AnsweredAssumed Answered

trimming destroys relations, can't fully redefine elsewhere

Question asked by Maurits De Wolff on Oct 16, 2016
Latest reply on Oct 19, 2016 by Maurits De Wolff

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 6

This topic has been discussed over and over, but I'm at this for more than one full day: relations.

The drawing is part of a school project designing an autocrane for an inland cargoship. The rear flange of the inline boom has one tiny leftover line. This line prohibits extrusion of the flange part understandably. Trimming it also removes a bunch of relations. Trying to dimension the endpoint (the beginpoint of the leftover line really) to the origin somehow doesn't restore those relations. I have way to many dimensions in the drawing I suppose, but at least I got the sketch fully defined.

How do I fix this particular relation thing?

Thanks much, maurits

Deepak Gupta Oct 17, 2016 12:56 AM

Correct Answer

The upper side had an extra tiny line. Lower side I did split and changed both to construction (check attached video).

Now for fillet and mirror, the material is going in here and hence it is not letting you add fillets. I reduced the value to 4mm and it is better now.

Attached is the updated file.

See the reply in context

Attachments

boom-inner.SLDPRT.zip100.2 KB

No one else had this question

Outcomes

Deepak Gupta Oct 16, 2016 9:29 AM

Here is what I did

Changed a small line in this corner to construction geometry

Did a split on this line and changed the smaller/unwanted line to construction geometry

End result

Actions

Maurits De Wolff @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 16, 2016 7:32 PM

The first trick I don't follow. What small line in the upper corner did you change exactly? I didn't change this line obviously. Changing the line in the lower corner into a construction line I did. Such a simple solution (sigh).

However I cannot lay fillets around 3 of 4 flanges. Weird warnings start flying. The inserted bushings at the original face as well as the mirrored face I could fill in 1 go. Eight fills in one fillet. How come I can't do that with the flanges?

I will have to make changes to my design anyways. I intend to use 690 MPa steel. But the polar readouts give too much MPa in my setup. I used the polar moment at the centroid. Is that correct? My hand calculator returns 573, 719 and 929 MPa.

But would you know where my fillet problem originates?

Thanks maurits

Attachments

boom-inner.SLDPRT.zip236.2 KB
boom-assembly.SLDASM.zip96.7 KB

Actions

Deepak Gupta @ Maurits De Wolff on Oct 17, 2016 12:56 AM

The upper side had an extra tiny line. Lower side I did split and changed both to construction (check attached video).

Now for fillet and mirror, the material is going in here and hence it is not letting you add fillets. I reduced the value to 4mm and it is better now.

Attached is the updated file.

Attachments

Shared Sketch.wmv1.8 MB
boom-inner final.SLDPRT.zip254.7 KB

Actions

Maurits De Wolff @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 19, 2016 8:00 AM

I didn't notice this line because I wasn't looking carefully. Eventually I figured it out.

Also, I raised the seize of the largest beam from 300mm to 350mm. This allowed me to shrink the wall thicknesses and averall weight of the crane. I'm under 690 MPa now for each beam section. I need to ad more stuff like hydraulic cilinder and slew bearing. I haven't tested the assembly in simulation yet ...

Thanks very much Deepak for your assistance and instruction video!

Attachments

boom-column-assembly-350.SLDASM.zip136.5 KB

Actions

Maurits De Wolff @ Maurits De Wolff on Oct 19, 2016 8:00 AM

... and it's still a little tight around the hinge part

Actions

Tom Gagnon Oct 16, 2016 9:08 PM

Sorry but I did not inspect your file carefully. From both the images and description, it sounds like you have an issue which I encounter now and then.

Easiest fix I find, once you've isolated the offending entities (it looks like Deepak identified where), is to set the lines to construction lines, and redraw cleaner entities on top of other fully defined reference points if that's also needed to close the profile.

Now how this may work in a collaborative effort is uncertain: one person doing does not remove entities being referenced, but rather makes new ones to complete the task at hand. In theory it sounds ok, but then another person finding duplicate entities could undo this tweak or workaround.

Actions

7 Replies

Deepak Gupta Oct 16, 2016 9:29 AM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Here is what I did

Changed a small line in this corner to construction geometry

Did a split on this line and changed the smaller/unwanted line to construction geometry

End result
Like • Show 2 Likes2
Actions
- Maurits De Wolff @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 16, 2016 7:32 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  The first trick I don't follow. What small line in the upper corner did you change exactly? I didn't change this line obviously. Changing the line in the lower corner into a construction line I did. Such a simple solution (sigh).
  
  However I cannot lay fillets around 3 of 4 flanges. Weird warnings start flying. The inserted bushings at the original face as well as the mirrored face I could fill in 1 go. Eight fills in one fillet. How come I can't do that with the flanges?
  
  I will have to make changes to my design anyways. I intend to use 690 MPa steel. But the polar readouts give too much MPa in my setup. I used the polar moment at the centroid. Is that correct? My hand calculator returns 573, 719 and 929 MPa.
  
  But would you know where my fillet problem originates?
  
  Thanks maurits
  Attachments
  - boom-inner.SLDPRT.zip236.2 KB
  - boom-assembly.SLDASM.zip96.7 KB
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Deepak Gupta @ Maurits De Wolff on Oct 17, 2016 12:56 AM
    Unmark Correct
    Correct Answer
    The upper side had an extra tiny line. Lower side I did split and changed both to construction (check attached video).
    
    Now for fillet and mirror, the material is going in here and hence it is not letting you add fillets. I reduced the value to 4mm and it is better now.
    
    .
    Attached is the updated file.
    Attachments
    Shared Sketch.wmv1.8 MB
    boom-inner final.SLDPRT.zip254.7 KB
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
- Maurits De Wolff @ Deepak Gupta on Oct 19, 2016 8:00 AM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  I didn't notice this line because I wasn't looking carefully. Eventually I figured it out.
  
  Also, I raised the seize of the largest beam from 300mm to 350mm. This allowed me to shrink the wall thicknesses and averall weight of the crane. I'm under 690 MPa now for each beam section. I need to ad more stuff like hydraulic cilinder and slew bearing. I haven't tested the assembly in simulation yet ...
  
  Thanks very much Deepak for your assistance and instruction video!
  Attachments
  - boom-column-assembly-350.SLDASM.zip136.5 KB
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Maurits De Wolff @ Maurits De Wolff on Oct 19, 2016 8:00 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    ... and it's still a little tight around the hinge part
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
Tom Gagnon Oct 16, 2016 9:08 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
Sorry but I did not inspect your file carefully. From both the images and description, it sounds like you have an issue which I encounter now and then.

Easiest fix I find, once you've isolated the offending entities (it looks like Deepak identified where), is to set the lines to construction lines, and redraw cleaner entities on top of other fully defined reference points if that's also needed to close the profile.

Now how this may work in a collaborative effort is uncertain: one person doing does not remove entities being referenced, but rather makes new ones to complete the task at hand. In theory it sounds ok, but then another person finding duplicate entities could undo this tweak or workaround.
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions

trimming destroys relations, can't fully redefine elsewhere

Attachments

Outcomes

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content