Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

More Mating Issues 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

JSMachine

Mechanical
Oct 24, 2011
31
0
0
US
I have gotten pretty good with Solidworks over the past couple of days, especially since I figured out how to make parts mate. I had posted a thread earlier in the week requesting help with that.

Now, I have built a machine and it has probably a dozen or more parts. I have had pretty good luck so far with the mating process, but there are still a couple of areas I can't seem to grasp.

Here is one scenario:

I seem to do okay with mates as long as I have a reference point. For example, if I want to put a part directly down in the middle of a table, it easily mates when I select the bottom of the part and the top of the table. But, how do I put it in a certain place on that table (like the X and Y)? The only way I have figured out how to do this is to go back to the part file itself, create a sketch on the solid surface (for instance the table's top), and create what I call a footprint. I can usually put that footprint where I need it to be because I can dimension off of the edges of the table edges and get it there. Then, I go back to the part in the assembly, and when I mate the part, I simply grab one of the bottom edges of that part and line it up with one of the edges of the footprint. Then I do the other axis, whether it be X or Y. This lines the part up on the footprint and puts it where I need it to be.

I know there must be a correct way to do this. Am I doing it correctly or am I not?

Here is an example of what I am talking about. In this picture I have attached, you can see the parts there. The long part in the horizontal plane is called an idler arm. The part I am trying to mate (enclosed in the orange square wireframe) is the idler wheel mount. I have mated the back side of the mount to the idler arm. I have lined up the top edge of the mount to the top edge of the idler arm. No I am trying to move the mount to the right (maybe the X axis? - but if you look close at the axis thing at the bottom left of the picture it looks more like the Z axis) towards that light gray line. That light gray line is a sketch that I went back and added to the idler arm part as a reference point just for the operation I am trying to perform. It serves no other purpose.

mateissue.jpg


When I try to mate this, I cannot select the light gray line like I was able to do on the base (which is the original part in the assembly and fixed). This is why I don't think this is the correct way to do this. The mount is not fixed, it is set at float.

Thanks!
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

this is what I get when i select the face of the bearing and the face of the pillow block - which are 90 degrees (or should be) from each other.


"The selected items intersect.
Total area: 4.36877728 inches^2"

 
I was refering to an angle measurement as an example. This would require selecting 2 faces. Re-read my post and note that my shaft coincident and concentric siuation refers to a fit with clearance. It is an example only, to point out that even though it may be tempting to think that if a clearance is very small, that a fit could be concentric, and actually have the shaft touch the bore at the same time. SolidWorks will not gloss over these small inconsistancies. In other words if some thing is not actually possible as a mate, SW will not do it. At first it can be difficult to see this as a good thing, but it is neccessary for the accuracy we need to have.
 
I just figured out how to make it work. If I go into my mates tree to the left, and delete the last couple of mates, I can then mate it in the way that I was trying to mate it that was giving me an error.

I think the mate I am trying to do does not work with what I had previously done. The good thing is that if I delete previous mates, the part stays where it was moved to with that mate. Then when I apply the mate I had been trying to do, it moves just fine.

 
Stay with it JSMachine. I predict that if you do that you will look back and understand that many of your problems are part of the learn curve. We all are willing to help, but you must do your part by doing tutorials, and reading help & etc. Good luck!
p.s. Many of us have been using SW for over a decade, and we still learn new things each day.
 
One of the benefits of learning by doing the tutorials is learning standard practices. We all have workarounds that get the job done, but if you share your models and assemblies with other users they will appreciate a careful, consistent, structured approach, where design intent is apparent. It shows you are serious about doing good work, and really helps with future changes.

Regards, Diego.
 
I think the mate I am trying to do does not work with what I had previously done. The good thing is that if I delete previous mates, the part stays where it was moved to with that mate. Then when I apply the mate I had been trying to do, it moves just fine.
When troubleshooting mates, suppressing suspects is better than deleting them. Suppress/Unsuppress is your friend.

BTW, what CAD system did you come from?

TOP
CSWP, BSSE
Phenom IIx6 1100T = 8GB = FX1400 = XP64SP2 = SW2009SP3
"Node news is good news."
 
In all honesty, and let's not kid ourselves, assemblies as they function in current parametric solid modelers is an out-dated concept and a terrible amount of hassle. Mates sound good in theory but in reality, they ain't all that. And you have to go through workaround techniques like top down design that the software was not originally intended for. Just see how many functions there are that facilitate mating parts versus working top down. Layout is a good step in the right direction, but far from the goal post of being useful for production level work.

Certified SolidWorks Professional
 
I came from mostly CAM programs - MasterCAM, Surfcam, GibbsCam, Feature cam. My only 3D experience is with AutoCAD, which is a whole lot more difficult than Solidworks as far as 3D.

I'm a CNC programmer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top