What blasphemy! You expect values traceable to ASM, AISI or SAE? What is the color of the sky in your world? LOL
I think this is where a third party could come in and get some traction
but I don't know how big the market is and I think that customers expect the materials to be there, even if they aren't necessarily exactly correct
but an over haul on inputting materials and library management is definitely due
I am in total agreement with you Mike! I have had the same thoughts about the Materials Library.
The materials data, default entered, is highly inaccurate. It is hard to edit and takes extra time to recreate materials. If you use SW Simulation, as I do, using the faulty default data, as your graph shows, throws off the testing. Every material used has to be checked against Standards and edited to be correct.
(I create and save a new material at the bottom and SW often erases it!) In a part under "edit materials" the default is SI units. If you set your Drafting standard to ANSI, "edit material" still comes up SI for the units. they are not linked together. Even after you set the units to ANSI in the "edit materials" dialogue box SW will intermittently and frustratingly change the units back to SI.
I brought these issues to the attention of Graham Rae, I believe he is the VP of SW R&D, at a meeting last year. He ran my issues through his computer and had the same problems I did. I e-mailed him the issue info as he requested, never heard another word from him about the problem.
Personally, I would like to see "edit materials" linked to a website containing downloadable accurate ANSI/SI information. This would allow a user to pick and choose the materials as their needs dictate instead of having it filled with a lot of useless data!
I would also like to see a "edit materials" section on common used fasteners, like GR2, GR5, and GR 8 bolts and nuts.
in my book the Materials Library/"edit materials" is in bad need of a major overhaul!
Here is my proposed, costed solution.
- Buy an actual copy of the Metals Handbook [$180].
- Direct 3 summer interns to type the information into a database [$15/hr/intern * 3 interns * 4 days = $1,440]
- Compare the three results and resolve any differences [$45/hr/engineer * 8 hrs = $360]
- Add a field to each material for source [$0]
- Standardize naming convention [$45/hr/engineer*2 engineers * 2 hr = $180]
Total cost $2,160. So, maybe not such a large effort.
Ball's in your court, Dassault Systemes.
I'd donate $2.16 so all you need to do is find 99 other users willing to pony up....
Whatever. I'm in. So, 998.
how much is the database like this worth to someone?
how often would you want it updated and reverified?
Cambridge Engineering Selector has a materials plug in that works with Autodesk Inventor and probably one for solidworks too that has a large multitude of materials of all kinds. they charge quite a bit for it, but dassault is clearly much too lazy (as is autodesk) to even have a couple dozen semi-accurate materials programmed in, when, as you said, a few interns could be tasked with the data entry from a materials handbook. It is a pretty sad shame.
I'm really starting to see this problem as well. Has anyone done a survey of the stock materials database to see exactly how many materials have incorrect properties?
Also would there be any interest in a purchased database if it had traceable entries for every AISI and ASTM materials?
I wouldn't worry about how many materials have incorrect properties. The SW built-in database is an invalid source for analysis. Valid sources include:
- Metal's handbook
- Aluminum Design Manual