AnsweredAssumed Answered

simple part turned complicated

Question asked by Jeff Stearns on Jul 8, 2013
Latest reply on Jul 9, 2013 by Jeff Stearns

Like • Show 0 Likes0
Comment • 12

Hi All,

I am trying to create what I thought was a simple part but have likely gone down a stray path. Right now, most of the part is a solid model but I had to use surfaces to complete the basic shape. Problem is, I can't figure out how to join the surfaces to the rest of the model to create one cohesive part.

"exo00.sldprt" shows complete shape that is more or less what i want.

"exo000.sldprt" shows the surfacing that i want to convert to solid and join to the rest.

There may be multiple issues here. All input welcome.

Thanks in advance,

Jeff

Attachments

exo00.sldprt.zip905.2 KB
exo000.sldprt.zip802.9 KB

No one else has this question

Outcomes

12 Replies

Mark Kaiser Jul 8, 2013 3:45 PM
Mark Correct
Correct Answer
See if the attached is what you want. The features I added/changed I put a -mk on the end of their name. Here's what I did:

1. Before your surface knit, I extended two surfaces 10 mm each.
2. Trimmed those two surfaces back.
3. Edited the knit, checked the make solid option.
Attachments
- exo000-mk.sldprt.zip843.8 KB
Like • Show 0 Likes0
Actions
- Jeff Stearns @ Mark Kaiser on Jul 8, 2013 4:18 PM
  Mark Correct
  Correct Answer
  Hi Mark,
  
  That is perfect, thanks. My next step is to unhide "Cut-Extrude22" to reveal rest of part, then Combine the 2 bodies. That is failing due to zero thickness error. Any clue on that one??
  Attachments
  - exo000-mk unhide.sldprt.zip940.8 KB
  Like • Show 0 Likes0
  Actions
  - Mark Kaiser @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 8, 2013 4:47 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Zero thickness errors can be more difficult to find. You're looking for a point to point contact between the two bodies. If you can find that, and fix it, the bodies should merge. Maybe try recreating the surfaces that coincide between the two solid bodies, and offset them a small distance into each other? Then the bodies should overlap and not have any zero thickness errors.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
  - Jeff Stearns @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 8, 2013 4:52 PM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    Never mind - I solved the zero thickness error by offsetting the mating sevice 1mm, then thickening with Merge Result checked. Thanks again for the help.
    
    Jeff
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Jeff Stearns @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 8, 2013 5:04 PM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Check that - my last attempt did not work, still trying...
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - John Burrill @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 8, 2013 5:51 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Zero thickness usually occures where more than 2 faces share a common boundary edge or when two bodies share a common vertex. As such, these errors occure near tangent conditions and duplicated edges. One technique to check for them is to turn off merge-result on boss features that produce them and check in the regions where the bodies intersect.
        John
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeff Stearns @ John Burrill on Jul 8, 2013 6:24 PM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Hi John,
        
        I will try your advise next, thanx. Coincidentally, I've been trying your previous method of deleting faces, then thickening. One face won't disappear. Anyone think this is a good direction to try?
        
        Jeff
        Attachments
        exo000-mk delete faces.sldprt.zip915.2 KB
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
  - Mark Kaiser @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 9, 2013 9:29 AM
    Mark Correct
    Correct Answer
    I made sort of a discovery. If you cut away the top and bottom section of the smaller body, you can combine the two bodies. So, I believe your zero thickness errors are in the area of these two cuts. The combine would not work unless I cut away both areas.
    Like • Show 0 Likes0
    Actions
    - Jeff Stearns @ Mark Kaiser on Jul 9, 2013 10:03 AM
      Mark Correct
      Correct Answer
      Mark - That is awesome, thank you. I have a go at your discovery - it looks good if I can loft the gaps.
      
      Speaking of lofts, that was my original approach but after several failures, I switched to "insert, base, boundary which also failed. That's when I changed to surfaces. This morning, I went full circle back to loft since it seeems like it should be simplest. Still getting errors, though. (see attached)
      Attachments
      loft error1.jpg367.2 KB
      exotoe0.sldprt.zip1.2 MB
      Like • Show 0 Likes0
      Actions
      - Jeff Stearns @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 9, 2013 10:08 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Mark - could u send ur model?
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Mark Kaiser @ Jeff Stearns on Jul 9, 2013 10:21 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Attached.
        Attachments
        exo000-mk.sldprt.zip994.3 KB
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions
        Jeff Stearns @ Mark Kaiser on Jul 9, 2013 11:58 AM
        Mark Correct
        Correct Answer
        Much obliged
        Like • Show 0 Likes0
        Actions

simple part turned complicated

Attachments

Outcomes

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Related Content

Recommended Content