The problem is, you can't have any penetration from the start to the end of the bend. When looking at the flat pattern, turn on tangent lines, they represent the start and end of the bend. If you have any holes (or portion of any cutout) within that range, the flange command will fail.
Your 3 holes at top and bottom are too close to the bends.
I think you may be looking at this wrong.....the method you are using to model this part, is based on an ordered approach, and as such the synchronous tools stumble, but act very differently when given the freedom they thrive in....maybe look at modelling this folded using contour flange, the un-bend to apply your holes, re-bend, etc.
The ordered "add bend" works, because there is an option to place the bend occurence adjacent to [outside of] the bend line....
Design Manager Streetscape Ltd
Solid Edge 2019 [MP2] Classic [x3 Seats - Cloud Enabled]
Windows 10 - Quadro P2000
Almost all the methods of bending have options that move the bend relative to the selected line (Inside, flush w/ outside, all outside, on the line etc). What options is chosen using any method (flange, bend, sync) the options can be in such a way the added bend will fail or work depending on if any penetrations are in the bend.
This is one of my big gripes with SE sheet metal. I want to be able to bend it without altering the flat no matter what is going on.
One of my "secret" ways to fix situations similar to this has been Round Trip!
"To STEP and back to PSM" ...it worked with your sample as well!
So far, I have not had a case that did not work!
I work 99.99% in sync env. There have been two instances where I've been 'forced' to have both, ordered and sync SM!
There are few shortcomings:
- you lose all the features: patterns, holes, etc
(ah well it is sync environment, does it matters? :-)
- it will bend part and it will show its real "face" (see pics)
- lost file properties (I wrote plug-in that quickly takes care of that) see pics
Nice to hear somebody is having a good experience with Sync and sheet metal. I have a question regarding Sync and sheet details. Do you have "Crisp" results, or lots of small segments around corners and bends?
Besides the inability to control bend locations independent of the flat pattern size. My largest fear of going Sync sheet metal is losing the "crispness" of flat pattern required for punched parts. I'm soon to go electronic flat export and that requires no segments around corner....need straight lines and circles as flat outlines. If corners have extra segments, the punch tools are ruined quickly. A simple example of this is when flanges have angles to the sides of flanges. they don't come out crisp. My only method to solve this is an extra round of re-design in the flat. I design the part using flange commands. Determine the flat. Then re-do the flat with known dimensions and bend up that flat in ordered. Lot's of time to get simple things done.
I absolutely have NO issues with flat pattern “crispness” and SE Sync flat patterns!
Matting corners are all done as in PIC-1 (pulled right from a project I am working on)
Perhaps?, I have a bit advantage of having a Combo Laser/Punch (CLP) to work with!
For the quality reasons we have decided to laser all outline contours!
How the flat corner look like inside SE see PIC-2
How the flat look like inside CLP programming environment see PIC-3
(Note, that that my actual laser cut does not go into sharp corner) This is feature of CLP programming environment. Furthermore, there are other settings that could tweak the FLAT pattern imperfections! see PICs-4 . I have those settings disabled since I do not deal with DXF files directly. In my programming process I exclusively deal with SE 3D solid model files! CLP does internal conversions, which actually produces intermediated files (some flavor of DXF) that I don’t ever deal with or had a need to do anything with them directly)
So, more or less what have been designed, that what we have been getting!
How it look like in real life see PIC-6
There have been few occasions where I did punching all around and at that time I did not
notice any issues with “imperfections/crispness” with the files coming from SE.
PIC-4 - CLP
Thank you Mijo.
We use a plasma and EuroMac Punch. The punch is much preferred to avoid grinding of heat effected zones before sealing up our tanks. The plasma gets used only for thicker parts and stainless because those material eat up the punch tooling.
What nesting software are you using? Sounds like you have it all worked out smoothly.
Can that nesting software use "Document name formula" to name the flat patterns?
We have plans to move to nesting software in 6 months. This company had zero 3D files when I started 2 years ago. Now I have enough parts populated that it's worth going with the nesting software.