extrusion advice: curiosity

[volaff]

Hello, everyone. a flight question for the most experienced.
If I have three pieces of sheet metal and have to represent welded it makes more sense to make a small set or could I manage in a single file the three plates read as separate bodies (making a multi body)? ? ?

Thank you all.

 

[xxfast]

I would do in multi body, but it depends on the complexity of the sheets and your experience... .

 

[volaff]

little experience I am shrinking on a sheet with inclined cut consisting of 3 sheets in practice.
the individual parts are not complex but inclined. . .

 

[meccanicamg]

I agree. if complex you make three rows sheet part, put them together and make soldering as a function together. otherwise unique welded multibody part.
Then it depends even if you have to codify a single code or three codes and the assembly aid.

 

[volaff]

I think it's three distinct parts with each different code.
If I can place the design on the weekend. . .
Thank you very much.

 

[xxfast]

If you have three codes, then make three separate parts.

 

[volaff]

Thank you.
to the limit I want to understand if in multybody I can make the same product without passing through the assieme.

 

[volaff]

raga but if I have to weld two sheets with welding cords like the one in the figure as I can do.

Do I have to insert one at a time (which I noticed in the part/lamiera file doesn't make me do since I have already welded between the same two faces) or can I insert them once using, for example, intermittent welder (but here I can only specify same length cords a certain step)? ? ?

Thank you all.

 

[volaff]

hi I created the exam with the relevant parts. Now I have a problem in the table, if I go to quote the various parts that interest me, comes out the written "real" thing quite annoying, both on the connection rays and on the circumferences.

Is there any methodology I can apply to clearly represent the whole together? while remaining the table of the individual parts.

Also in pairing part 1 with the 2 if I zoom it seems that between the faces there is a space.
this is normal and is due to bending or to what?

Thank you very much for the suggestions.

 

[xxfast]

in the axieme comes out r. real because you are placed badly with the view where you go to quota the holes.
- I wouldn't use a section for that piece.
-In the file that I attached to you I repositioned before the assembling correctly with respect to the floors, making part 1 mobile, so I find the views in the table positioned well with respect to the planes of the holes. see the last 3 pairs in the axieme.
- in part 2 I made the cuts differently, because it seemed too complicated the way it was done.
- regarding the space you see between the two parts you have indicated, it's not a problem, as it is about the sheet and anyway I think it's just a fact of visualization.

View attachment Prova.rar

 

[volaff]

in the axieme comes out r. real because you are placed badly with the view where you go to quota the holes.
- I wouldn't use a section for that piece.
-In the file that I attached to you I repositioned before the assembling correctly with respect to the floors, making part 1 mobile, so I find the views in the table positioned well with respect to the planes of the holes. see the last 3 pairs in the axieme.
- in part 2 I made the cuts differently, because it seemed too complicated the way it was done.
- regarding the space you see between the two parts you have indicated, it's not a problem, as it is about the sheet and anyway I think it's just a fact of visualization.

View attachment 45871

We're good morning.
Meanwhile thank you so much for the answer and time dedicated to me.

I'll take a look and if I have any doubts I won't hesitate to ask. you were too kind!!! : )

 

[volaff]

Bye to all,
as suggested by xxfast I coupled the various parts in such a way as to have an adequate representation in the table, exploiting the plans of the assemblies with those of the various parts.

I have inserted welds as a function of assembly (insert---- functions of assembly------- welding cord).

Now I have the problem of representing the welds between the coupled parts, from the table part 1 with the 3 and the 3 with the 4.

I tried to make an a-a section but although it seems that I can represent the soldering I always have the inconvenient that, in addition to seeing the thickness of holes, the caterpillar extends along the edge and not only a portion (I don't know if I was clear).

There is a way to circumvent the "problem".

By the way, although I use the European method (first angle) I think the side view is not the correct one.

Sorry I've been long.

fly

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

side view is correct.
in the views do not see the tangent edges that create confusion. use them only in any isometric views to make the model clearer.
for welding under the edge selection there is, as indicated in the guide, the choice between continuous and intermittent.
the thickness holes rightly you see because the plate is not perpendicular to the section line.
welds are mainly seen sideways with the triangle for classical welding or specific symbol for other types, with the possible addition of indications if they have non-standard specifications (see attachment).
In my opinion welds in plant or catterpillar should be used if there are particular need for clarity. is not a thing of the norm, but more than other an optimization of the drawings where overflowing of information perhaps reundant can generate confusion if not perfectly consistent (in your case you indicate the welding in the upper plate, and the lower one like the sauces? At times, full penetration?) where each welding must correspond the lateral symbol and its corresponding catterpillar. in case of carpentry becomes an honorary system in terms of time, and performance.
attach two pdf on welding; the second is specific on non-standard welds, but it could come back useful if you find the pignolo capouffico. find many more complete with a simple searchView attachment rappresentazione saldature.pdfView attachment dimensione lembi saldatura.pdf

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

right for clarity on modeling:
-why origin of the axieme and composing 1 do not correspond? leaving the second set where everything is mobile, in the first I noticed this
-why did you opt for that modeling with a tilted plane? Was it not easier to make the sheet parallel to the front floor and make the tilted cuts?
-Why is component 4 made as a sheet if it is a straight plate?

in the table it is better to make a detail, since the space is not missing, of component 1 in order to quote it more understandable

 

[volaff]

right for clarity on modeling:
-why origin of the axieme and composing 1 do not correspond? leaving the second set where everything is mobile, in the first I noticed this
-why did you opt for that modeling with a tilted plane? Was it not easier to make the sheet parallel to the front floor and make the tilted cuts?
-Why is component 4 made as a sheet if it is a straight plate?

in the table it is better to make a detail, since the space is not missing, of component 1 in order to quote it more understandable

- You're right. I made the first piece in mobile, and I got the "oringine." Then I did it again. I'll put it tomorrow.

- I extruded a c on a tilted plane compared to the main of 5 ° and then made the cuts. If I had extruded on the main floor the c would have come orthogonal to that plan and I would not have had the inclination I needed.

-I did everything like sheet metal even that straight plate because it has a small thickness, not for anything else, there is no valid motivation.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

- I extruded a c on a tilted plane compared to the main of 5 ° and then made the cuts. If I had extruded on the main floor the c would have come orthogonal to that plan and I would not have had the inclination I needed.

But if you do tilt cuts, it's not the same thing?
I mean that cuts must have a 5th inclination over the body more than on the planes. if instead of tilting the body against the plane and parallel cuts compared to the latter do the body parallel to the plane and the tilted cuts get the same result with less references to manage and consequent banging

-I did everything like sheet metal even that straight plate because it has a small thickness, not for anything else, there is no valid motivation.

I personally use the sheet functions only where it is necessary to obtain the development of the folded element. the fact that the small thickness is defined sheet metal is a commercial question. It is true, however, that the properties of the separate cut are different between simple extrusion and sheet and if they serve in this case the second is to be preferred also to make a tube melt.

 

[volaff]

But if you do tilt cuts, it's not the same thing?
I mean that cuts must have a 5th inclination over the body more than on the planes. if instead of tilting the body against the plane and parallel cuts compared to the latter do the body parallel to the plane and the tilted cuts get the same result with fewer references to manage and consequent banging.

in practice as in the attached file?
if so the cuts are tilted as I can couple the surface of the base with the surface of the cut (one is flat, the other is not).

always if I didn't get it wrong.

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

Have you tried? the cut line is straight therefore with the surface of the base can be coupled quietly.
I'll train you with your new part that I've renamed in 2 (be careful with the names of the other old parts). I erased it for convenience. some small observations on the first group you had included:
use better couplings:

• parallelism is too much (you have already said that the two surfaces are coincident)
• the first distance is good if the bodies are not symmetrical; in this case it is better to use the coincidence between plans
• same thing for coupling width (why then did you do one so and one colà to get the same result? )

I also train you the axieme made, for fun, in multibody and with the development of the two plates in the table.
some small observations on the multibody:

• In this case I had to create the tilted plane, it is not possible to do otherwise.
• the bottom line, between base and mount, I made it using the base sketch. As you see, there is no more that annoying rear rise.
• Be careful that what I told you about the plate made in sheet metal, if you have to get the development of those folded, it has its reason to be. in practice if you make sheet metal a body that has no folds, as the perforated plate, when you go to make the development of others can give problems; I even crashed. I made the plate as an extrusion and went smoothly. It's better to examine, but keep it in mind.

View attachment assieme con lamiera taglio inclinato.zipView attachment lamiera multibody.zip

 

[volaff]

Have you tried? the cut line is straight therefore with the surface of the base can be coupled quietly.
I'll train you with your new part that I've renamed in 2 (be careful with the names of the other old parts). I erased it for convenience. some small observations on the first group you had included:
use better couplings:

• parallelism is too much (you have already said that the two surfaces are coincident)
• the first distance is good if the bodies are not symmetrical; in this case it is better to use the coincidence between plans
• same thing for coupling width (why then did you do one so and one colà to get the same result? )

I also train you the axieme made, for fun, in multibody and with the development of the two plates in the table.
some small observations on the multibody:

• In this case I had to create the tilted plane, it is not possible to do otherwise.
• the bottom line, between base and mount, I made it using the base sketch. As you see, there is no more that annoying rear rise.
• Be careful that what I told you about the plate made in sheet metal, if you have to get the development of those folded, it has its reason to be. in practice if you make sheet metal a body that has no folds, as the perforated plate, when you go to make the development of others can give problems; I even crashed. I made the plate as an extrusion and went smoothly. It's better to examine, but keep it in mind.

View attachment 45882View attachment 45883

You were very kind.
I'll take a look at what you've been through.

Thank you very much.

 

[volaff]

a question: but if I have this small set consisting of three parts of sheet metal I have to make the table of each part and then that of the axieme or can I directly quote everything on the table of the axieme?