Category: Part

SWW09: “Sage”; Engineering and Environmental Impact

SolidWorks Corp has made a giant first step in providing engineers and designers with the ability to quickly determine the environmental impact of any design.  In partnership with PE International, SolidWorks Corp announced today that they are providing a new tool for this purpose that will run within SolidWorks, currently codenamed Sage.  It promises to make sustainability more accessible to engineers and designers.SolidWorks Corp believes that many engineers do not understand the environmental impact of their designs.  This is perhaps because the engineers have little or no access to this information.  But also, many companies still do not have a focus on designing with environmental impact in mind.  Sage will provide this information in an easy fallow report that can be used by the engineer during the design process.

The question is this, why should engineers care about the environmental impact of their designs?  Decisions they make early in the design process have the most influence on the environmental impact of the final product.  Sage not only makes it possible for them to determine the impact of their designs, it also allows them to provide others (who may not be technically inclined) with this information in a clear manner.

The core areas that will be addressed by Sage are carbon footprint, energy consumption of the processes used to make a part (including regional data, transportation, etc), air and water pollution (such as emissions from the manufacturing processes).  It displays this information in several easy to read charts.  As stated by SolidWorks Corp, “Sage is the only CAD-integrated software to provide a comprehensive view of a design’s impact.”  Sage will not only provide the overall impact, but it will allow the engineer to drill down into the design to find out which factors are having particular influence on the product’s environmental impact.

As stated above, Sage will run within SolidWorks.  It is based on PE International’s GaBi software engine.  Sage will use the PE International vetted database which contains extremely comprehensive information about a wide number of variables that are affected by each design.  Though information in this database may be as specialized as a full blown special study conducted by PE International, the results it provides will be of the same quality.  The database used by Sage contains averages for particular areas of impact

Sage will contain the ability to allow engineers to compare design changes, so they can make informed decisions early in the design process.  It will allow them to “see hidden gotchas”, as stated by Rick Chin, Director of Product and Marketing Innovation, SolidWorks.  The reports created by Sage will be standalone (i.e., SolidWorks or SolidWorks experience is not required to see or use the report once it is created).  The reports will contain educational matter that will explain the criteria within the report, and also why the information within the report is important.  This will empower the engineer to explain critical design decisions to upper management.

Though nothing is finalized yet, reports will likely be available in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats.

Two versions of Sage will be available for SolidWorks 2010.  First is the Xpress version that will allow analysis of individual parts.  The Pro version will provide analysis of assemblies and entire designs.  Also, a downloadable version (presumably an Xpress version for SolidWorks 2009) will be available early from SolidWorks Labs by this summer.

This new tool from PE International and SolidWorks Corp gives the engineer a whole new level of understanding of their designs.  It allows them to make environmentally friendly decisions rapidly based on years of data and experience from the PE International team.  I’m personally looking forward to having a chance to utilize Sage as soon as it is available, not only out of curiosity, but also to write are more detailed review of it’s capabilities in action.

SWW09: Skeletons and Modelling Horizontally (live, nearly)

I’m rudely blogging live from a breakout session.  Of all people, it’s Matt Lombard I’m doing this to.  He will appreciate the ironic nature of this activity.  Will he hate me for it when he finds out?  No, unless my typing annoys him right now.

OK, I’m far enough back in the room where this doesn’t seem to be an issue, though there may be people around me that might be annoyed.  Again, no one seems to care.  (If the person next to me is trying to hint to me to stop by clearing your throat, let me apologize now.  Anyways, here we go!)

Matt says people are error phobic.  They worry if they have errors in a model.  This may cause unnecessary worry about finding errors in models.

Horizontal modelling is taking things to the extreme to protect your modelling data to avoid errors in the model.  Someone interested in this type of modelling approach is interested in trying to solve a problem they are experiencing.  The two methods to address such problems are to 1) ignore them when they crop up, or 2) presumptively stop daisy chaining references.  Link to objects that don’t break, such as sketches and planes.  Don’t link to solid faces, edges and vertices.

He compares a model created through regular practice with the same part modelled with horizontal modeling.  The relationships between features are all over the place with the regular methods, compared with clean results from horizontal modeling.  In the HM model, origin planes form the foundation, when are linked to reference places, then linked to reference sketch, with independent features that are all linked back to the reference sketch; at the end are the fillets.

Design intent is described by the edges.  HM allows one to lay out design intent with a set of sketches.  Features created from this will not fail if they are re-ordered (except for fillets).  Matt then demonstrate that HM doesn’t work quite by accident, so we continue the demonstration “theoretically”.  I think the failure to achieve the desired results shows just how hard it is to implement HM effectively.  Thank god watching Matt is entertaining because this type of issue in any other session would result in very boring dead time.  Matt actively engages the audience, which is now trying to address why SolidWorks created unintended relationships in his demonstration model.  Going through this process is interesting, but distracting.

In a question from Matt about who is using HM, the audience answers.  One person states they use HM for multiple configuration components, but would not bother in a simple single configuration part.  Another individual states it is also useful in in-context model assemblies.  HM may also be useful in 2D drawings.  Of course, now the audience is trying to discuss the demonstration model.  There doesn’t really seem to be a consensus; again pointing back to issues with trying to employ HM.  Of course, maybe that just means there are more than one way to achieve stable HM.

HM models are modelled to live forever through changes.  Concept modelling may not be able to employ HM techniques since the part may not be fully understood at the time when modelling is started.

In an almost conclusionary lament, Matt states that everything in SolidWorks is like a balance between stability versus speed of use.  Using HM modelling techniques is a tool to use at the appropriate situation, such as well understood production items where the design is complete before modelling begins.

OK, just for the record (Matt), the only reason I’m live blogging is because I really do not have the time to get all the articles done that I want to this day.  I promise I will not do this in the future.  Thank you for your presentation.

SolidWorks World 2009, Pre-day and the pre-preday

There are officially four days for SolidWorks World 2009, Sunday through Monday; though, sometimes Sunday is sort of considered a pre-day even though its called “Day 1“.   However, activity begins even before Sunday.  I guess Saturday can be called the pre-preday.

Saturday fun

My Saturday was mostly spent flying from San Jose, CA to Orlando, FL, with a layover.  I met up with Alex the SolidWorks Geek in our Houston stop.   This is his first, and my second SolidWorks World.  We made it to the Swan & Dolphin resort in Orlando just in time to catch the tail-end of a secret meeting.  After that, many of us Twitters converged at the lobby bar for some drinks for a tweetup.  It was great meeting up with a lot of the bloggers and consummate SolidWorks users from around the country.

Sunday so far

So, Saturday was indeed a very long day.  Though I prolly should have a hang-over right now, I don’t (never really get those).  My Sunday started bright and early with attendance to some focus groups for SolidWorks sheet metal functionality at 8:30AM and drawings at 10:00AM.   These are sessions where SolidWorks users from various industries meet up with SolidWorks employees in face to face open discussions.  The fact that these sessions happen is a sure sign that (despite the appearance otherwise sometimes) SolidWorks does put forth significant effort to improve their software based on customer input.  These focus groups are good because users give first hand accounts about how they are using the software, including their likes, like-to-haves, frustrations and such.  I may go into specific details about these focus groups later.

It’s lunch time now. I hunger.

SolidWorks Technical Summit – Los Angeles review

This review is a little late in coming.  There’s been one thing after another since I got back from this one day event in mid-December.  But now, over Christmas vacation, I have some time to write.

The December Technical Summit had around 85 persons in attendance.  As usual, it started with coffee and pastries for breakfast.  After the opening statements from Richard Doyle, everyone headed off to one of two sessions.

I attended the session by Phil Sluder on Assemblies.  He  broke the topic down into 10 essentials, ranging from basics about file types (.sldprt, sldasm, and slddrw) to how to manipulate components within an assembly.  He then went into “Assembly Survival Tools” where we were shown some newer SolidWorks capabilities and more advanced functions.  Of particular note, he did a great job of explaining Virtual Components and how to use them.  This is something I’ve not dabbled into yet, so I found it very educational.  He also covered multi-mating, mousing controls, warnings and errors, issues with chain mating (mating parts in a chain instead of to base components or geometry), and may other points that are good for newer and intermediate users.  Sessions like this one are good, even for experienced users, as there is usually at least one thing we learn or get reminded about.

Richard Doyle has likely done more SolidWorks related sessions than any other human alive today.  Not only does he host the Technical Summits (with morning and noontime presentations), he usually does at least two technical sessions in each event.  I attended his first session on CAD Management.  This was a very thorough presentation that covered just about anything we need to know for setting up and maintaining SolidWorks on modern computers.  One important point he brought up is that 64-bit computers and OS are not faster than 32-bit.  They are simply able to handle more RAM (16GB vs 4BG).  Other major point was that we (SolidWorks users) need to make sure we have administrative rights to the computers we use.  Needless to say, this was a very informative session that I recommend to all.

It was time for lunch.  The meal of good.  The noontime entertainment included the giving of prizes (which I will cover in a future article), and a review of what’s new in SW 2009 by Richard Doyle.

Some guy named Matt Lorono did some session about drawings after lunch.  🙂  I covered some of the basic information and advice about Sheet Formats and Drawing Templates, and covered some new SW 2009 features, including the new Title Block Editor.  I then covered more advanced topics, like how to create watermarks and how to make Drawing Templates utilize multiple Sheet Formats.

The next heavily attended session I went to was by Mike Puckett on mold design.  Mike is taking a newer approach to his presentation.  Although he still based it around a Power Point presentation, he spent most of his time demonstrating within SolidWorks itself.  He did such a good job with this methodology, I don’t feel he really even needed to use Power Point.  He showed us some of the basic techniques he uses to create models of molds from existing parts.  There was a lot of good information, such as using a preliminary skeleton sketch, how to translate swoopy shapes to a mold, and how to design ejector pins.

Over all, the Technical Summits just keep getting better!  If you cannot make it to SolidWorks World 2009, I recommend at least trying to attend a nearby Technical Summit.

Threading Options (Methods to make threads in SolidWorks)

Reposted with permission of Dan J. Riffell

This topic comes up over and over again, so I thought that I’d put together some of the more popular ways to create a thread in a part environment along with some statistics and reasoning as to why one method would be preferred over another. It should be noted that this may not be a complete list of threading methods, since in this case there is more than one way to thread a cat.

Before you decide to cut threads into your part, a design decision must be made which determines the relative value of modeling the threads. Thread features are often very resource intensive at the part level, and that issue only magnifies when multiple parts are inserted into an assembly. The best policy, depending upon design intent, is to avoid modeling threads in SolidWorks if at all possible. Having said that, below is a list of six ways to model threads (same process for both internal and external threads) in order of increasing complexity of operations:

I. No threads. This is the baseline from which the other numbers have been extracted. Imagine a simple socket-head cap screw shape without threads. # of features = 4. Rebuild time = 0.00-0.02 sec.

II. Cosmetic Threads. Go to Insert/Annotations/ Cosmetic Threads. This paints a visual representation of threads onto your feature. It also imports a thread callout into your drawing. This method does not add any features to your model, and it does not increase rebuild time. It is somewhat parametric as it will partially update with design changes. The disadvantages are that it doesn’t look very realistic, behaves quirky sometimes, and doesn’t show up in model rendering. # of features = 4. Rebuild time = 0.00-0.02 sec.

III. Simple Swept Profile. Draw a line following the temporary axis of your feature. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut, and choose Twist Along Path. Input the number of turns required. This is a very quick and easy way to cut threads into your feature. It is partially dynamic depending upon your sketch relations. # of features = 7. Rebuild time = 0.06-0.09 sec.

IV. Circular Threads. Draw your thread profile. Do a Revolved Cut around your temporary axis. Do a linear pattern of your cuts. Again, this is a quick and easy way to model threads. The disadvantage is that it is not an actual thread since the cut is revolved and not swept. This method serves to get the point across without being too resource intensive. # of features = 7. Rebuild time = 0.09 sec.

V. Helix Method. Draw a helix that wraps around your feature. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut of your profile following your helix. This is a very realistic method for creating threads, as you can control the pitch, height, starting angle, etc. of your helix in a simple property manager. The major disadvantage is that helixes are notoriously resource intensive, and it is not dynamic. The amount of resource that swept cuts following a helix command depends upon many factors including the pitch and how/where the cut starts. # of features = 8. As far as rebuild time goes, I got significantly variable results in the range of 0.20 to 45.34 sec depending on how I constructed the cut. With the cut starting 180° from the helix start point, I was able to reproducibly get 0.20 sec rebuilds.

VI. Swept Surface. Draw a line following your temporary axis. Draw a line perpendicular with that line (in a separate sketch) that is collinear with the top or bottom of your feature (or wherever you want your cut to start). Pick Swept Surface and sweep the second line around the first with a Twist Along Path option. Match the parameters to your thread pitch. Convert the edge of this surface into a 3D sketch. This should essentially be the same as a helix. Draw your thread profile. Do a Swept Cut that follows the 3D sketch. Although this method seems like it is overly complicated at first, it has the benefit of being completely parametrically driven depending upon your sketch relations. It will update your cuts to your model changes. The major disadvantage is that it is a resource hog. # of features = 10. Rebuild time = 18.33-19.86 sec.

If threading is something that you have to do very often then I would suggest creating Design Features and reusing them. If you use standard threads you can even create “Taps” and “Dies” that you can position in your parts and use the Combine Feature to remove the material where your threads should go. All of these design methods depend on the environment that you work in and what the intent of the project is.

If this is something that you run into often I would suggest that you submit an enhancement request to SolidWorks and talk to your VAR about the necessity of a thread-creation utility that works similar to the Hole-Wizard. Then wait…patiently…

Hopefully this helps. ————————-
Dan Riffell, CSWP
Projects Coordinator
Eltron Research & Development Originally posted on the SolidWorks Forums in this post thread.

Measure that Mate (Why are results different?)

I was recently asked,

“I did a check where the distance mate value and the measurement for the same features shows two markedly different values.  Have you ever seen anything like this?”

Distance Mate Result

This individual wondered how it was possible that his measurement of two associated features was different than the dimension he entered for the distance mate assigned to those two features.

Measurement Results

My reply was pragmatic.

“Without seeing the model directly, it’s hard to confirm the error.  However, I have found that whenever SolidWorks gives me a number and it doesn’t make sense, it is due to something the user is doing or some misinterpretation of the data.  This causes me to try to investigate when such issues arise by first considering what the user is doing.

“In this case, I’m assuming you are measuring from the center of the circle to the flat face.  However, I notice that your mate is set up face to face. I’m guessing SolidWorks is mating your hole based on the closest point of the circular face, and not the hole’s center.

“To fix this, use the temporary axis of the hole as the selected entity for your mate instead of the hole’s face.”

This individual followed my advice and was able to eliminate the apparent discrepancy.  In general, it is a good idea to check look at how SolidWorks (or any software) functions in order to understand why something is happening.