help mechanical drawing boards (created with solidworks)

[NiccoNannu]

good evening, I have to deliver 2 drawing boards of parts of a compressor created by me with solidworks. the most significant elements I have chosen are the main tree and the biella. Would someone be so kind to take a look at him and tell me if there were any errors from the mechanical design point of view? (I am not at all sure that I have correctly listed the central body)
thanks to anyone who will help me!
p.s. tolerances are purely invented, I hope they are minimally consistent, in case they were not to tell me.

 

[meccanicamg]

looking quickly seems ok. what leaves me a little puzzled is the design of the biella. very "scholastic". There is no large-range connection between the "circles" and the "fuss".
in hole 35h7....no input bevels?
there are many examples on the net like this below.if the stem is not a constant section it takes at least two sections.

 

[NiccoNannu]

looking quickly seems ok. what leaves me a little puzzled is the design of the biella. very "scholastic". There is no large-range connection between the "circles" and the "fuss".
in hole 35h7....no input bevels?
there are many examples on the net like this below.View attachment 70108if the stem is not a constant section it takes at least two sections.View attachment 70109

I tried to make it scholastic enough to avoid making big mistakes, surely the bevel on the big hole and the big ray fittings will add them.
As for the second part, why do you need 2 sections? is it not enough to put the maximum section and the angle with which it decreases compared to the axis? From a constructive point of view it would seem more logical but I might be wrong. . .

 

[MFT]

in the first one is indicated a ra 0,4 which is usually obtained by rectification and is not indicated the necessary discharge throat between jl diameter 17 and the shoulder. Also only as a reference would be useful to true the quota of the stretch from diameter from 25 and a series of quotas in length. tolerances better to indicate even the shocks so the operator can and should check. misguided thread invitation not indicated, general ra 1.2 what is it?, throat fittings and jokes? the seeger's throat lacks tolerance on the 12th and does not quote like that. on the second lacking, even only graphically, do not indicate the corners of deformity since the crude will be a fusion or forged. . .

 

[meccanicamg]

I tried to make it scholastic enough to avoid making big mistakes, surely the bevel on the big hole and the big ray fittings will add them.
As for the second part, why do you need 2 sections? is it not enough to put the maximum section and the angle with which it decreases compared to the axis? From a constructive point of view it would seem more logical but I might be wrong. . .

if the section is constant just a section.
if the section is variable linearly serves the beginning and end.
the verification section is usually done at 1/3 ... so you need another one.

 

[meccanicamg]

Seeger locations are listed from the tree line to where the seeger will beat.and just to clarify, I found this image, but it is much better to quote separately the diameter and not on the same line of width.

 

[meccanicamg]

good evening, I have to deliver 2 drawing boards of parts of a compressor created by me with solidworks. the most significant elements I have chosen are the main tree and the biella. Would someone be so kind to take a look at him and tell me if there were any errors from the mechanical design point of view? (I am not at all sure that I have correctly listed the central body)
thanks to anyone who will help me!
p.s. tolerances are purely invented, I hope they are minimally consistent, in case they were not to tell me.View attachment 70106View attachment 70107

for the biella, the parallelism and the reference to are on a surface that 99% will be fusion....so a very irregular place. must be put in other place.

 

[TETRASTORE]

I tried to make it scholastic enough to avoid making big mistakes, surely the bevel on the big hole and the big ray fittings will add them.

some considerations besides those that have already been made.
in the quotation, tolerances, surface roughness it is necessary to consider the material with which the particular will be constructed, the function of each part and the working cycle.
with reference to the numerical references shown on the attached drawing, I propose some considerations that should always be made in advance.
It is a question of defining whether this tree will undergo a surface hardening treatment after turning, or if it is sufficient to use an already reclaimed steel. in the first case all diameters and relative shoulders must be rectified as the treatment creates deformations and surface finishes that affect the functionality of this element.
In this case, given the type of application, I would say that it is a cementing and tempering steel (e.g. 20mncr5 or 18nicrmo4), to be indicated in the table below the design.
1) diameter 17. Given the presence of the bar seeger seat, this will certainly be a diameter where a bearing will be mounted, so the tolerance can be checked in the appropriate tables (j6 for normal loads).
as earthly roughness 0.8 for all rectified parts, unless there are particular requirements of extremely accurate surfaces for which a lower roughness needs (obtainable at higher costs).
stroke b refers to the bearing seat (17 j6) while the tract a could be referred to the diameter on which the lip of a seal ring acts; In the affirmative case it is necessary to foresee for this section (now 3.5 not compatible with the design) an f7 tolerance that facilitates the assembly of the cold bearing. In this case it is necessary to also foresee a 1x30° bevel to facilitate the assembly of the sealing ring and to avoid the danger of damage of the lip.
2) for diameter 15 tolerance could be j6, h6, k6 or different if you need a coupling with a lock for interference; It is about seeing what is mounted in that position.
3) you have already highlighted the lack of the bevel; when you do consider that the piece will be mounted on the counterpoint on that side when turning and grinding.
4)-5) you have already reported the lack of rectification gorges. in point 4) is not indicated the roughness (0.8) of the countertop.
6) also here, apart from roughness 0.8, for tolerance it is a matter of seeing what should be cast on this diameter and whether it is subject to normal or heavy stresses.
Sorry if I have stretched a bit, but it is to make you understand better (although in a summary way) that when drawing a component it is not only a matter of making a drawing, but it is necessary an analysis as complete as possible of the function of that particular in a particular application and act accordingly.

 

[NiccoNannu]

thank you so much to all for the precious advice, regarding the tree I think I am affixed as I have made all the changes you have recommended.
As for the biella I still have doubts, to make the odds of the stem and the tolerance of parallelism I am based on that sent by mechanicalmg (gilera, piaggio), is it correct?

 

[NiccoNannu]

for the biella, the parallelism and the reference to are on a surface that 99% will be fusion....so a very irregular place. must be put in other place.

I didn't know where I could put it if I didn't.

 

[meccanicamg]

I didn't know where I could put it if I didn't.

your biella, unlike those of competition, are put on rectification and made parallel from top to bottom. but you have the eye of crank and protruding biella. the central stem is narrower.
It goes without saying that in your configuration the central section should not be tolerated but the biella eye and the foot. One is the ref to and the other suffers.
in the middle of nothing for your biella.
you have 16 13 and 20... others do everything 20.

 

[NiccoNannu]

your biella, unlike those of competition, are put on rectification and made parallel from top to bottom. but you have the eye of crank and protruding biella. the central stem is narrower.
It goes without saying that in your configuration the central section should not be tolerated but the biella eye and the foot. One is the ref to and the other suffers.
in the middle of nothing for your biella.
you have 16 13 and 20... others do everything 20.

Okay perfect I understand thanks, while for the share of the central stem is all right?

 

[meccanicamg]

Okay perfect I understand thanks, while for the share of the central stem is all right?

5? 85?

 

[NiccoNannu]

5? 85?

these

 

[meccanicamg]

85 and 5 degrees are definitely good.
the other two odds....they would take the sections in two points.
if you define 4 quotas of which two lengths...the distance and a corner....there are superfluous elements... which should be indicated (...). choose what makes sense.
besides missing the radius...
then the section b-b de i indicate at what distance you do.