Hello, I'm currently designing an assembly and need to calculate a chain of dimensions to determine the tolerance of a set. After several tries, I managed to get a correct result with the set calculated on my assembly in SolidWorks. However, when trying to reproduce the approach on another assembly (same configuration, but with different dimensions, only changes), the results do not match. (My first formula must surely be wrong... Could someone help me identify possible errors, please? Here is my formula, accompanied by an example in image of the dimensions and the assembly, which consists of two parts, one of them, part 1 having a radius resting on the angle of part 2. The game matches the orange line. I don't know if I was very clear... Thank you.
The values in your formula don't seem to match the view provided... and the Orange line does not correspond to a play between your pieces... But... Why make a formula when a sketch with a controlled dimension can do the trick.
Hello, the project does not stop at 3D, which forces me to have a formula. I am aware that with sketch lines it is possible but the ease is not interesting
To come back to your feedback, first of all thank you for answering it!
For the formula, what does not correspond to the view provided?
Yes, I expressed myself badly, sorry, but the goal would be the game as shown on the view below (The game between the two pieces):
Hello I rephrase the formula because the * conflicts with the automatic formatting of the forum.
To answer. The values you have hard-entered such as (40-25) etc cannot stick if the quotes change. They must be replaced by the names of the said quotations. Like what: ( "D1@Esquisse1" - "D2@Esquisse1" )
Yes, I was planning to do it, just for the explanation on the forum I did it this way. I found values more explicit than sketch names. Thank you for your information regarding the *.
Personally, it's the values 130-136 that I can't identify... But it's been a long time since I've practiced trigonometric or scalar notions in mathematical form. (3D obliges)... On your screenshot there is no tangency between the r40 radius and the 65mm horizontal edge, is this normal?
130 = The offset of the center of the radius with respect to the axis, so 65 x 2 = 130 in order to have the Ø. 136 = The radius of the shape which constitutes the support angle (of the bottom piece) x 2 = 136 in order to also have the Ø.
Sorry, but I don't quite understand this sentence. Are you looking to set the clearance or get the clearance based on the position of the piece on the ramp?
To define it, you need to add a pilot dimension. To obtain it, you must add a controlled quotation and recover its value.
No, @Maclane means that there must be a tangent relationship between the arc and the horizontal line. Well, he doesn't have to, but he wants to know if it's a deliberate omission.
No problem, I know that the explanation of my problem is quite complex and may seem confusing... Sorry. What I'm trying to do is to determine precisely the height of the upper piece in relation to the lower piece, taking into account the many dimensions that depend on it. For example, if I change a dimension, such as the 65mm radius of the bottom part (the one that includes the 20° angle), and reduce it to 63mm, you'll agree that the top part will be higher than with a 65mm radius, right? So my goal is to calculate this height in the form of a formula.
The arc is tangent with the horizontal line on my image, right? I'm not sure I understand you...
The arc connects the horizontal line with the vertical line of the upper piece, and then the contact is made between the arc and the angle of the lower piece.
So you're going to tell me that it's funnier when it's more complicated but you won't be able to calculate it if your sketch isn't totally constrained (except for this game). Otherwise it's like calculating an equation with 8 unknowns... Good luck!
In my opinion, the simplest and fastest way is to add a controlled dimension, between these 2 magenta and green lines:
When your coin slides down the ramp, the value of that quote will change in real-time.
The piece is well constrained in the axis and resting on the angle of the lower piece, only play present is the one you have drawn, there should be no problem right? If it tells me the height according to the dimensions I have changed it will not work in my case, because I was considering adding this " formula " that I am looking for in a VBA table... That's why I would need a calculation because if I have to go for the " piloting " rating it won't work because I then play with the maximum / minimum tolerances of my dimensions... I would have liked to do it and I had also thought about it but it doesn't work with my project.
Yes, it is tangent because you have the 2 dimensions 40 and 65 which are respectively equal to the radius of your arc and the length of your line, but if you change the radius, you also have to change the 40 and the same for the line, while with a simple tangent relationship, you can do without the dimensions 40 and 65, And if you change the radius everything else will follow. brief
Let's think about the problem, even if I think that the room, or at least the image, is missing dimensions to calculate it.
I dare ask you for an image of how you would have done it? The image is a "copy" of what I really need, for privacy reasons I had to modify the thing...
, not half
brief