<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:2138643230;
mso-list-template-ids:-468663836;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Hi Martin, All<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I don’t really care which method is used in STEP as long as it works with the rest of the design / manufacturing / quality / etc. space. I do care that we enable broader application and extend our ability
to simulate more of the product (via twin or whatever you prefer to call it). <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Your description of the benefits of option 2 are intriguing. I’ve had an idea for some time that I haven’t created a way to do it. I propose that specifications, specifically tolerances, could and should be
linked. We do that today in very simple cases with MMC (MMR) and LMC (LMR) modifiers – one interpretation of these specifications is that the size of the geometric tolerance zone depends on the size of the feature of size; for example, the larger the hole,
the larger the location tolerance. This is already addressed in 242.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Here's an example of what I envision:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Consider a plate or PWB with holes near the edges. To maximize usable area on the plate, today we optimize the holes such that when they are at their largest size and maximum mislocation, the edge distance
is enough so the tear out strength exceeds the design requirement. The edge distance and material properties are enough to overcome shear. Consider that the thickness of the plate and the material properties also affect the tear out strength, and these parameters
also have tolerances applied. Ignoring material properties for now, if the plate is thicker than nominal, we could decrease the edge distance and maintain the same tear out strength. However, currently we do not have a mechanism to link the thickness, hole
size, and positional tolerance for the hole. It could be a good idea if such linkage yielded working parts with less cost. I assume the complexity of such a situation is not feasible for manual workflows, but for automated workflows this seems like it could
be easy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Martin, I foresee methods specifying tolerances that link separate specifications, such as the thickness and the hole size/positional tolerance. Again, today, the thickness and hole size/location are independent
specifications. There are many examples where this sort of linkage would yield greater allowable variation for parts. However, since most workflows are manual today, and most design and analysis are also done manually, and we do not have methods for defining
these specifications yet, this opportunity remains unfulfilled.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The example above is a machining/cutting example and simple enough to get my point across. Given that GD&T and GPS are developed for manual workflows and communication between people in those workflows, the
ultimate result would be defining performance parameters and your machining twin could optimize all applicable variables to achieve interchangeable functional parts without specifications defined for manual workflows, such as GD&T and GPS. No GD&T, no GPS,
only performance parameters, simulation, analysis, and twins.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Bryan Fischer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">TDP360 LLC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Office (503) 625-2480<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Mobile (503) 260-3084<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> step-manufacturing <step-manufacturing-bounces@steptools.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Hardwick<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 18, 2022 8:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> step-manufacturing@steptools.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [step-manufacturing] Testing digital twin manufacturing using the AS1 assembly<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>We are testing digital twin manufacturing using the AS1 assembly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The assembly is fastened using six nut/bolt combinations, and each one needs to be given individual identification as it is inserted into the assembly, so that it can be given unique characteristics and properties.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think we all agree that at least part of this identification should be a serial number, but we disagree on how the serial number should be stored in the STEP data.<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Option 1 is to store the serial number in the id attribute of the product entity.
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Option 2 is to store the serial number in the id attribute of the product_definition entity.<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p>While somewhat arcane, the first definition keeps a clean separation between design and manufacturing because each of the six products has a different existence and identification.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The second definition enables more data sharing between the instances which allows for the possibility that design and manufacturing will occur in tandem, with some design changes occurring during the manufacturing, and this is one of the goals of digital
twin manufacturing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Martin Hardwick<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>President STEP Tools, Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Cell: 518 253-0596<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>"There are billions of STEP files and millions of STEP-NC files"<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>