problem quote tavola lamiera

[cen82]

I have a problem in listing tables of sheet profiles where folds are not at 90°.

in fact the boys of the production complain because (and it is true) the quotas I put on the drawings are taken from wrong points.
Here is the annex.
How are you doing?
I posted 2 photos. in one there is the sketch of inventor with the exact measures.
In the other there is the table with quotas.

I am aware that I could quote using the intersection of the lines, but also this method is not exactly the top according to me.

How are you doing? ? ?
Any ideas?

 

[Tarkus]

But if the intersection of the lines matches how much you want to get, why not use them?

 

[cen82]

I come from a decade of autocad and the intersection of the lines and the quotation on those is as I used autocad. with inventor this operation, which in autocad was obligatoryly immediate, I have to apply it individually for each line for each quota, and here I have placed doubt if it is the best method to quote.

taking into account the fact that in any case with this method of quotation the boys in the workshop must also "calculate" the value to write in the machine, since the quotation of the projection is not a "real" quotation.

In short, a question that is becoming a real existential question

 

[ipotemusa]

I come from a decade of autocad and the intersection of the lines and the quotation on those is as I used autocad. with inventor this operation, which in autocad was obligatoryly immediate, I have to apply it individually for each line for each quota, and here I have placed doubt if it is the best method to quote.

taking into account the fact that in any case with this method of quotation the boys in the workshop must also "calculate" the value to write in the machine, since the quotation of the projection is not a "real" quotation.

In short, a question that is becoming a real existential question

I in these cases quote the distance between half the internal fold until the next half. I'll explain, "I'll try to quote where the knife will be placed.
so I received less complaints.
with solid edge I can define the quotation axis first so be sure that the quota is referred exactly to the flap I want, with inventor I don't remember if you can do.

 

[Tarkus]

I in these cases quote the distance between half the internal fold until the next half. I'll explain, "I'll try to quote where the knife will be placed.
so I received less complaints.
with solid edge I can define the quotation axis first so be sure that the quota is referred exactly to the flap I want, with inventor I don't remember if you can do.

quotating between half fold and next half is immediate also with inventor,
It doesn't match the finished piece.
I don't give all the folds on my quotation boards, try to use the intersection of the folded inner rows, which correspond more to the truth, but I always put the flat model on the table. That's where I think the folds should be quoted.
on the folded model instead I put the angle quotas, and the quotas that I consider necessary to check that the piece comes as you must: height and tot width, distance of some edges on one side that I take to reference etc.
so I feel good
then, to go to check in toto a piece like what was posted, bhe, also depends on what tools there are in the workshop to be able to control it. . . .

 

[cen82]

in the annex you mean 18.7?

I highlighted in red 2 points for the bending quotation immediately above 18.7. If I take those two points, or any other, the quota line will not be parallel to the fold... How do you do that?

 

[cen82]

quotating between half fold and next half is immediate also with inventor,
It doesn't match the finished piece.
I don't give all the folds on my quotation boards, try to use the intersection of the folded inner rows, which correspond more to the truth, but I always put the flat model on the table. That's where I think the folds should be quoted.
on the folded model instead I put the angle quotas, and the quotas that I consider necessary to check that the piece comes as you must: height and tot width, distance of some edges on one side that I take to reference etc.
so I feel good
then, to go to check in toto a piece like what was posted, bhe, also depends on what tools there are in the workshop to be able to control it. . . .

I tried to use the flat model and actually corresponds with the sketch (internal fold in this case)....

 

[Tarkus]

I tried to use the flat model and actually corresponds with the sketch (internal fold in this case)....

Yeah, yeah.
There can be a difference of up to 1 or 2 tenths, if you don't have a piece with so many chained folds, it comes out a piece with errors more than acceptable. . .
at least for me.:smile:

 

[cen82]

also adding the flat model usually molds in a3 or a4?

 

[Tarkus]

in the annex you mean 18.7?

I highlighted in red 2 points for the bending quotation immediately above 18.7. If I take those two points, or any other, the quota line will not be parallel to the fold... How do you do that?

and what I said before...not everything is easily verifiable, it depends on case to case, that quota there in fact is a little problematic, maybe quotating from center radius to center radius: inserting two ø 2*spessore rounds, the operator can verify the measurement. It's still an empirical method. .

also adding the flat model usually molds in a3 or a4?

also here depends on the piece; even in a0 if necessary. .

 

[frenk]

Can't you just recover quotas from the sketch? :biggrin:

 

[arzigogolo]

Can't you just recover quotas from the sketch? :biggrin:

Of course you can!:smile:
dx key on the table view -> recovers quotas, symbols, etc.

 

[arzigogolo]

It's just as tarkus says: the correct method is to use the command "general rate" -> button dx -> intersection and you get the exact quota, right at the center of the fold as if it were without radius.
in the folds not to 90° included among others, it is a little more complex to select the starting point of the quota because in reality we do not have it. In fact you should select the center of the fold radius halfway that we do not have in the folded model.
to overcome this inconvenience I call the quotas from the sketch and so I have the correct quotas also in the traits not to 90°.

 

[Tarkus]

is right as tarkus says: the correct method ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................to overcome this inconvenience I call the quotas from the sketch and so I have the correct quotas also in the traits not to 90°.

right, even if it works 100%100 only with profile sketch + "flangia contour".
if you have other folds made with the command "flangia", the recovered quotas do not always tell the truth.

a curiosity, as I have already said, I always put on the table the flat model, except that it is not a trivial elle, but how do you do with the workshop, do you think alone to develop?

 

[arzigogolo]

right, even if it works 100%100 only with profile sketch + "flangia contour".
if you have other folds made with the command "flangia", the recovered quotas do not always tell the truth.

I tried to see if it also works with the "flangia" command and I think it works properly with that. in the image I drew a piece at home with flanges and counterflange and then I recalled the quotas with "recover quotas".
I only selected the length and angle, but it seems to me that they are correct. At least, the length and angle of the various flanges is right then if we go to see closely, the quotas lack lines of intersection in correspondence of the rays, but all in all seems understandable.
What do you say?

a curiosity, as I have already said, I always put on the table the flat model, except that it is not a trivial elle, but how do you do with the workshop, do you think alone to develop?

I also always put the development alongside I also put the folded part, then think of the workshop to get the finished piece.
in the last firm in which I worked for example, use a somewhat different method to enable those who realize the piece of understanding how the flanges are oriented, because indeed, if you look only the development, you do not understand from which the folds are oriented.

for which they in development use to change the type of line from continuous to dotted to make understand if a fold, looking at the design, is turned up or down.
clearly for me is a work of cabbage because they do it by hand clicking on each line of fold with the risk of wronging. In my opinion, it is better to put the fold table with the appropriate command.

 

[cen82]

I in the table have a space dedicated to the development of the piece that recovery from the modlelo from the info of the flat model. As for the folds sometimes I put them directly on the open model.

meanwhile we did some tests in the workshop and we will probably use to quote the corners in the folded model and the folds in the open model...

 

[arzigogolo]

I in the table have a space dedicated to the development of the piece that recovery from the modlelo from the info of the flat model. As for the folds sometimes I put them directly on the open model.

meanwhile we did some tests in the workshop and we will probably use to quote the corners in the folded model and the folds in the open model...

Sorry, but the notes on the folds, are you handing them or are they automatic?
because with the command "general" in the "table" group always in the idw, he puts them automatically without need to do anything and beyond all, they update themselves if the folds change.
just click on the development, and the command also adds the numbers corresponding to the folds

 

[cen82]

Sorry, but the notes on the folds, are you handing them or are they automatic?
because with the command "general" in the "table" group always in the idw, he puts them automatically without need to do anything and beyond all, they update themselves if the folds change.
just click on the development, and the command also adds the numbers corresponding to the folds

if you mean the folds in the flat model he adds them automatically.


"just click on development, and the command also adds the numbers corresponding to the folds[/QUOTE]"

Do you mean by the folded piece?? ?

 

[arzigogolo]

if you mean the folds in the flat model he adds them automatically.


"just click on development, and the command also adds the numbers corresponding to the folds

Do you mean by the folded piece?? ?

no I mean those numerals on the flat model at the folds.
If you look at the table, in the column "bend id" of the image I posted, there are numbers that repeat on the flat model and refer to the direction (up or down) and the angle of the various folds. so who realizes it can interpret the direction of the folds even without the views of the folded model.
Those numbers are out there automatically when you activate the "generic" command in the table group.

I meant if the annotation you put on the flat model like: "just 90 ro 60" are sketch symbols that you put manually or are writings that come out automatically.

 

[cen82]

no, it automatically puts them with this command, then with multiple selection on the folds of the flat model, the info adds them to them.

what I wanted to ask you is if those numbers in the table are also shown in correspondence of the folds on the folded pattern. . .