This won't be anywhere near as complex (or useful) as this one that Alin Vargatu posted, but maybe it will be of some interest. A few years ago I ran into a situation where an inserted Part was fully constrained with two Standard mates (Lock wasn't used, and this was before "lock rotation" on Concentric mates was available). Has anyone else run into this, or can figure it out if you haven't?
You should be able to use the 'Profile centers' mate and select the circular edges, this should allow for rotation only. After that you could mate two of the planes as parallel.
Glenn, since you aren't specifying the parts that leaves it open for us to define. I often insert countersunk fasteners. They come in with a coincident smart mate of a circular edge to a conical countersink. Applying a parallel mate to one of its planes or straight edge to some other suitable feature keeps it from rotating and makes it fully constrained. The same thing with a concentric mate paired with a parallel or coincident mate.
Two concentric mates of cylindrical feature pairs that are not parallel.
That was quick. I'm impressed, and that certainly qualifies, but it isn't the situation I referred to. I'll post it in a little while.
Now I don't know whether to give credit for the correct answer to Roland Schwarz, since what he posted is what I had in mind (at least I think this is what he meant), or to Dan Pihlaja for posting the first answer that fits the criteria.
Stavros Pantelakis wrote:
You should be able to use the 'Profile centers' mate and select the circular edges, this should allow for rotation only. After that you could mate two of the planes as parallel.
Please notice I said only Standard mates, so I'm afraid that doesn't qualify, but thanks for posting it.
yea, I initially thought the concentric mate would function similar to the profile centers.
Coincident with align axis between origins and/or coordinate systems = 1 mate.
Otherwise 2 coincident mates on 2 pairs of edges would do the trick.
"Otherwise 2 coincident mates on 2 pairs of edges would do the trick."
this was my first though. but..."nonparallel edges..."
1 Concentric,
1 parallel/perpendicular between planes
As we all know excessive mating has it's own issues and so does having extra mates in SolidWorks Models.... Most importantly reducing the amount of mates in an assembly should be in your design intent criteria, as excessive mates can make SW crawl. With that there are choices we need to make when approaching a new design or re-doing an older design. Most of my designs have very little mates, everything is built in context and fixed to the point of origin and the three planes, however when I do need to use mates, (which are for multiple instances or interchangeable components such as hardware etc), I look for (2) straight edges or sketch lines to lock in the parts.. So if you need a shaft, how do you approach the design, a circle and extrude or do you use the revolve feature, if you use the revolve feature you have the sketch lines to use for mating.... You can also mate two circles with one coincident mate, however the parts will still be able to spin, but with a straight shaft without holes, it doesn't matter if the shaft spins..
Ned Hutchinson, That would still leave one direction of freedom. The direction of freedom would be along the axis of your concentric mate.
John Stoltzfus said:
"You can also mate two circles with one coincident mate, however the parts will still be able to spin, but with a straight shaft without holes, it doesn't matter if the shaft spins.."
My OCD doesn't allow this......I am required by my inner feeling of insecurity to make sure that all things are fully defined and mated.
Hence the Rings and Ropes
Dan Pihlaja wrote:
John Stoltzfus said:
"You can also mate two circles with one coincident mate, however the parts will still be able to spin, but with a straight shaft without holes, it doesn't matter if the shaft spins.."
My OCD doesn't allow this......I am required by my inner feeling of insecurity to make sure that all things are fully defined and mated.
Mine either. I can't have those minus signs in front of the components in the tree.
locking in the rotation of shaft or fasteners is almost the only time I use parallel mates.
Mine neither, but in all reality there is nothing moving except the rotation and is another way to reduce mates, just using a standard mate..
Timothy Taby wrote:
locking in the rotation of shaft or fasteners is almost the only time I use parallel mates.
I don't bother with Parallel mates for that. It's so easy to right-click on Mates in the tree and choose "Lock Concentric Rotation". You can do it as each concentric mate is applied, but I often insert and mate several fasteners, then do this for all at one time. It's much faster than using Parallel mates, and works just as well (assuming you don't need them at a particular orientation). That's been available since SW2014 (see here).
Coincident mate of male/female conic features, & a parallel mate. 2 mates, fully constrained.
If the edge of the hole and shaft are the same in diameter use coincident and parallel
use parallel and coincident, if i get what you mean
ditto..
I'm with you there on the Lock Rotation, Glenn. However, when I bring in the countersunk fastener it only puts a coincident mate between the edge of the fastener and the conical countersink so there is no concentric mate to lock. In these cases when I want to lock down the fastener I find the parallel mate is much easier to use with an edge or a face of the hex socket to some other straight face or edge of the assembly.
I like this "challenge" as it offers the conversation of how we do the things we do and why.
I use varying techniques based upon criteria and project scope. Quoting projects usually consist of several small virtual assemblies contained by origin mates only and then all virtual parts in those subs with purchased parts put in as needed. So the only mates outside of origin are for purchased parts.
Doesn't work on all of our projects but it is one method that facilitates no red tree of horror down the road as changes are made.
2 mates to lock in a part is easy if the parts are made for it, I have a pin with a cross hole that goes into a receiver block with a hole for the pin and a clearance hole to align with the cross hole. 2 concentric mates will lock these 2 parts together.
I'm thinking you got it Dennis Dohogne and if Glenn Schroeder steps up to the plate, he'll pass you 20K points
A coincident constraint (surface to surface) and a concentric constraint will work if the axis of the hole is NOT perpendicular or parallel to the constrained surface.
See example attached: