AnsweredAssumed Answered

Flexible/Rigid Overdefinition and Conflicts

Question asked by Lucas Koskey on Jun 10, 2019
Latest reply on Jun 12, 2019 by Heiko Sohnholz

So I'm working in an assembly that has essentially 3 subassemblies to it. One sub is the outer frame that's rigid. The other two subs have some conceptually simple relations, they are both (needing to be) flexible. I cannot upload any images or files for copyright reasons. Basically, I have a circular blade assembly where the blade itself is positioned between a wheel with a slot cut in around the perimeter. These key components need to move in all directions as one unit although they are part of two different subassemblies. There are about 40 mates at the top level and each of the 2 flexible subassemblies has about 50-60. I have been fighting this stupid flexible/rigid bs for months now.

 

A few key things I've noticed when messing around:

1) Flexible sub assemblies hate slots, however, I need the slots active because they define the location and limit of motion of that subassembly.

2) One of the subassemblies shows errors when it is flexible, but doesn't have any mates at the top level. When I make it rigid, everything goes back to normal. How can the flex be different from the rigid if there are no outside factors to influence the subassembly??

3) It seems that some mates internal to a subassembly "conflict" with mates at the top level. How am I supposed to understand which lower level mate is conflicting?

 

My biggest struggle is trying to mate components/subs exactly like they would function in the real world. I've since learned this is poor modeling practice (from a functioning assembly standpoint). I've tried sketches, abstract mates, etc. I cannot get this simple machine to function in Solidworks like I need it to. I cannot finish this design because I need the flexibility in order to accurately dimension dependent components.

 

 

Can anyone please help me? I'm ripping my hair out and down to the last straw!

Outcomes