Return to the old industry initiates new ideas …. or rather merging ideas into seemingly unconnected branches …. 🙂

I am going to trace my newly figured out procedure :


There are two solids that I not accidentally named, i.e.:

Styling Body ,

Slider – which is subtracted from the Styling Body (according to the structure in the tree) and has the ability to rotate around the axis visible in the figure.


In addition, this procedure is described by a set of the following parameters:

Styling body Volume – measures the volume of Styling Body Solid

Main Body Volume – Measures the volume of the entire creation regardless of the result of Boolean operations

Slider free movement check – this is a Boolean parameter that returns false or true value depending on whether the solids by rotation of the

slider solid will subtract differently, whether the solids will be in collision

Volumes subtract – difference in the volume of Main body and Styling Body – in case of lack of collision this parameter will return 0 value,

Dog house rotation angle – angle of rotation of Slider solid around the axis.



What in the case of “collision” of these two solids will result in something like that:

Parameters change as follows :



So we get the information through the Boolean parameter that the solids are in collision and we get some negative value of the volume differences due to the structure of the tree of this procedure and the formulas that have been described. Most importantly, we get a value other than 0 of the Volume subtract parameter for “collision”.

And now, to add something “visual” informing you of a collision with a KWA license, we made a check that clearly tells us about it:


And now it’s time to desecrate the PEO license, and again the Design of Experiment will be used to determine the potential angles of collision.

The following parameters have been set:


Iterations will be carried out on the parameter Dog house rotation which results in whether the bodies are in collision or not. Unfortunately, the DOE does not accept a Boolean parameter.This would make it clear whether or not we have a collision by false or true value. The result of this iteration was something like this :


We got 4 values, of which only one value is different from 0 – we have “collision at 120 deg rotation (iterations can be freely compacted with step parameter of DOE task) Here it is  visible on the graph:


So we can apply the value of 120 deg directly from the DOE tool, which will result in:


Or choose one of the values that returned 0 for the case of no collision.


Constructors of plastics elements have probably already sensed my intention: -) ….

So the rule is to streamline the construction process of the classics of the genre when it comes to plastic elements:

A typical task of the constructor is to provide an optimum position of the ” dog house” ensuring free exit of the slider. As the saying goes “think big but do the small things first” such improvement can be divided into several parts (template lifecycle) :


– standardize the “house” with a knowledge template,

– improve this template with a tool that verifies its feasibility,

– develop this template with new special cases.


These were “small things” 🙂


And now “think big” :

– implementing a new process in the company…

Summing up, the tool is supposed to speed up the construction of the dog house and verify the two cases:

Free exit of the slider

Slider „in collission”

And here’s a video with the concept of this tool and how to use it:


So you need a “minute” to insert a finished verified dog house …












Comments: Be first

Recent Posts

I welcome everyone interested in CATIA . I will […]

Each Part in CATIA has its own UUID identification. It’s […]

The matter might seems trivial… it gets a bit […]

In the previous entry, I have described some of […]

And now an entry for Fetishistic B-Rep Dodgers 🙂 […]