Railing automation in solidworks

Hi everyone!

I'm just registered on the site and for good reason...

Let me explain, in my old company I saw that an excel table had been developed to modify guardrail parameters in solidworks.

We could say that we need x uprights (or the center distance), with returns (with the angle), smooth such Ø, under rail such Ø, skirting board ect ... and the 3D model is automatically generated.

In my new position it could save me a lot of time and even deviate for other "repetitive" functions.

 

Can you enlighten me on the subject, how to proceed, ...

I've already searched the net but nothing that corresponds too much to my needs.

 

Thank you in advance

1 Like

Hello

It depends on your way of working: if for example a railing is a part (sldprt) it is quite easy to create a model that can be configured via an Excel sheet which will simply be a family of parts (even if there is only one configuration).

If you work more by assembly, it may be a little less simple, but we can achieve the same end.

4 Likes

Hello

Indeed, if it is for the modification of an existing part, the use of part families is very easy.

Otherwise, you have to develop in VBA in SolidWorks APIs, and it requires a good foundation in programming.

Sample code for programming a new document:

http://help.solidworks.com/2014/english/api/sldworksapi/solidworks.interop.sldworks~solidworks.interop.sldworks.isldworks~newdocument.html

 

1 Like

I work more with blends.

In my idea, the upright is a piece (variable: its height), the rail is another with already a defined section (variable: its length, change of slope, ...), for the sub-rail and the baseboard the same as the rail.

After that, if the sections can be variable, it's a godsend!

The goal is to be able to dissociate the parts quite easily to make detailed drawings.

As I said before, my primary goal is to use such a file for the modeling of railings that I do very regularly but have mutated to other uses (e.g. gateways, ...).

I'm not closed to solutions. The goal is to save time.

If the file takes longer to create but is more versatile, it will pay for itself very quickly!

Thank you

1 Like

So if it's only about the configuration of an assembly, the families of parts may be suitable, are you already using them?

An example here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGZTv99R4hE

The use is the same for assemblies.

The easiest in my opinion is to create a file, to make all the possible changes in 2 configurations, and to create the family of parts automatically:

http://help.solidworks.com/2012/French/SolidWorks/sldworks/Creating_a_Design_Table.htm

Each railing is unique or do you have pieces reused between "projects"?

If each railing is unique, it might be best to make yourself a model (immutable in reading only assemblies, parts and drawing), and when you have set it up you make a composition to take away. This way, your model remains standard and you end up with all your project-specific parts with their plans in your business file.

2 Likes

To put it simply.

 

-I draw my railing in sketch.

-I put equations to parameterize the number of lines constituting the bars according to the length of the guardrail and the maximum center distance desired (in your case 110mm I suppose).

-Then I create configurations by number of rungs. (config 1: 3 rungs, config 2: 4 rungs etc...) and I insert an equation to activate this or that config according to the number of bars that corresponds to the right config

 

-Then logically, all you have to do is open your railing, type in your total length, the rungs will be calculated and then the config which is linked to the number of rungs will be activated.

 

The only concern will be to manage your maximum centre distance according to the sections of profile used. But it's not dramatic...

That's what I do at home and that's what I found most logical and simple to put in place.

Is that clear to you?

 

1 Like

and why not go through DriveWorksExpress

Once configured you have all the dimensions and parts you want

you just have to change the outer sides

he will put you as many bars or (room) with regular space according to your previous requette

and what's more is your drawing and your listing and nomenclature 

magic what ;-)

See this tutorial video among others

See this page Google tutorial Driveworks  Xpress

https://www.google.fr/search?q=driveworksexpress&rlz=1C1CHFX_frFR512FR512&oq=driveworksexpress&aqs=chrome.0.57j62.8217&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=driveworks+xpress+tutorial+

@+ ;-))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndRLdKdXKWI

@+ ;-))

 

5 Likes

Oh yes, after that, it's sure that DriveWorks is quite capable of doing that.

You just need to learn a little, but it allows you to create databases according to the type of part.

 

Good Job Gt ;)

1 Like

.PL

I don't use the parts families but I'll take the time to take an interest in the question with the links you have attached to me. It seems to me in view of the descriptions I have skimmed to be a good solution to my problem. To be continued.

 

 

Benoit.LF

Yes, each railing will be unique but with the same bases. Same railing uprights, same beam section, same under-rail section, same skirting board section. And all this with standardised centre distances (according to NF standards and industrial sites).

The points that will change are: The altimetry of the beam (The sub-beam and the baseboard will follow with their center distances) and therefore the total height you are going up. The length of my railing. If there are angles (e.g. 90° return). The spacing of the uprights (depending on the total length of the railing, the siting constraints, whether or not the spacing of the uprights is homogeneous, etc.).

 

 

Bart

Your solution may be interesting but doesn't seem to meet my needs. Thank you all the same for participating in my dilemma!

 

PS: Yes, I take the liberty of addressing you on a first-name basis, I find it simpler and more user-friendly. We're all in the same boat. I hope I don't bother anyone...

1 Like

You don't bother anyone, on the contrary =)

 

Complete automation, I find it very dangerous in the sense that human checks are no longer done.

 

Relying too much on IT is a bad thing.

 

That's why I'm working in this direction by trying to automate as much as possible, while keeping checkpoints.

 

Well that's my point of view =)

 

Good luck!

2 Likes

 @ Pouti

DriveWorks xpress is the right tool

Just look at the links in my previous post

(A big Swedish manufacturer uses it to model these furniture models)

If you want to optimize your work and minimize your reconstruction time, it's not better

It's up to you now that you have the info

@+;-))

2 Likes

Watch this demo video

http://www.leguide3d.com/video/driveworks-2

including this example that speaks well visually,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wXN0VbKH58

it's magic ;-)

You'll be very surprised, it's the tool you need

https://www.youtube.com/user/DriveWorks

@+ ;-))

 

GT22

I'll explore that avenue as well...

Is DriveWorks already integrated into solidworks or is it an additional application? Not free?

 

 

After a good viewing of your videos this weekend I will keep you informed (no video access at my workplace...)

 

Thank you and have a good weekend

1 Like

In any case, from a methodological point of view (beyond the tool) you must formally define (in writing) all the variables and possibilities of your model of this railing (number of feet, possibility of not respecting the center distance on 2 or 3 feet, 1, or 2 or 3 returns, ...).

It will also give you more visibility on the choice of tool (flexibility).

PS: sorry I want you ... ;-)

2 Likes

@ Pouti

YES it is integrated into SolidWorks

Happy reading

@+ ;-))

See also this discussion on FOFO

http://www.lynkoa.com/forum/3d/quelle-est-la-difference-entre-une-piece-avec-configurations-et-driveworks

Lots of links for DriveWorks

@+ ;-))

Good evening

I just watched the videos you joined me.

 

For the parts families: It seems to me that this is what was in place in my previous company.

 

For DriveWorks it's astounding...!

 

But there is always a but. What are the advantages and advantages of each solution? Because they both correspond to my problem obviously...

 

For the 2 solutions you have to work with the compositions to take away for the sake of archiving things? 

In both cases, you have to create the basic model and then create the configuration afterwards?!

 

Gt22 

The example of the staircase is exactly the type of use I want to make of my desire for automation...

In any case

Be on a first-name basis ;-)

And thank you for your responsiveness!

1 Like

@. Pouti

Try to do a test with a basic part by following the procedures 

and the referencing will take care of the advantage of naming and recording and making the drawings in auto and that is undeniably a time saver and a respect for archiving your products

test and tell me everything I'm all ears waiting for the result

Good luck

@+ ;-))

1 Like