hexagon logo

2-2-2 iterative alignment

Hi everybody,

Let me start off by saying I just took the hexagon 201 course so I am trying to get more familiar with it here at work.

At my company we work with a lot of castings. They usually use datum targets to identify datum A, B, and C. I Have attached a part I am currently working on with the relevant information. As you can see it has two points for A, two for B and two for C. How would you use these points for an iterative alignment? As far as I have read through the forums I've only seen examples with the 3-2-1 method. When I try using 2 points to level it just give me a message saying I need 3 points. I have seen on the pcdmis website a table saying I could use 3 circles in DCC mode but not much more information on that.

Thank you for your help.
Parents
  • It has been my experience that some of the PC-DMIS instructors know how to use PC-DMIS and they don't all have experience with inspection or manufacturing. Since the 6 target points are enough to locate the part for machining, they will be enough to inspect the part as well.

    If I was programming this (I thought it was one of my valve parts for a minute) I would first pick up the part with the machined surfaces (using one of the mate faces, the center of the valve bore, and one of the shaft bores). Then from there I would program the 6 target points as auto vector points. Select A1,A2,B1,B2 as your Level points. Think of it as a cylinder sitting on 4 points, it will fall into place. Then Select all 6 points for rotate, and both C1 and C2 for origin. Re-read what the Iterative alignment is asking for. It asks for a *minimum* of 3 points for level, *minimum* of 2 for rotate, and *minimum* of 1 for origin. The diameter of Datum A is given as 2.150. This is a basic dimension so it will never change. With the diameter and 2 points, you can generate a circle for A. It isn't shown, but I am under the impression that diameter B is also the same 2.150 basic diameter.
  • I think you're "spot on" in this assessment (along with Tater) below. I would say, however, that it "is" shown that A and B are the same singular cylindrical diameter as their targets are same diameter locations in section D-D (just different heights), and print has no lines indication surface changes.
Reply
  • I think you're "spot on" in this assessment (along with Tater) below. I would say, however, that it "is" shown that A and B are the same singular cylindrical diameter as their targets are same diameter locations in section D-D (just different heights), and print has no lines indication surface changes.
Children
No Data