modeling change fiat point

[newoasis]

Hello everyone, I am a graduate in ing.meccanica, and specializing in mechanical design.
I find myself having to present a project for the university, in which I have to model an entire automotive change of a fiat point (first model I believe). the software I have is the academic version of solidedge v17.
I don't overly frighten the modeling of the individual parts, except that of the changing box.
I would like to have a few tips on their assembly. How do I behave? in the sense what is the most correct way for the modeling and assembly of the various parts?
I don't think I agree to model part by side and then throw them all together in assembly environment.
Should I use some reference system? maybe create a part with the only reference systems and model everything in assembly environment by concatenating the parts to such references. or create a part in the axieme and then chain the other parts to this first piece used as a reference?
I mean, if anyone ever found himself modeling a car change, where he left, and what logic did he follow?

Finally, for the various gears, I should like to create a "family of parts" in this way I would be able to create one, and to update only a table with the values of the various dentate wheels.

I hope I was clear, despite my many questions.

Thank you.

 

[stefanobruno]

I don't think I agree to model part by side and then throw them all together in assembly environment.

I don't know s.e. But if it works as an inventor, that's exactly what you have to do.
do you have the drawings of the details or do you have to invent them by pretending that they are?

Bye.

 

[c3kkos]

the approach to top-down modeling is, in your case, a good exercise to impractice you on the real environments with which, presumably, you will have to deal with when you look (or crashed badly) at the world of work. However, it remains an intellectual exercise, since the project in question carries it forward to you and only you (I think I understand) and theoretically with good abstraction you could really build part by side and then "accozzare" everything.

for the top-down is soon said.. "the distribution of information proceeds from the levels
of design above the lower ones." (cit.)

you create a "bone" in which the main components are defined with its positioning and structural parameters (such as technical spaces and operating specifications)
from there, step by step to model each component and compose jigsaw (ah, these Anglo-Saxons. . )


with regard to individual components, ask whether it can be useful to create parts families. .

definitely, choosing a correct methodic nomenclature for files is mandatory, and already this is a remarkable classification.

further exercise is to use the various managers who make available the most listed software suites, built on databases (e.g. the "vault" of autodesk inventor)
This approach, together with the top-down requires more organization time but pave the way.

starting the screw and getting to the car is all uphill.

bye

 

[newoasis]

the project we carry out it in 2, and precisely because of the impossibility of working always together, I thought to organize the work with a logic top-down (first approach to me) or similar logics however based on the creation of skeleton. to avoid that in the assembly phase, having each modeled different parts, problems could arise.
now, that it is clearly inconvenience not to throw a bunch of pieces in the assembly, and not wanting that none of you of the forum, do the job in my place, I would still like some tip on my specific case. I mean, "okay, I need to fix references, or skeletons, but for a car change, what are the most convenient? "
I repeat, I know that it is up to me, banging my head and thinking about what are the most convenient references, but, being this my first approach, to problems of this type, a help would not hurt! :

Thank you again!

 

[cacciatorino]

the project we carry out it in 2, and precisely because of the impossibility of working always together, I thought to organize the work with a logic top-down (first approach to me) or similar logics however based on the creation of skeleton. to avoid that in the assembly phase, having each modeled different parts, problems could arise.
now, that it is clearly inconvenience not to throw a bunch of pieces in the assembly, and not wanting that none of you of the forum, do the job in my place, I would still like some tip on my specific case. I mean, "okay, I need to fix references, or skeletons, but for a car change, what are the most convenient? "
I repeat, I know that it is up to me, banging my head and thinking about what are the most convenient references, but, being this my first approach, to problems of this type, a help would not hurt! :

Thank you again!

I usually work "bottom-up" all the time. I mean, I almost never use links between the parts. this to prevent a piece from being modified inadvertently. In fact, the components, once defined, must live on their own, without links to other parts, to have consistency between the physical part that stands in stock as a replacement and that instead on the cad. i.e. a piece already encoded must not change its geometry because a share in the axieme is changed.
clearly is my opinion....

As for if, on the other hand, I suggest you use a lot of sub-axis (for example: the output flange of the semi-axis + the bearing + the oil). management will be very simplified, and the program will also run smoother.

 

[cacciatorino]

other two suggestions:

1) for toothed wheels, use simplified parts (aplications-->simplify model)

2) for bearings, do not model all rolling bodies, but instead make a circular extrusion such that then when you make the table and you will make a sectional plan that cuts the bearing, you will have the illusion of the ball or the roller (see attached)

 

[newoasis]

hunter, first of all thanks for the precious advice, then I believe, in my inexperience, that the choice of a logic respect that another (top-down, bottom-up, etc.) depends on different circumstances. choosing a logic of bottom-up type when you want a consistency with the actual physical parts in stock, I think it is a very fair thing, but in other cases where the dimensions of the details are indirectly linked to the analysis that you want to carry out (such as the link between the section of a tube and the speed of the fluid in it), perhaps resorting to a concatenation between the parts is the right direction to follow!

 

[cacciatorino]

hunter, first of all thanks for the precious advice, then I believe, in my inexperience, that the choice of a logic respect that another (top-down, bottom-up, etc.) depends on different circumstances. choosing a logic of bottom-up type when you want a consistency with the actual physical parts in stock, I think it is a very fair thing, but in other cases where the dimensions of the details are indirectly linked to the analysis that you want to carry out (such as the link between the section of a tube and the speed of the fluid in it), perhaps resorting to a concatenation between the parts is the right direction to follow!

You're right, actually the logic would follow the top-down when you're in the conceptual stage, then break the ties when you go to the executive stage.

 

[guitarfenix]

Hi.
Milan polytechnic? ...andheheh... I did this project too! !

depends on what is required now: at the time you had to present the complete axieme of parts with also datasheet and mto as well as a simulation.

to us had given the dimensions of encumbrance and the dimensions of the "first" from there had made the sizing and then the model 3d.
you are in two... once you dimension everything...divide the parts and then model you make a partial assembly...and via total.
when you have the total you can also do optimization if required or even only by dialect (it is simple and variable parameters in this case are just few).

the project is nice and you will see you will have fun and it is a great exercise for the future...at least something good in bovisa do it again! less bad!!

Let us know how you'll do it!
Good project!

gigs

 

[matte79]

it's a little old forum but if I can afford advice first of all skeleton (a part with all references)!!! you will need a thousand times:
1 single assembly components.
2 crude fusion modeling.
3 production of casting work.
ps. really nice as a project. . .