sheet - fold wide radius

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

beautiful solution with welding function!!

Ocio!
try to remove the tick from "simplify folds", you will notice differences on
ray folds 2.
in this case you can say that they are insignificant, but in other cases they complicate your life at the counter, especially on 1.5 alu or 1 mm stainless steel.
modify that parameter on a piece that then overlaps, at the table, to the one left... natures and you will see the differences.


I have 2 questions:

How come the dimensions at the center of the thickness? is it not sufficent from the outside or inside?

Why do you draw the bent rays?
You will already know that for each single fold you can give it radius and factor k different.

Can you do a test for me (see I no longer have 2010) ?

try to make a different hole, such as a framework hole, in another asola etc... on each wall and put the pieces on the table
developed.
check that the pieces inserted are right, to me it happened that taking one to one the bodies, loaded me on the sheet always the usual.


the version, normal, is a bit too complex in 3d realization.

attached an anti-noise wallpaper contruded by us, in alu. pdf 3d.

So I did that test for you and if I didn't understand what you asked me, I think it all went well! but you already have the 2011 version of the program? How's it going? is it a step for us to do sheet metal workers or is it not so necessary?

As for your questions I tell you that I thought I would share the profile on the average thickness or soul only because I drew it first and then arranged, that's all. In fact, as you said, it was simpler and immediate!
I also designed the profile for the "tubeular structure" function with the fold rays with the conviction that the result was better but I did not try to draw it squared and then convert it.. I'll try tomorrow for sure.

....then you advise me for the spun of the flattened development to remove them and put them randomly, only in cases of need?
I am still a little puzzled because I did not know these options!!!!:redface:

 

[sampom]

Can you do a test for me (see I no longer have 2010) ?

try to make a different hole, such as a framework hole, in another asola etc... on each wall and put the pieces on the table
developed.
check that the pieces inserted are right, to me it happened that taking one to one the bodies, loaded me on the sheet always the usual.

I tried to do it myself (always I understand what you ask): It all seems correct in both solutions.

greetings
Marco:smile:

p.s. nice work Folder:finger:

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

I tried to do it myself (always I understand what you ask):View attachment 18111 View attachment 18112It all seems correct in both solutions.

greetings
Marco:smile:

p.s. nice work Folder:finger:

thanks marco but from what I see on the forum I still have a lot of road to do in front of me to get to your levels.....

Maybe slowly I will get there too!!!!!!:finger:

 

[Mike1967]

Marco, thank you for the test!:finger: that was what I meant.

to note however that in the drawing 2 the grooves present
anomalies on 3 of the 4 pieces.
I attach an image for clarity.

@folder, that option is not mandatory, but as you can easily
See, it eliminates any betting problems at the counter.
I think that option has been created to give the chance to those
which do not have a laser cut, or similar, to make cuts with punching machine or
even cutting blades (moule or alternative pond).

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

@folder, that option is not mandatory, but as you can easily
See, it eliminates any betting problems at the counter.
I think that option has been created to give the chance to those
which do not have a laser cut, or similar, to make cuts with punching machine or
even cutting blades (moule or alternative pond).

but how do I always set it off as default? in the optie program I did not find the voice relative to the developments sheet metal... or am I forced to remove the 2 spuns every time (see that I always cut laser)?

 

[Mike1967]

but how do I always set it off as default? in the optie program I did not find the voice relative to the developments sheet metal... or am I forced to remove the 2 spuns every time (see that I always cut laser)?

Unfortunately in the sheets there is no precise rule, to draw an object you have a thousand thousand possibilities and if you do not always adopt the same system
It is difficult to establish a basic rule.
However, the visual impact is important, when you do pieces with wide rays, make sure to check that voice (also check the edge treatment).
you must consider that also that option is a variable to set, as the radius
fold, factor k etc. etc.
only one note: objects like that dumpster, drawing it creating a set.
seems more laborious, while it is fast: create your first part, you already make cuts, controls I am blessed simplifies bending and treatment of the edge, the "packendgoizzi" :biggrin: and mountains the various pieces inside an asm.
at that point you will have the advantage that, as in my case, you can have a distinct of the various positions that make up the drawing.
I believe, in fact, that the multibody of sheet metals is not easy to use, especially if you have pieces that differ little, instead treating them as single parts, you will always have under control such position, as it is called, how many pieces etc. etc.
consider that I prepare the drawings that then handle the colleague who makes the nestings for the lase, then go to the fold and then to the bonco, if I lose the string... Good night. .
put that the folder sings a fold, comes to me and tells me: let me cut the piece fat 1 pos 05... to say... with the bodies it becomes a little coincidence.
Sure, I talk about objects with maybe 10 / 20 and more components... like the one posted by me some posts ago.

bye:

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

beautiful solution with welding function!!


Why do you draw the bent rays?
You will already know that for each single fold you can give it radius and factor k different.

then I did the test by drawing the bent rays and one without converted rays and just... look at the result, I had the right intuition!:finger:

 

[Mike1967]

then I did the test by drawing the bent rays and one without converted rays and just... look at the result, I had the right intuition!:finger:

exact, there are many ways to prepare a sheet, as already written before.
Now we can say that by extruding a welding element, already radiated at the level
of sketch, we will get, once turned into sheet, of cuts perfectly
coinciding with real development without having to set those parameters.
the welding function I began to use it recently, a few months, before I had never considered it, now instead having to draw also construction works
I use it more frequently.
I never drew a sheet from a welding profile, the sketch
require more work, cmnq the result is exceled.
sin that to create a profile you have to save it in a specific folder etc... or there is another method, because otherwise it is a bit destroyed as a system.. .
:finger:

 

[SolidUser]

I recommend using the gauge table and the k-factor table and here you remove from probable errors.
then those options are deactivated by default, except for the sticker, but you can create a template.

 

[Mike1967]

I realized that with the welding function can give some problem
when you go to change the profile that generated extrusion:
in particular does not digest the new entities of sketch inserted editing
Welding sketch.
attached a port for an architect... Crazy.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

I realized that with the welding function can give some problem
when you go to change the profile that generated extrusion:
in particular does not digest the new entities of sketch inserted editing
Welding sketch.
attached a port for an architect... Crazy.

You're right the architects are a little "fusi", I also know so....roba beautiful, strange and almost impossible to realize!

belong this I wanted to post the result of 2 tests done in "trincea", in particular the angle made by me on the boiler cabinet. a test is made with the complicated system, that of the surfaces- thickening etc. etc. the other was done with the "saving" system... between the two I have to say that the more complicated one seems to me the best, although still both are more than blind!
(actually, the welding test was not laser-cut and I had to fix it as a file, but when I saw the dxf, I noticed that it was at least 0.5mm higher than the other, and then that air remained!)
I don't know what to say, only that when "converted in sheet" or "add folds" change things if you use the inner base face rather than the eternal.... .
This doesn't convince me, I have to go deeper!

 

[CIARLY]

You're right the architects are a little "fusi", I also know so....roba beautiful, strange and almost impossible to realize!

belong this I wanted to post the result of 2 tests done in "trincea", in particular the angle made by me on the boiler cabinet. a test is made with the complicated system, that of the surfaces- thickening etc. etc. the other was done with the "saving" system... between the two I have to say that the more complicated one seems to me the best, although still both are more than blind!
(actually, the welding test was not laser-cut and I had to fix it as a file, but when I saw the dxf, I noticed that it was at least 0.5mm higher than the other, and then that air remained!)
I don't know what to say, only that when "converted in sheet" or "add folds" change things if you use the inner base face rather than the eternal.... .
This doesn't convince me, I have to go deeper!

Sorry if I interfere with your discussion, but because using welding profiles the same thing is not easily achieved with a simple sheet.
who varies a lot of development is the tick simplifies bending, but who has the laser does not serve at all and the development improves greatly.

 

[Mike1967]

You're right the architects are a little "fusi", I also know so....roba beautiful, strange and almost impossible to realize!

belong this I wanted to post the result of 2 tests done in "trincea", in particular the angle made by me on the boiler cabinet. a test is made with the complicated system, that of the surfaces- thickening etc. etc. the other was done with the "saving" system... between the two I have to say that the more complicated one seems to me the best, although still both are more than blind!
(actually, the welding test was not laser-cut and I had to fix it as a file, but when I saw the dxf, I noticed that it was at least 0.5mm higher than the other, and then that air remained!)I don't know what to say, only that when "converted in sheet" or "add folds" change things if you use the inner base face rather than the eternal....
This doesn't convince me, I have to go deeper!

If for this... even with the "distend" function if you take the external face
development goes to be blessed. (I am at least in 2007 it was so).


back to the radius fold: did you use a radiated mold?
What radius did you use?

or did you hit the blade?

also the fact that you did not set 0.5 of factor k in the radiated fold has its weight.
Anyway, if it's not really wrong, those are details that a good lactoniere system with a colpetto of 400 gr... hammer.
Remember that hammer is the best friend of the blacksmith!
the field of the sheets is boundless, certainly the solution with the surfaces... Inspessite is not very fast, that bin is to be developed and put on the table in an hour and a half, hinges and lock included.
As already mentioned, I prefer the environment together, more reliable, no doubt.

 

[Mike1967]

Sorry if I interfere with your discussion, but because using welding profiles the same thing is not easily achieved with a simple sheet.
who varies a lot of development is the tick simplifies bending, but who has the laser does not serve at all and the development improves greatly.

It's my own line of work... if you read, I also use the assemblies for the assembled sheets (as in your file, of the rest).
welds are dangerous, if to change a sheet you have to delete some segment or arc
A slaughter happens.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

It's my own line of work. welds are dangerous, if to change a sheet you have to delete some segment or arc
A slaughter happens.

You've convinced me, sometimes I get too much my life for nothing!
but creating a mutilated file as I did, you can always save it as "together" with the "save bodies" function.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

If for this... even with the "distend" function if you take the external face
development goes to be blessed. (I am at least in 2007 it was so).


back to the radius fold: did you use a radiated mold?
What radius did you use?

or did you hit the blade?

also the fact that you did not set 0.5 of factor k in the radiated fold has its weight.
Anyway, if it's not really wrong, those are details that a good lactoniere system with a colpetto of 400 gr... hammer.
Remember that hammer is the best friend of the blacksmith!
the field of the sheets is boundless, certainly the solution with the surfaces... Inspessite is not very fast, that bin is to be developed and put on the table in an hour and a half, hinges and lock included.
As already mentioned, I prefer the environment together, more reliable, no doubt.

if I do not erro I set 0.33 as factor k which is what happened to me after various tests. As for the hammer, you're right, but I've gotten into it because such a fabulous program has to 100% solve things alone! (maybe I'm a little fundamentalist. . )

of course I used a 30mm diameter round mold and a 35mm wide v bending to coniatura.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

Sorry if I interfere with your discussion, but because using welding profiles the same thing is not easily achieved with a simple sheet.
who varies a lot of development is the tick simplifies bending, but who has the laser does not serve at all and the development improves greatly.

then ciarly only use to remove the tick to simplifies folds?

 

[Mike1967]

if I do not erro I set 0.33 as factor k which is what happened to me after various tests. As far as the hammer is concerned, you are right, but I'm so stubborn because a program so fabulous must 100% solve things aloneMaybe I'm a little fundamentalist. . )

of course I used a 30mm diameter round mold and a 35mm wide v bending to coniatura.

then begins to put 0.5 f k....
I have adopted the system that for folds of radius greater than thickness, put 0.5 of factor k (classic calculation of ciconference, in axis to the waste) and the results give me reason.

 

[PiegatoreSolidworks]

then begins to put 0.5 f k....
I have adopted the system that for folds of radius greater than thickness, put 0.5 of factor k (classic calculation of ciconference, in axis to the waste) and the results give me reason.

to the orders head!:finger::finger::finger::biggrin:

(I should come to you to make a week of "repetition" like schoolchildren to learn something!!)

 

[Mike1967]

to the chief orders!:finger::finger::finger:

(I should come to you to make a week of "repetition" like schoolchildren to learn something!!)

look at this, it's just a little example of what you can do with sw
http://www.mediafire.com/file/906iia9k3dp84pg/317.10.002.1.exeWell, it's in one piece... :finger: