Cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

In a simplified view, I have a cylinder with vents applied tangentially, one after another, along the axis. These are essentially louvers.  I took all the vouver bodies and split the main cylinder into essentially 5 separate cylinders. These would be stitched to the louver lip surfaces.

I have used trim and split. All options I have tried maintain teh original surface as a single object, even though it is now 5 separated rings. When I try to stitch the louver lips in, the sytem balks an says "A continuous part cannot be made".

 

I can use copy surface and trim the speficic ring to size, then stitch the lip in. Then repeat 4x for the remaining sections.  This seems like a very convoluted process, and is bound to get fouled up with the parametric history during edits.

 

Is there a better way?

10 REPLIES

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Phenom
Phenom
I had a similar problem while trying to stitch in sync environment, I did solve it by working in ordered.

Can you share the file to have a look ?

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

Let me see what I can come up with.

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

Here's a mockup of what I was talking about. The Initial cylinder remains a single body, even though it is no longer continuous.  That would be good in some cases, but in this case it is a problem. 

Moreover, I think the workflow is a bit flaky. In that I mean that the system will allow you to chop it up in this manner, but will never allow you to reassemble it (in a consistent manner).

 

It's like a store manager allows you buy 10 boxes of ice-cream cones, and never says anything until you try to buy the appropriate amount of ice-cream. "Hey buddy, you can't buy that much ice-cream". Well then why did you let me spend my money to buy the cones. Now I have cones, with no ice-cream, and that is useless. Now if I were making ice-cream cone cupcakes, then that would be a good situation... I'm getting hungry.

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

Now that I think about it, perhaps it's not so bad in many situations. However I am going to thicken this, and the connecting members will be radial to the main axis. I don't think that will thicken well as a single unit.

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Gears Phenom Gears Phenom
Gears Phenom

looks like you need to SPLIT surface and then STITCH.   i do not believe that trim is creating a new surface set.

 

Try Multi BOdy approach as well.

===================================================
Matt Johnson
Solid Edge Certified Professional (ST7 & ST8)
Solid Edge ST9 (SEEC) - Production
NX11 (Tc Integration) Pre-Production Testing
Teamcenter 10.1.7

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

I think I tried a split with a similar result, but I will look again. Thanks

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Gears Esteemed Contributor Gears Esteemed Contributor
Gears Esteemed Contributor

Hi @JohnEvans,

 

Is there a particular reason for doing this through the surfacing route, over solids?.......I don't know what your entire scenario is here, but, the example file just seems like it is a much longer way to make it.

Sean Cresswell
Design Manager Streetscape Ltd
Solid Edge 2019 [MP1] Classic [x3 seats]
Windows 10 - Quadro P2000

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

It's for a burner can, that will be thickened. The more detail I can model into the surface, safely, the better.

Re: Splitting Surfaces into multiple bodies

Pioneer
Pioneer

Sean,

After your comment, it occured to me that I could return to the original cylindar and draw these details in crosss section before the revolution. When I started I wasn't sure about a few things that I am better acquaited with in the design. Ideally I wanted to array the features in on top of the base cylinder, but in tis case I think incuding it in the base cross section will remove a lot of features from the history tree.

 

What do you think?