Any solidwork peeps in here?

[slngsht]

I'm going to start playing with it, in hopes of completely designing a car a couple years down the road...

 

I started going through the tutorial tonight:

 

http://216.151.224.146/solidworks/pressureplate.htm

 

 

[MHKflyer52]

Hi Mazda,

 

Get yourself theSolidWorks 2006 The basics with MultiMedia CD (www.schroff.com) ISBN 1-58503-265-4 and SolidWorks for Dummies book ISBN 0-7645-9555-5 from Barns & Noble or any good book store as they are two of the best reference's I have come across.

Have fun.

 

 

[slngsht]

cool... I'll try those.

[bsimon]

Been using Solidworks since version 2001 for product, and injection mold design. Naturally, Seven parts get some significant development time on Solidworks as well.

 

The current project of interest is a dry sump tank for Tom M's Cosworth/Duratech narrow chassis Caterham. We're fitting the tank around the passenger's extended footwell.

 

I think you'll really enjoy learning Solidworks. If you have any stumpers, please feel free to bounce them my way.

[xflow7]

I've also heard good things about the book Inside Solidworks. The author, David Murray, did the SolidWorks training session I took at work and he was very good.

[slngsht]

Alright, I went to the local borders, and not one single book on SolidWorks :banghead:

 

I've made decent progress both on learning things and finding iges files.

 

So far, I have an engine model and a human model to use.

 

And am able to build a spaceframe, and perform basic stress analysis on it - the thing that took the longest time there was to find the place where I could specify treatment of frame members as beams...

 

Anyway, where I'm stuck now is to figure out what is the best way to use the dimensions of one part when making another part. In other words, I already have a model of the engine... it doesn't make sense to go back and forth to that model when designing the frame.

 

Eventually I'll make an assembly of all the parts, but there should be a way to reference the engine dimensions while making the frame part.

 

I did see some help files regarding "external reference", but they seemed to apply to assemblies.

[slngsht]

Alright, I went to the local borders, and not one single book on SolidWorks :banghead:

 

I've made decent progress both on learning things and finding iges files.

 

So far, I have an engine model and a human model to use.

 

And am able to build a spaceframe, and perform basic stress analysis on it - the thing that took the longest time there was to find the place where I could specify treatment of frame members as beams...

 

Anyway, where I'm stuck now is to figure out what is the best way to use the dimensions of one part when making another part. In other words, I already have a model of the engine... it doesn't make sense to go back and forth to that model when designing the frame.

 

Eventually I'll make an assembly of all the parts, but there should be a way to reference the engine dimensions while making the frame part.

 

I did see some help files regarding "external reference", but they seemed to apply to assemblies.

 

D'oh, you can create a new part in an assembly. :hurray:... [goes off to solidworks window again]

[Birkin42]

If you are just getting use to SolidWorks, I'd recommend not designing stuff 'in context'. This is very easily done when designing in the assembly. It looks easy enough with simple parts and assemblies, but can easily get away from you as things get more complex. I have seen way too many try it when they are relatively inexperienced and just create a lot of problems that are hard to trace down and fix later. Years ago, I my company had a railway car manufacturer as a customer. They had just switched from AutoCAD to SolidWorks. They sent 75 engineers/designers to a 4 day SolidWorks course and then had them design a brand new railway car from the ground up with everything possible as in context. It was a total disaster. They eventually hired us to redo the whole thing from scratch. Most of my customers that are in the business of designing custom equipment won't allow designs with in context features.

I would recommend you keep it simple to start with until you are more familiar with using the software.

 

One other comment. The Cosmos Express that is included with SolidWorks is very dangerous in my opinion. Compared to using a proper FEA program, it can give some very bad results. I would highly recommend you verify all analysis with manual calculations and only us Cosmos Express to get you in the ball park to start with.

 

SolidWorks is a fairly powerful tool. I'm sure you will have lots of fun creating designs in it.

[slngsht]

If you are just getting use to SolidWorks, I'd recommend not designing stuff 'in context'. This is very easily done when designing in the assembly. It looks easy enough with simple parts and assemblies, but can easily get away from you as things get more complex. I have seen way too many try it when they are relatively inexperienced and just create a lot of problems that are hard to trace down and fix later. Years ago, I my company had a railway car manufacturer as a customer. They had just switched from AutoCAD to SolidWorks. They sent 75 engineers/designers to a 4 day SolidWorks course and then had them design a brand new railway car from the ground up with everything possible as in context. It was a total disaster. They eventually hired us to redo the whole thing from scratch. Most of my customers that are in the business of designing custom equipment won't allow designs with in context features.

I would recommend you keep it simple to start with until you are more familiar with using the software.

 

One other comment. The Cosmos Express that is included with SolidWorks is very dangerous in my opinion. Compared to using a proper FEA program, it can give some very bad results. I would highly recommend you verify all analysis with manual calculations and only us Cosmos Express to get you in the ball park to start with.

 

SolidWorks is a fairly powerful tool. I'm sure you will have lots of fun creating designs in it.

 

You mentioned Cosmos Express... does that apply to CosmosWorks as well?

 

also, just to clarify what you mean as "in context"... what I've done is add a new part to the assembly, so that the part can still be designed by itself. What I'm trying to do is get the available space and mating dimensions of a part such as the header.

 

Ultimately, I'm guessing that I will end up with subassemblies of parts, such as the pedal assembly, which I would drop into the master assembly.

 

It's been a LONG time since I even touched a FEM program. Last time I played with this stuff, I wrote my own 2D plate stress analysis program in QBasic :lol:. I was one of two guys in the class to have a working program, and the only one that got correct results at the end... funny thing is, I was so into it, I wrote the whole thing in the first 3 weeks of the semester.

 

I also played with COSMOS back when Compaq 286 was the top of the line PC.

 

Of course, I've dumbed down now, and can't remember even the simplest matrix manipulation stuff. :nonod: So for all intents and purposes, I'm a COMPLETE rookie.

 

 

[Birkin42]

You definitely loose it if you don't use it!

CosmosWorks is fine, its just the free CosmosExpress that comes standard with SolidWorks that I think is useless if not down right dangerous. CosmosWorks is not the ultimate by any means but as long as you understand how you are applying loads and restraints and can read between the lines to understand the results it is giving, it is OK for most stuff. It can really start to struggle with thin wall structures though. Of course, a lot of car parts fall into this catagory. I used CosmosWorks to analyze my frame modifications as well as my DeDion axle and other parts. Some of them including the frame I had to do things like analyze in sections or other tricks to make it work. Much rather go through this pain though then create it and hope it doesn't break. Part of the fun of building my own car I guess.

 

What I mean by 'in context' is having geometry of one part being driven by the geometry of another part through mating the parts in the assembly. We cab take a simple example of bolting 2 flanges together. You could design each flange independantly and then mate them together in the assembly using the bolt pattern which is simple enough but does not garranty that all the holes in the pattern line up. Alternatively, you can create the 'parent' part with the hole pattern, create the 'child' part without the hole pattern, mate the flanges together in the assembly by some geometry other then the hole pattern, and then create the hole pattern of the 'child' flange with its size and location of holes driven by the 'parent' geometry. This can be done in the assembly model. This method assures that the hole patterns line up.

In this simple case, it works easily, but when you start using the 'child' part elsewhere and have different 'configurations' with parts repositioned, things can start to screw up unless you've kept proper track of eveything as you go. This can be a powerful feature, but can cause you to pull your hair out when things don't work as expected.

 

Feel free to email me if you have specific questions if you prefer.

 

Have fun.

 

Jack

[slngsht]

Well, I have lots to learn :yesnod:

 

I ended up taking my toy header out of the assembly and creating it seperately. MUCH easier.

 

However, after I did it (and before seeing your post), I realized that I didn't leave myself a good marker for mating these parts as the engine model does not have flange patterns.

 

At this point I'm totally just playing around... The nice parts of the eDrawing (the dummy and engine) are from dpcars. I just made up some imaginary headers as an exercise.

[slngsht]

well, i've been playing with it and learning along the way.

 

everything is fictional (and out of proportion) since i haven't done a suspension layout (and a million other things).

 

The human and engine are from the dp1 site. I'll have to redo the human so he can stretch his legs.

 

The engine mount is totally bogus.

 

Exhaust probably took me as long as the frame, although if I had to do it again, it'd probably take me 15 min.

 

This software is pretty awesome.

 

clicky for eDrawing

 

and a pic, if you don't want to install the Activex

 

http://www.astarasoftware.com/solidworks/assemblies/MasterAssembly.jpg

[Birkin42]

Looks like you are getting the hang of it.

 

Are you modeling the frame as 1 piece or as an assembly? It looks like 1 pc, which is how I did mine.

[slngsht]

The frame is one piece. The exhaust is an assmebly (couple different style elbows, and 2 different size Y pipes).

 

After playing with it a little bit, I'm finding that if I configure the sketch right, it is a breeze to change the dimensions of the frame.

 

There are LOTS of details to work out as far as the model goes. There seems to be some type of problem with complex joins on the tubes. Sometimes, depending on the order you pick, it doesn't want to join them. I think I've eliminated most of those.

 

The whole rear hoop area needs modification. I like the idea of a large member like that serving as engine mount, frame mounting point, and diff housing.

 

We'll see how it turns out at the end.

[Birkin42]

When you try to terminate a feature on the surface of another part using the 'up to next' or 'up to surface' feature, it is important that 100% of the cross section of the tube gets terminated by this command. If not, SolidWorks will not be able to calculate the termination. Even a hair line will cause problems.

Just wait until you get to running FEA on models. Many time joints that work in SolidWorks can still cause problems in the FEA meshing.

 

Keep up the good work. It really is 95% experience though this often means learning the hard way.

[slngsht]

the headless horseman is now driving the car... played around with a new driver today. He's an assembly, so I can easily move his legs around :thumbs:

 

Have to work on his arms, hands, feet, neck, head, and other 'equipment' later

[R1 Seven]

the headless horseman is now driving the car... played around with a new driver today. He's an assembly, so I can easily move his legs around :thumbs:

 

Have to work on his arms, hands, feet, neck, head, and other 'equipment' later

 

Mazda,

 

The Solidworks 2004 driver from the DP1 site can be manipulated. Just edit the sketch that it is built from and it will change positions. I like this one better than the assemblies that I have worked with.

 

 

[slngsht]

 

Mazda,

 

The Solidworks 2004 driver from the DP1 site can be manipulated. Just edit the sketch that it is built from and it will change positions. I like this one better than the assemblies that I have worked with.

 

 

I played with it a little bit. I guess with my limited skills, it seemed a little difficult. The problem is that to change the angle of the legs, I had to change the plane of the sketch, not any of the lines. Is there a way to do that?

 

With the assembly, I have just fixed the hip, so I can rotate the body and the legs by just dragging them with the mouse.

[R1 Seven]

The angle of the legs is dictated by the distance of the ankle from the datum used near the middle in both the x and y dimensions. Those dimensions can be edited in the sketch. When you draw lines and add relations to points plus add dimensions it becomes restrained. This is where design intent comes into play. Solidworks is easy to pick up on to draw with, but what goes on behind the scenes are important fundamentals to learn to keep things working right when the model gets complex and "important".

[slngsht]

The angle of the legs is dictated by the distance of the ankle from the datum used near the middle in both the x and y dimensions. Those dimensions can be edited in the sketch. When you draw lines and add relations to points plus add dimensions it becomes restrained. This is where design intent comes into play. Solidworks is easy to pick up on to draw with, but what goes on behind the scenes are important fundamentals to learn to keep things working right when the model gets complex and "important".

 

Sweet!

 

Went back to sketch1 and looked at that. Super easy :thumbs:

 

I had looked at it early on, but didn't know at the time. After I did the first sketch of the frame, I realized if you do it right, you can easily change dimensions later on, and had to start over on the frame again.

 

Thanks for the tip.