Welding Problem 1

Of course an assembly without parts is useless.

Hi rollupswx,

I thought I did have parts, one the outer ring and one the centre brace. I see that the centre brace should have been in three pieces but I still cannot weld the ends t the outer ring.

I'll try again and see how I go.

Best Rgds,
Dave R.

You attached an iam file. Not ipt files (parts). Where are your parts? Just like the real world assembly - you have to have parts to have something to weld together.

Hi rollupswx,

Attached are the ipt files for the main support and the outer ring. Just thinking about this, could it be that I have a flat surface just touching in one very small spot on the ring, maybe I shoule extend the support just a little to give more surface to the ring.

See what you think.

Best Rgds,
Dave R.

Hi rollupswx,

Main Support ipt

Why do you need to show the welds? Can't you just use annotations in your drawings?

I rarely use weldments, I can't justify the time spent on modelling the welds. I just use weld symbols and general notes. Weight generally isn't that critical, if it is I will add a conservative amount to my total. The only time I would use them is if I needed it for presentation (which is not often).

Hi EngAddict,

I'm very new to Inventor and am still feeling my way around all the different aspects of the program. I obtained a book written by Thom Tremblay and went through the various exercises and am putting the experience gained there to my own products.

Best Rgds,
Dave R

ok, fair enough.

When I opened your parts with the assembly file the positions must have moved so I can't see what you were trying to do. However I assume you have a face against a tangent or a tangent against a tangent. Either way Inventor will have trouble applying a weld when it doesn't have a clear termination. Try slightly notching your rod to match the contour of your hoop and see if you have better luck applying the welds.

Hi EngAddict,

Yes that's what I thought. I'll give that a try.

Thanks for your comments and time.

Just in passing, there is a raft of books on the market and I'm not sure which to get next so can you recommend anything that will help develop my understanding and techniques.

Best Rgds,
Dave R.

Try slightly notching your rod to match the contour of your hoop and see if you have better luck applying the welds.

Click to expand...

The part names do not match the names referrenced by the assembly do not match - do not use Windows to rename files, they are all hyper-linked.

I would not "notch" the anything I saw in the assembly.
Split Face on the round hoop would give the face to add Groove Weld and then Fillet Weld.

But by the time you zoom out on this you would not be able to see the weld beads - so it looks like overkill for this assembly. I realize you are just trying to learn the software....

You could try this book written by some of the Inventor Gurus:


However there are probably better specific tutorials and white papers out there.

Don't go for any ATC training courses, most of the time you wont get shown the practical skills needed. Customised training is better or just work through tutorials and white papers specific to the work you are doing at the time.

Research master sketches, multi-body master parts, derived parts, linked parameters, etc. These will help you build intelligence into the basic skills you learn from the books.

Notching and splitting faces will both work, it just depends on what you find easier to create and what will give you the desired look.

Also tricks like changing your diameter of your cross rod by -0.001mm (or something similar) so that it can easily find the termination on the ring. If you really want the sizes exact then you can change it back after you create the weld and it will stay where it is.

This way you don't have to notch or split faces..

Hi All,

Thanks for all your help and advice all taken on board. It does get overwhelming when there is so much information out there that forums like this one are invaluable to novices like myself.

Keep up the good work and thanks again.

Best Rgds,
Dave R.

Don't go for any ATC training courses, most of the time you wont get shown the practical skills needed. Customised training is better...

Click to expand...

Don't throw out unsubstantiated claims. I teach for an ATC. If there is an ATC instructor to avoid you should cite the location and name of the instructor to avoid.

When I am doing a class for a single company I can customize to their product line. If the class is attended by several companies then there is no choice but to make it general-purpose. In any case the general basics have to be covered.

It isn't unsubstantiated, it is common knowledge, applicable to all ATCs. Ask around, on the forums or end users, they will tell you the same thing. I said customised training is good, the standard classes are a waste of time. But I could name names if you like..

"The general basics have to be covered..."

Actually they don't or they are being taught in the wrong way. I have been running training in the workplace for years and there are many flaws with conventional training. They don't need to be taught how to create a sweep or how to create a lid for a box they will never build. What they need is training in how to apply Inventor to they products they design.

Take a simple example like handrails and stanchions. The standard training may cover sweeps, thicken, revolve, etc, but do you think a new user who has taken the training could complete a standard guard rail on a platform in 30mins? No, they can't.

Inventor training needs to be in the context of application. General-purpose, standard techniques is a complete waste of time and money.

I have seen the course material and data sets so you can't argue they are by any means practical.. My advice is solely based on working in the industry, as a drafter, designer and engineer. If you think the ATC training is useful then perhaps you should go back to working in the industry and you might gain perspective on the needs of the end users.

... My advice is solely based on working in the industry, as a drafter, designer and engineer. ...then perhaps you should go back to working in the industry and you might gain perspective on the needs of the end users.

Click to expand...

There you go generalizing again.
I worked in industry for 15 years - many in various production positions, 8 as a machinist, R&D, Industrial Engineering.... I am very confident in my competency from through the entire process from art-to-part.

I use my own course material.

Autodesk Inventor Certified Professional
Certified SolidWorks Professional

No generalization, they are the positions I have worked in the order that I have worked them, Mechanical Drafter, Mechanical Designer, Drafting Manager, CAD Administrator, Mechanical Engineer (and I still working in CAD Admin/management). Didn't work on the tools but did work in manufacturing for years before moving into design.

I am not attacking you personally, if your teaching is somehow special, then congratulations on leading the revolution. However, based on my experience and people I have talked to over the years (both in the workplace and online) shows that the standard ATC training courses are both a waste of time and money. This is my advice only and comes with no warranty, no documentation, take it or leave it. If you don't believe my advice is accurate, don't take it on board, simple. Ask around you will hear the same thing.

I also hold my AICP and CSWSP-FEA but I don't quote them because those exams are too simple to be a true test of anything.

Gentlemen, Gentlemen,

I understand that you both hold very strong views for both sides of the argument but I ask you, is this the right forum to air you views.

We all must, first and foremost deal with the initial question and not be lead astray by personal views of this kind.

If needs be start a new post "ATC or not ATC" and see what the general consensus is. I understand that it will not change either minds on the subject but, it will give you both an area to express your deep held points of view on the subject.

Very Best Rgds,
Dave R.