Can we automatically merge the result of a volume circular repetition with Solidworks?
Yes, :D!
Anyway, I think you don't have a good choice anyway. If your original function is merged with the part, your repeated function will tighten it too.
And if your function is not merged with the body of the part, the circular repetition cannot be done
4 Likes
Hello, I didn't express myself well, excuse me, so I'll take it back.
The problem arises when I want to do a body rehearsal. In the example shown in the attachment, I have modeled a four-quarter slice and I want to piece the cake back together. I obtain by repetition of the original 4 distinct but unrelated parts.
When the angle is the result of a parameterization, the automatic reconstruction of the complete part does not work and needs to be completed by a manual Boolean addition operation (function/combine/add) which blocks the design. In other words, there is no "merge result" box.
One solution is to make a first design with a very small angle to maximize the number of occurrences (Nmax) and then to do a manual addition to keep Nmax in memory. The automatic reconstruction will then be done on Nmax even if there are only 3 of them. In general it works but it's far from satisfactory ...
repetition_circulaire_de_la_part.jpg
But are you in an assembly or in a part?
In assembly, it seems logical to me not to be able to merge the bodies
If you are in a piece, your repetition follows the initial function. So if the initial function is not merged, the repetition is not.
In addition, there is another problem. To merge your slices of cake, (and only them) the slices would have to be con-com-comitent (Not sure of the ortho?) each time. And so you would have to find an automatic bridge between your angle of side and your angle of repetition so that they are tangent.
On the other hand, there may be a possible variant. You merge the whole thing from the beginning (your slice of cake and your pan). You do your rehearsal.
Then you go to "insert, function, split" You select the cut faces, you split and you end up with two distinct bodies. Be careful, for the bottom and the edge of the mold, you may have to go through surface faces
Hello coin37coin and the others.
The representation in the assembly is only to look pretty. The problem is at the level of the room. I do a circular repetition of bodies creating new volumes that I want to merge as in an extrusion or a basic revolution. The angle of the repetition is of course related to that of the share through an equation. The N+1 part therefore has a face in common with the N part (otherwise the combiner function would not work).
What coin37coin offers is precisely what I would like to avoid, a manual merge operation. The goal is to have a configurable model leading to a single body without any other intervention than to specify in a box (global variable, txt file, Excel form, ...) the number of sectors.
In the attached example I want to be able to have a capsule with a given number of teeth knowing that the design only covers a sector corresponding to half a tooth (then follows a symmetry and then the circular repetition).
The problem is the same for modeling a cogwheel. I have an Excel file driving the modeling, I give the module and the number of teeth .... and I have N independent teeth!!
capsule_21_dents.jpg
Why work with a body rather than with functions for symmetry / repetition then? You would be merged directly
2 Likes
Hello coin37coin,
Indeed, it works with a function repetition by specifying geometry repetition. Despite the years I had never thought about it because when I want to repeat a body I check body and not function ....
Thank you so much, this was a pretty frustrating recurring problem
1 Like