1 2 3 4 140 Replies Latest reply on Oct 19, 2018 3:12 PM by Matt Peneguy Go to original post
      • 15. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
        John Stoltzfus

        Matt Peneguy wrote:

        How do I edit my post? I don't see any options for that.

         

        You are responding from your inbox double click the header

         

         

        and then it will take you to another page then take a look at the bottom left - there'll be a "Action" button, where you can delete or edit any of your replies..

         

        • 16. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
          Matt Peneguy

          Chad Huleatt,

          John is correct, you have stumbled onto another great topic for another thread.  The short answer is that our structural guys use STAAD and MIDAS (they used to use LUSAS).  I haven't played with MIDAS, but LUSAS was awful.  In STAAD you enter your truss dimensions and assign profiles to your stick figure.  STAAD really doesn't apply to what mechanical engineers do most of the time.

          We haven't done a full bridge where all of our structural drawings are cut from SolidWorks.  That is my end goal and at that point, yes I think we will need to be using simulation tools for their trusses, at least to check.

          Currently we have a license of Premium and haven't had a greater FEA need than it provides.

          If you do create a new thread about this, it may be a good idea to notify Glenn Schroeder.  He apparently work for Texas's transportation research center.  I am sure he works with some civil engineers and he may have some good input on how they do their FEA.

          • 17. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
            Glenn Schroeder

            Hello Matt,

             

            Two or three of the engineers here, along with a dozen or so grad students, use LS-DYNA for Simulation.  In the division of TTI that I work for they're running simulations on how the structures and vehicles perform in a crash as opposed to general structural integrity.  I'm not sure if that answers your question.

            • 18. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
              Vladimir Urazhdin

              I jumped from 2014 to 2017 and to my estimation the size of assembly have been reduced to 50-60%. Be careful with equations. External links for parts in assembly (if you have some) in SW 2017 must be recreated again.

              • 19. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                Matt Peneguy

                Wow!  Maybe I need to reconsider using this method until after we make the jump to 2017!

                • 20. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                  John Stoltzfus

                  You won't have any issues with just the SSP, but once you start messing with equations and external links that are many layers deep or global variables.... that's another story..

                  • 21. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                    Matt Peneguy

                    Thanks John, as we discussed external references should only be 1 layer deep and I really don't use global variables.  So, I agree we should be fine.

                    But we do use equations for our gears.  But, that should only be a couple of parts and could be fixed in a matter of a couple hours, I'm sure.

                    • 22. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                      Vladimir Urazhdin

                      For huge assemblies you are dealing with I would start a new project with SW 2017 rather transfer a finished one.

                      • 23. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                        Chad Huleatt

                        Thanks! I started a thread Structural engineer using solidworks simulation a while ago but no bites except for Michael Lord

                         

                        In the mean time I've done some research, and found very few people using SW for structural type work. The engineer I work with pointed out that in addition to ensuring structures are strong enough, structural engineers have to ensure design is up to code, and SW does not have any building code verification built in as far as I know.

                         

                        Thanks for the info on structural software you gave, if anyone wants to hop on to the other thread Structural engineer using solidworks simulation and tell me how they export/ get critical data into FEA software I'd appreciate it a lot...

                        • 24. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                          Chad Huleatt

                          Hi John Stoltzfus

                           

                          I've been working on implementing this method for the work we do, and am having a lot of success. The last sign I modelled this way ended up with 600+ components, yet it was still easy to edit/ make major changes near the end of the project.

                           

                          One detail that is causing me grief is that it's difficult to move components from one sub-assembly to another, or from the sub-assembly to the top level assembly. Once you move the component and try to edit it's relationship, you get a message "this part was defined in the context of another assembly blah blah blah". I can edit the part, but can't create any references to the master part, because the original references to the master part were created in the context of the sub assembly.

                           

                          Have you encountered this issue, and have you found a work around? In an ideal world, I would be able to plan ahead, and wouldn't have to shuffle parts around, but in reality I need to be able to move them, and still be able to edit them?

                           

                          Thanks, Chad

                          • 25. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                            Kelvin Lamport

                            The way to avoid that problem is to insert the Skeleton Sketch Part into the part (or sub-assy) itself. Then as long as you make all referemces to the SSP within the part, you should be able to move it wherever you want. It will be completely self-contained.

                            • 26. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                              Chad Huleatt

                              If you insert into part, then nothing breaks. If you insert into sub-assembly, then move a part out of that sub assembly into top level assem. or another sub. assem, it doesn't work - (or rather you get the error message and can't add more relations to the skeleton)

                              • 27. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                                Thomas Voetmann

                                Have you tried this tick mark?

                                • 28. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                                  Peter Brinkhuis

                                  I think adding mate references to your fasteners will already reduce the amount of mates that you have to add manually by 50%.

                                   

                                  If you're going to be modeling fasteners, contact me I've just created 9.696 fastener models.

                                  • 29. Re: Skeleton Sketch Part Method for Large Assemblies
                                    John Stoltzfus

                                    That can be one of the toughest parts in creating great models, "Design Intent" what goes where and which assembly.

                                     

                                    The first thing I do once I have my SSP started is to insert the SSP into an assembly and I always save the first one as my main assembly, then I right click the SSP and go to properties and "Exclude it from the BOM", then I save multiple assemblies, which I'll use as my Sub-Assemblies, so there might be a project where I'll save 5 sub-assemblies and later I find out I only need 4 then I delete the 5th one and if I see I need a few more assemblies, no issues there either, just add what you need.  Once all my assemblies are saved and closed, I'll open the main assembly and drop in the 5 saved assemblies and if you hit the green check mark they will always drop right to the point of origin fixed, no mates. Now what I like to do is keep the Main Assembly open, but minimized then as I'm working on one of the Sub-Assemblies I switch back to the main assembly once in a while to see the progress and how it matches to my design intent, once your'e into the 4th or 5th assembly, now you can see it come together.  In older versions I would mate the sub-assemblies to the 3 main planes.

                                     

                                    Doing it that way you can start with one sub-assembly and work within that and once you get used to that workflow you can very easily see that the next part should be either in the assembly you're working on or one of the others..

                                     

                                    For me, if all my controlling detail is in the SSP then I wouldn't hesitate to delete it in one assembly and insert it as a new part in another assembly.

                                     

                                    To reduce the amount of relations only use the SSP for detail that is shared, meaning if you have a part that has certain features that only pertain to that part, don't put that into the SSP if you're working within a large assembly, it just adds more relations, which bogs down SW, now if I'm working in a small assembly, I might just do every detail in the SSP.

                                     

                                    To realize the benefits of the SSP process you need to insert the SSP as the first part in the assembly.  Adding the SSP into the part works somewhat, but I did find issues of the components not rebuilding correctly so I abandoned that process.

                                     

                                    I just want to mention that using the SSP creates a process, a constant, a plan and a focus.  It's not about the new features or the correct way to loft, it a process that produces a similar outcome for every project you do.....

                                     

                                    Attached is how I use the SSP

                                    1 2 3 4