

      • milling_technology.synchronize_spindle_with_feed, inhibit_feedrate_override, inhibit_spindle_override

      • milling_machine_functions.mist, through_spindle_coolant, chip_removal

      • turning_technology.sync_spindle_and_z_feed, inhibit_feedrate_override, inhibit_spindle_override

      • turning_machine_functions.chip_removal, tail_stock, steady_rest, follow_rest

      • boring_operation.spindle_stop_at_bottom

      • tapping.compensation_chuck

      • thread_drilling.helical_movement_on_forward

      • turning_machining_strategy.allow_multiple_passes

      • two5D_milling_strategy.allow_multiple_passes


Missing info 5 l.jpg
Missing Info (5)

  • US4 Feature required when just doing toolpaths

    • REJECT feature is useful to get implementors thinking about the additional capabilities that can be added.

  • US11 Cutting component should not be required (may be moot)

    • REJECT no longer in part 111

  • US14 Roughing and finishing for freeform milling

    • An example of this is FANUC “Super G” mode, if you know that you are roughing, you can drive the machine much faster.

    • ACCEPT - Added roughing and finishing subtypes as per other milling and turning operations. Send to SC1/WG7 as SEDS


Missing info 6 l.jpg
Missing Info (6)

  • US18 Volume and Area measures to support geometric validation properties

    • ACCEPT Added the following from P41 to AIM, and appropriate area, mass, and volume measures to ARM.

      • area_measure

      • area_measure_with_unit

      • area_unit

      • volume_measure

      • volume_measure_with_unit

      • volume_unit

      • mass_measure

      • mass_measure_with_unit

      • mass_unit


Missing info 7 l.jpg
Missing Info (7)

  • US21 Workpiece PDM fields

    • Also helpful for traceability back to design

    • ACCEPT, add the following optional fields to Workpiece:

      • its_category, its_components, its_people, its_orgs, its_datestamps, its_timestamps, its_approvals, product_people, product_orgs, product_datestamps, product_timestamps, product_approvals, revision_id, revision_people, revision_orgs, revision_datestamps, revision_timestamps, revision_approvals

    • Add the following new AOs

      • Assigned_person, Assigned_organization, Assigned_date, Assigned_time, Workpiece_assembly_component

    • Change its_id mapping to product.id for compatibility with other APs


Missing info 8 l.jpg
Missing Info (8)

  • US22 Inconsistent definitions for toolaxis curves in 14649

    • cutter location trajectory interprets tool axis curve as IJK values

    • cutter contact trajectory interprets tool axis curve as yaw and pitch angles (yet surface normal curve is IJK!)

    • ACCEPT - use IJK for both in AP-238

      • Strongly recommend to SC1 that the handling of toolaxis curves in 14649-10 be made consistent as well.

      • Submit SEDS to SC1/WG7 as per other comments

      • DONE


Missing info 9 l.jpg
Missing Info (9)

  • US19 Use of toolpaths in multiple locations

    • Workingstep, feature, operation

    • Workingsteps may reuse operation + feature + toolpaths

      • Associate an origin with workingstep?

      • Path patterns that you repeat in many locations? (such as hole drilling patterns for thousands of holes)

    • 14649 has some verbage about locating toolpaths from features, but

      • Not really workable in practice.

      • axis2placement conventions different in 14649 and AIM (covered in fundamental concepts and assumptions)

      • Unintuitive results if you start with a plain toolpath file and annotate with features later on (may have to numerically transform the toolpath geometry)


Toolpaths in multiple locations l.jpg
Toolpaths in Multiple Locations

  • Discussion identified two different activities here

    • Reuse a single toolpath in a different location

      • Current ARM does not have any way to do.

      • proposal for transformed toolpath addresses this

        • axis placement + reference to another toolpath

      • DEFER Should also be in 14649, propose addition

    • Reuse all toolpaths from an operation in a different location

      • ISO 14649 does by using origin from different features, but this doesn’t work for 238 because of feature harmonization constraints.

      • Note that in 14649, features created specifically for the operation, so they can be given appropriate placement. AP238 may use feature from upstream with origin that was convenient for designer.

      • Rather than implicitly handling through feature, make explicit as axis placement on workingstep. Would have same numeric value as ISO 14649 feature placement.

      • ACCEPT Really only affects ap238, do it now.


Operation toolpaths origin iso 14649 l.jpg
Operation/Toolpaths Origin ISO 14649

WS1

WS2

Feature 2

Feature 1

Operation

In 14649, feature

placement does

double duty as implict

origin for tpaths

In ap238 we have

harmonization constraints

that make this difficult

Placement

TPath

TPath

TPath

TPath

TPath


Operation toolpaths origin ap 238 l.jpg
Operation/Toolpaths Origin AP-238

Explicitly add placement to workingsteps

WS1

WS2

Placement

Feature 2

Feature 1

Operation

Placement

TPath

TPath

TPath

TPath

TPath


Operation toolpaths origin ap 23863 l.jpg
Operation/Toolpaths Origin AP-238

  • Added toolpath orientation attribute to workingstep ARM:

    • ENTITY machining_workingstep (* m0 *)

    • SUBTYPE OF (workingstep);

    • [ other atts omitted]

    • toolpath_orientation: OPTIONAL axis2_placement_3d; -- ADDED BY 10303-238

    • END_ENTITY;


Missing info 10 l.jpg
Missing Info (10)

  • US20 Full range of shape representations

    • ACCEPT with permitted usage as below

    • Explicit shape on features only supported when shape reps with topology (faces) is present

    • Only implicit shape for features can be used in other cases (which is how 14649 works today)

      • AIC 501 edge_based_wireframe

      • AIC 502 shell_based_wireframe

      • AIC 507 geometrically_bounded_surface (already present)

      • AIC 508 non_manifold_surface

      • AIC 509 manifold_surface_shape (already present)

      • AIC 510 geometrically_bounded_wireframe

      • AIC 512 faceted_brep

    • This also harmonizes with AP-240/AP-223 and the ship APs


Arm for full range of shape representations l.jpg
ARM for Full range of shape representations

  • Added as below

ENTITY workpiece; (* m1 *)

[ other fields omitted ]

its_geometry: OPTIONAL shape_representation; -- RELAXED

its_bounding_geometry: OPTIONAL bounding_geometry_select;

TYPE bounding_geometry_select = SELECT (

block, right_circular_cylinder, (* m1 *)

advanced_brep_shape_representation,

edge_based_wireframe_shape_representation, -- ADDED

faceted_brep_shape_representation, -- ADDED

geometrically_bounded_surface_shape_representation, -- ADDED

geometrically_bounded_wireframe_shape_representation, -- ADDED

manifold_surface_shape_representation, -- ADDED

non_manifold_surface_shape_representation, -- ADDED

shell_based_wireframe_shape_representation -- ADDED

);

END_TYPE;

ENTITY in_process_geometry; (* m1 *)

as_is: OPTIONAL shape_representation; -- RELAXED

to_be: OPTIONAL shape_representation; -- RELAXED

removal: OPTIONAL shape_representation; -- RELAXED

END_ENTITY;


Missing info 11 l.jpg
Missing Info (11)

  • US26 Assumed machine tool characteristics

    • ACCEPT

      • adopt machine_parameters ARM concept and mappings from AP-240

      • Track progress of ASME B5.59-2 and enhance AP-238/240 when that becomes available.

    • Added minimum_machine_params attribute to workplan and a new machine_parameters ARM type

      • had to params around a bit since since ap240 talks about maximum of a machine, and we want the minimums.

    • Added AIM type machining_execution_resource as a subtype of action_resource.

      • Handles required machine capabilities using the same general approach used to handle required tool capabilities.


Arm for minimum machine params l.jpg
ARM For Minimum Machine Params

ENTITY machine_parameters; -- ADDED BY 10303-238

feedrate: OPTIONAL speed_measure;

spindle_speed: OPTIONAL rot_speed_measure;

number_of_control_axis: OPTIONAL INTEGER;

number_of_simultaneous_axis: OPTIONAL INTEGER;

positioning_accuracy: OPTIONAL length_measure;

spindle_power: OPTIONAL value_with_unit;

table_indexing: OPTIONAL BOOLEAN;

table_length: OPTIONAL length_measure;

table_width: OPTIONAL length_measure;

axis_travel: SET [0:?] OF machine_axis_travel;

work_volume_length: OPTIONAL length_measure;

work_volume_width: OPTIONAL length_measure;

work_volume_height: OPTIONAL length_measure;

WHERE

WR1: (0 = SIZEOF(axis_travel)) OR

((NOT EXISTS (work_volume_length)) AND

(NOT EXISTS (work_volume_width)) AND

(NOT EXISTS (work_volume_length)));

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY machine_axis_travel; -- ADDED BY 10303-238

axis_identifier: STRING;

travel_length: length_measure;

END_ENTITY;


Comment resolution68 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Usage clarifications needed l.jpg
Usage Clarifications Needed

  • All comments discussed and resolutions developed

    • US5 Spindle handling off/CW/CCW?

    • US13 Complete circles in toolpaths

    • US24 Interpretation of surface normal curve

    • US25 Matching parameterization of curves.

    • US23 Context for tool axis and normal vector curves

    • KR10 Usage of length measure rep items

    • US12 Usage of ratio measure

    • US15 Units for counts, ratios and parameter value

    • US2 Transition from tool requirements to actual tool


Clarifications 1 l.jpg
Clarifications (1)

  • US5 Spindle handling off/CW/CCW?

    • ACCEPT, document as follows in 5.2.1

    • A speed of 0 means spindle off

    • Positive is CCW

    • Negative is CW

    • That may work for rotational speed, but what if the spindle is specified as the surface speed (cutting speed)?

      • Propose that we use the same sign convention as with the rotational speed (positive CCW / negative CW)

      • Part 12 also uses this convention in const_cutting_speed

  • US13 Complete circles in toolpaths

    • ACCEPT document trimmed_curve usage as in comment

      • Recommend shared cartesian_point usage to avoid epsilon comparison.


Clarifications 2 l.jpg
Clarifications (2)

  • US24 Interpretation of surface normal curve

    • ACCEPT Implied that IJK, but put in an explicit statement that it is to be handled as IJK

  • US25 Matching parameterization of curves.

    • ACCEPT adopt recommended algorithm from comment

  • US23 Context for tool axis and normal vector curves

    • ACCEPT

      • Explain representation context usage for the various cases of measures, curves, directions etc. in more detail in 5.2.1

      • Add local rule to machining_toolpath requiring global unit context for basic curve, but not the IJK curves.

    • If units are not needed, give geometric_representation_context but no global_unit_assigned_context is needed


Clarifications 3 l.jpg
Clarifications (3)

  • KR10 Usage of length measure rep items

    • ACCEPT It is difficult to understand this if your first exposure to it is from the mapping table. Explain usage of complex instances of measure_with_unit subtypes in 5.2.1 Include examples for length, angle, time

  • US12 Usage of ratio measure

    • ACCEPT Add suggested explanation to 5.2.1

  • US15 Units for counts, ratios and parameter value

    • ACCEPT add suggested usage explanation to 5.2.1


Clarifications 4 l.jpg
Clarifications (4)

  • US2 Transition from tool requirements to actual tool

    • ACCEPT Investigate adopting AP-240 approach. Tracking tool carousel id, and tool position, reference to PLIB library for tool.

    • Add an its_usage field to machining_tool that transitions to actual tool with position and product information about tool

    • Add library_reference UOF from AP-240 to cover PLIB link.

    • Usage has location fields and link to a tool product for shape.

    • Eliminate tool_holder_profile attribute added at DIS because we can now get the complete tool shape through the product.

ENTITY tool_usage; -- ADDED BY 10303-238

its_id: label;

its_position: OPTIONAL identifier;

its_carousel: OPTIONAL identifier;

its_product: OPTIONAL workpiece;

its_library_reference: OPTIONAL externally_defined_representation;

END_ENTITY;


Library reference uof l.jpg
Library_Reference UOF

ENTITY Externally_defined_representation;

location: OPTIONAL cartesian_point;

placement: OPTIONAL Axis_placement;

identified_by: Library_part_assignment;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY Library_part_assignment;

definitional_class_bsu: Class_BSU;

definitional_property_value_pairs:

SET OF [0:?] Library_property_value;

END_ENTITY;

-- was Property_value

ENTITY Library_property_value;

property_bsu: Property_BSU;

value_amount: measure_value;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY BSU;

code: label;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY Class_BSU

SUBTYPE OF (BSU);

defined_by: Supplier_BSU;

version: label;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY Property_BSU

SUBTYPE OF (BSU);

name_scope: Class_BSU;

version: label;

END_ENTITY;

ENTITY Supplier_BSU

SUBTYPE OF (BSU);

END_ENTITY;


Tool usage in aim l.jpg
Tool Usage in AIM

Existing

Operation

Tool

Workpiece

product / pdf / pdef

machining_tool

tool parameters

requirement_for_action_resource

product definition

shape

machining_tool_usage

(new action method

subtype)

product_definition_

process

“tool usage”

shape definition

representation

process_product_

association

Action properties for

position and carousel

shape representation

product assoc goes to the pdef rather than the PDS

(we also use for linking project to workplan)


Comment resolution76 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Mapping and express bugs l.jpg
Mapping and EXPRESS Bugs

  • All comments discussed and resolutions developed

    • KR2 turning_dwell_time_representation

    • KR3 Feed_per_revolution

    • US16 Use of count_measure/parameter_value

    • US17 Unit on NUMERIC_PARAMETER

    • KR4-8,UK2, US8,10 Mapping documentation bugs.

    • JP9-11,UK3 EXPRESS-G

    • KR12-14 Use of String in ARM EXPRESS-G

    • KR15-16 turning_type_* in AIM EXPRESS-G

    • US6,7 EXPRESS bugs


Mapping bugs 1 l.jpg
Mapping Bugs (1)

  • KR2

    • turning_dwell_time_representation ARM object? dwell_time type is mapped to machining_dwell_time_representation, was this added after P12v15?

    • ACCEPT will update to latest Part 12 arm concepts as part of FDIS and will map this and any other things that have changed.

  • US16

    • Mapping change for count_measure/parameter_value

    • ACCEPT update mappings to use count_measure to be more consistent with AP-224 replicate feature handling of similar semantics.

  • US17

    • Mapping for named/derived unit on NUMERIC_PARAMETER

    • ACCEPT update mappings to permit both named and derived units to be used.


Mapping bugs 2 l.jpg
Mapping Bugs (2)

  • KR4-8, US8,10 Mapping documentation bugs.

    • ACCEPT fix text as indicated in comments.

    • Also fix mapping table typos and such found by latest mapping table compilation software.

  • UK2,3 its_feature/its_features

    • REJECT turning workingstep is plural, milling is singular.


Mapping bugs 3 l.jpg
Mapping Bugs (3)

  • KR3

    • Feed_per_revolution. Way of describing speed, but is actual measure a length or speed? Comment says it is a speed (len/time), existing document says length.

length/time

measure_with_unit

with unit (l/t)

length

measure_with_unit

with unit (l)

For lengths, we use the

special P41 subtype

length_measure_with unit


Mapping bugs 4 l.jpg
Mapping Bugs (4)

  • Measure_with_unit has two attributes

    • value_component ---> the REAL part, the numeric value

      • This is the part 12

    • unit_component ---> reference to the unit description instance

  • ACCEPT

    • The quantity is not a length, it is a len/rev. So it should not be a length_measure_w_unit subtype and the unit should be a derived unit defined as len/rev

    • The numeric value will, in fact, remain the same, but will appear in the value_component as a numeric_measure rather than a length_measure.

length/revolution

measure_with_unit

with unit (l/rev)


Express bugs 1 l.jpg
EXPRESS Bugs (1)

  • JP9-11 EXPRESS-G

    • ACCEPT will update diagrams to use consistent placement as much as can be done.

  • KR12-14 Use of String in ARM EXPRESS-G

    • ACCEPT have the EXPRESS-G reference the “stubs” for the geometry rather than giving it as a string. See note at end of ARM diagrams. Treating as primitive type in ARM is common practice in the ARM diagrams of other APs.

  • KR15-16 turning_type_* in AIM EXPRESS-G

    • ACCEPT The EXPRESS exists in the document but somehow were omitted from EXPRESS-G. Will add them to the diagram

  • US6,7 EXPRESS bugs

    • (verify_rep_desc, AIC522 rules)

    • ACCEPT, already corrected


Comment resolution83 l.jpg
Comment Resolution

  • Relationship between AP-238, ISO 14649, others

  • Harmonization of information requirements

  • General document wording and structure

  • Missing information requirements

  • Usage clarifications needed

  • Mapping and EXPRESS bugs

  • Editorial bugs


Editorial bugs l.jpg
Editorial Bugs

  • All discussed and resolved as below

  • CH 7, 22,31,48,KR11, UK6, US9 General editorial

    • ACCEPT fix the text where indicated

  • JP6 PDF problems?

    • ACCEPT

    • The referenced AIM definitions are there.

      • 5.2.3.1.44 machining process body relation

      • 5.2.3.1.50 machining process sequence relation

    • Clarify comment, could not find in AIM EXPG. Does seem to be missing, will correct.

    • Document workplan path through sequential method as well as the process_body branch. Clearer for sequence characteristic that way. Did the same with path for elements of parallel and concurrent_action_method.


Explicit shape for tools l.jpg
Explicit Shape for Tools

  • Machining_tool calls out key parameters, but for simulation/visualization an exact brep shape is desired.

    • Part of US2 comment linking tool requirements to actual tools

    • Will come from a CAD model with associated product information.

    • Associate the tool requirement with a product model of an actual tool.

    • AP240 does a very similar thing with tool_assembly and tool_assembly_element.defined_shape. Goes to a shape aspect, we want to continue to the product?

    • ACCEPT – See resolution to US2, Added OPTIONAL tool_usage with optional its_product link.


Assemblies and workpiece categorization l.jpg
Assemblies and Workpiece Categorization

  • During aerospace testing with Boeing and Airbus originating data contains explicit shape from CAD for fixtures, tools and machined parts.

  • Need to categorize the products and describe assembly relations so that we can position the workpiece with the fixtures.

    • See resolution to US21

    • Added its_categories to workpiece with several known categories.

    • Added ARM Workpiece_assembly_relationship as used in AP240 and other APs


ad