Hi all
I'm coming to you because we are currently testing solidworks in my company to find out if we migrate to it (we currently use topsolid) We mainly do boilermaking and I am therefore mainly interested in the sheet metal module because it is what we use the most currently.
I tried several tests and different parts in order to be able to set up a square/round transformation standard that we would use in the company so that we would not have to recreate it each time. My concern is that when I modify my equations in order to update the dimensions of the hopper I have various errors that appear and those in a "random" way depending on the values entered:
- Too large bend radius
- Unable to apply notching or cutting
- Fold merged with the other fold
- Facet value creates too many creases
So I'm attaching one of the basic files I created if anyone can help me or guide me to do it in the most appropriate way possible so as not to have these different reconstruction errors. Knowing that we want 4-part parts and that the cutouts are located in the corners as done on the attachment.
After reading some questions and answers on the subject on the forum, I added a line between my arcs of circles in order to have the same number of entities between my entry and my exit, but I have the impression that this accentuates the problem. In addition, I know that I could have used driveworks for the parameterization or used a 3D sketch but the goal of this test is above all to find a way to make a hopper that can allow me to output DXFs for manufacturing regardless of the configuration of the part (within the limit of what can be manufactured of course)
Thank you all:)
Guillaume
2019.03.06_-_embase_test.sldprt
Hello
It's not very complicated, you create two planes spaced the height of your hopper and on each plane you draw the two sketches. Half square and semi-circle, then you use the transition fold function by selecting your two sketches, then that's it...
2 Likes
Good evening AC cobra
Isn't it a certain automatism in the settings that is also sought.
I have the impression that the pb is more precisely at the level of settings and that the transition from one software to the other requires some time to adapt because the gap between the two software is very small from what I know ;-)
Look at this piece, you should be able to use it to continue. I don't have Solidworks 2019, I'm only in 2016
ac_cobra_427.sldprt
1 Like
Always simple and tasteful with@ AC COBRA 427
Two sketches and 5 sides can have a whole range easily.
Since a certain automation is implied, we must be able to control these dimensions with DriveWorks for example. The module is free!
@ guillaume56 The triangulation options on the transition folds allow you to control what you want a little more.
2 Likes
@ac Cobra 427, sorry, but before using such a condescending tone in your first reply, you could have read my post completely, I think you would have understood that your piece does not meet my request at all. Indeed, your hopper, once finished, will be in 2 parts and is not cut in the corners. In addition, to make a hopper with parallel and centered inlet and outlet there is no problem, solidworks manages it well. On the other hand, as soon as you put axial or longitudinal offsets, tilt or orientation angles it's not the same thing at all.
I have been a Solidworks user for several years, I have been on Topsolid only since I have been in my current company so I think I know how to use Solidworks at least.
As explained, my concern is not to make a basic square/round hopper but to be able to make all the possible configurations that we are likely to make and unfortunately I have almost every time one of the reconstruction errors that I mention in my first post. I am attaching a map and an image from topsolid to show you these inner ribs, offsets and angles. It is a 3mm thick hopper. And if you manage to make it in 4 parts, with the cut-outs in the corners and without reconstruction errors, I'm all for it.
Thank you
af1807024-b107-022.jpg
I'm sorry if you took it like that, it wasn't my intention, on the other hand as explained later I'm in 2016 and for edrawings you don't have to have Windows 8 and I have it so I tried to do my best... I am looking at your plan and will get back to you...
Could you do a WWTP of your room?
Yes sorry I took it a little badly knowing that I still think I know solidworks pretty well and a little tired too at the moment;)
Here is a step of the room whose plan is in my previous post. I've really tested a lot of methods to make hoppers and I've never managed to make one that works in a majority of configurations. The part I send you is typically the kind of part that is made regularly but they are never identical and during a project they can be slightly modified (moving a conveyor or a conduit that changes the offset or an outlet angle) and I must therefore be able to modify it quickly and easily without having to rework the folds one by one that I have already created.
af1807024-b107-022.stp
Is it a type of scouring product and can you modify the parts to make it in two parts?
Yes, that's what we do almost every day and no, it's not possible to do it in 2 parts. The 4 parts and the cutting in the corners as on the part file are imperative.
If I understand the screenshot correctly, Topsolid automatically (natively or via macro?) makes the hopper ?
What bothers me is the notion of "random errors". Although I know SW, what sometimes happens is that a small error leads to others by cascading effect and it is difficult to determine the original error.
Have you tried to make, in the SW sense, 5 prt files (4 pieces of "simple" sheet metal and a skeleton file common to the 4 sheets) and an asm?
This may make it possible to isolate the offending function and the problem situations.
I just created one of the rooms so you can see the construction principle. I created it in an assemblage; I put my Ø and rectangle sketches in the assembly and I created my parts around the sketches. This way if the sketches change, my parts follow.
Item6af1807024-B107-022.sldprt
1 Like
Thank you for the part, I will try to unfold the parts, remove the material and then fold them up to see if it avoids reconstruction errors on my configurable part.
@stefbeno yes I tried to make several parts that I put in an assembly but the problem is the same. I'm going to try the ac cobra method to see if it fixes my problems.
Well I tried to work a little on your ac cobra part but as soon as I modify it slightly or even just modify the bend radius to match it with our machine parameters I get the error "The bend radius is too big for this body". FYI Ri of 4mm for a 3mm thick sheet.
Well, I definitely can't do it. No matter how much I do it in different ways, I always have reconstruction errors.
To come back to your ac cobra method, I'm attaching an image to show you what I get every time I make sketches similar to yours (3 segments for the rectangular input and 3 arcs for the output) And if I only put one arc of a circle in the output it breaks the corners instead of making radii, Something I don't want!
Doesn't anyone on this forum do boilermaking on solidworks?
2019.03.08_-_bug_pli.jpg
Good evening Guillaume56
Can you post your part please because I don't see the sketches nor the way they are driven by inclined axes (I'm in 2019, I can open all the previous versions).
Kind regards
Hello@Zozo_mp
You will find attached the corresponding file. I'm making you a 2nd post with a 2nd file on which it works but where I had to put leave in the corner of the rectangle. This works despite the fact that several people have told me that I should have as much entity on my exit sketch as on my entrance sketch and that this is not the case on the second.
Thank you
2019.03.08_-_embase_-_test_1.sldprt
Hello Guillaume56
I opened both of your files and I don't see any errors.
The two files conform to two different ways of proceeding.
Personally I prefer the second method which corresponds to what ac cobra proposes (in his file piece6af1807024-b107-022.sldpr).
Indeed, I am a little wary of smoothing with guide curves which can give wrong things if you don't put a sufficient number of guide lines. In addition, with the method of transition folds, you have the crunching that goes well with it.
If I understand your problem this type of hopper which has the main constraint of always being composed of four parts with assembly in the corners, it is finally a sub-assembly composed of four parts.
Isn't making an ASM from four parts a simple and elegant solution.
You make four parts like your part 2019.03.08_-_embase_-_test_3.sldprt and you assemble them with basic constraints.
The other method is to make a part in volume and then convert it into sheet metal After for the cutting in the corners there is a function that allows this in automatic (we had seen this recently for a complicated rectangular hopper but I don't remember the thread if anyone remembers it ;-) ;-) ) )
To everything' for your remarks ;-)
Kind regards
1 Like