Hello
Do you have any idea, why, when I create a multi body in sheet metal, with different thicknesses, some unfolded works and others crashes Solidworks.
Thank you for your solutions
post your files for at least
be able to visualize the problem
@+
PS
What an idea to want to make multycorps in sheet metal especially with different thicknesses ;-(
1 Like
Hello
For me, the first mistake is to have done everything in one room. For this type of part, an assembly would be much easier to handle.
may the force be with you.
3 Likes
Hello
I agree with my colleagues; There's nothing like an assembly to be able to manage everything properly... And it is not advisable to do multi-body with different sheet metal thicknesses...
2 Likes
I disagree
Yes, in some cases it is better to use an ASM with several PRT-Sheet Metal Works.
But in others it may be more interesting or even necessary to go through a PRT-multibody, moreover solidworks allows it very well, with different thicknesses of course.
May the dark side be with you...
PS: after yes, the PRT-multibody sheet metal can at some point reach its limits (ramage, bug, etc...) and so if you already know the level of complexity, you can directly go for an ASM.
@Oliver42:
Either. But then you have to list the advantages?
Hi all
thank you for your advice,
I was starting from the principle that the multi body allows you to play on the outer dimensions and that the rest follows accordingly.
It's still the case but to do MEP, and have the sheet metal dev, I see that it gets stuck.
Drawing with an assembly is much more tedious or I don't know how to use the assembly module........
Multi-body with different thicknesses, depending on the internal organization, the history of the part, it can be useful.
In this case, we have a happy mixture that forms a bolted assembly made up of a mechanically welded tubular structure, sheet metal parts and commercial parts (caster) (part inserted into a part): this is going to be in trouble.
Given the part, it's quite easy to duplicate the file to take the individual parts files and make it a clean assembly of clean parts.
If you really have a good reason to keep this modeling method, you will have to start by reordering the functions so that the bodies are as independent of each other as possible (especially the holes). By making a set of configurations based on body deletions, you may then be able to take the unfolded out of the rooms if that's the end. If the goal is to come up with a nomenclature, it's clear that this is not the right method.
2 Likes
Why do you find this more tedious?
During the MEP, all you have to do is choose the body to make it your MEP. At the top left, when you have opened your blank MEP and you insert the part, you can select the body, then the rest, it's as usual...
2 Likes
I realize that I make a mess when I do multi-body.
I must not have the right method, do you have an example of a piece to acquire a method worthy of the name?
I often say (for simple cases like yours) that there is an analogy between the organization of the files and the reality: if it's assembled by removable links, it's an assembly, if it's soldered, well it's soldered, etc. For the modeling of parts, it's the same, we model as we manufacture.
what did you (do) as a SW training? What did you use as CAD/CAD software?
4 Likes
100% agree with @ stefbeno +1
I confirm "if it's assembled by removable connections, it's an assembly, if it's welded well it's welded, etc. For the modeling of parts, it's the same, we model as we manufacture. "
may the force be with you.
2 Likes
remrem: it allows you to have common functions/cuts without going through external references !!
Or to check assembly/clutter without going through "Part editing in an ASM".
Creating external references "at will" should not be automatic, when there are other possibilities.
In the end, I don't know if sw knows (or doesn't) how to handle the different sheet thicknesses in a multi-body, or if it's my design method that is not the right one.*
Maybe a bit of both
to the pleasures of reading you
For a software that costs a good ten thousand euros ......., I wonder about it,.....
Hello
To answer the basic question, yes, it is possible in a sheet metal part to make different thicknesses. When creating sheet metal, it is enough to indicate its thickness, radius, K factor.
may the force be with you.
obi_wan.sldprt
2 Likes
Obi Wan having answered the basic question, I will complete with:
- SW costs in standard version ~5000€ (not to be confused with CATIA, even if the 2 are sold by Dassault);
- It would be interesting for you to take a day or 2 (even if it means splitting) to do the tutorials integrated into SW.
2 Likes