Highly philosophical question: I want to make a 35 cm long and 14cm diameter (aluminum) tube that would be closed at one end, it's so simple and there are so many ways to do it that I come to wonder which method would be the best.
I see at least the following methods, and I probably have to forget some:
For the outer cylinder:
"Extruded Base/Boss"
"bossing/base with revolution"
possible with "smoothed base/boss" while you're at it:)
To dig the interior:
"removal of extruded material"
"Removal of material with revolution"
"Shell" function
Make the inner+outer cylinder in one operation, and a 2nd operation for the "lid" at the end
In short, how would you choose? depending on how it would be machined in reality?
Why not do everything in one revolution function, unless you need two volume bodies.
To give you my personal opinion, I don't try to make a part based on the steps of its realization in machining, I think it can sometimes be interesting for parts made in turning (and even then), but I wouldn't see myself starting from a stock to be machined with SOLIDWORKS to end up with my final part.
I think the most important thing is to design by minimizing the number of functions needed while keeping an intuitive function tree because you may need to modify your models later, for such a basic part, it doesn't matter, but on a large tree, it is always interesting to name your sketches correctly, the dimensions (to easily find your way around the equations), the functions ... Creating a folder also allows you to group different stages of the design, think about the colleague who may need to take over your designs:)
Why not use the welded mechanical element function to make your tube. If you don't have what you're looking for in your library, either you create a ref or you modify an existing sketch.
And to close your tube use the mouthpiece function.
I work a lot with tubes and for my part I make a circle that defines the Outer Ø because it's the most common given in the catalog and I check the thin function option to define the thickness of this tube.
In the mine function checkmark, there is also the option to plug the ends and you can define the thickness of the material that will allow the plug. The only downside is that it loops 2 holes so I never clog with this feature.
I recreate a sketch on one end by converting the inner or outer edge as needed and I make a boss of the necessary thickness because I don't fuse it to make a weld bead.
This is what seems to me the most realistic and the most practical because it is in 2 functions and the cap will always follow my tube Ø.
I don't quite agree with you @Mick. The advantage of doing it through the machining steps is that you can easily see if your part is "messy" from a realization point of view... and you can just as easily modify your room if necessary (but hey, everyone's habits, all that)
Otherwise to answer the question, I think that like @Obi Wan, I would go for a mechanically welded assembly.
Or at the limit two coaxial hoops (Øext + Øint) along the length of the tube and a 2nd function for the cap specifying that it is not the same body
coin37coin: I have the same opinion about making machinable parts (hence my question originally).
As far as the mechanically welded is concerned, is it still relevant even on such large tubes? I rather saw the usefulness of these functions to make support structures with small diameter tubes (2-3 cm) (like a desk for example).
The interest of the mechanically welded is especially that if you often have to reuse this type of tube ... you don't have to redraw it every time! A right hand stroke for the length, a shot of choosing the tube and presto, it's validated
And as a result, you can make more or less important structures with this tube, but it's true that if it's a one-shot, the creation of the profile is not justified.
Hello liohau, don' t forget to solve your old questions as well so that other users can enjoy the answer and to thank those who took the time to answer you