Hi guys, I was hoping I could get some input from you inventor masters out their. I've been working with inventor professionally for about a year now doing piping and vessels for the oil field. This also involves a lot of pipe supports and platforms.
I'm trying to streamline the process right now by coming up with a way to make some adaptive bracing that I can reuse so I don't have to model it over and over. Most of the engineer drawings I get are basically the same; 2d lines for beams with work points for the bracing and typical connection details.
I start with a skeletal model and use frame gen to drop my beams in. But bracing is where I run into difficulty. I get it done but its just tedious and time consuming
Is their a way I can make a reusable adaptive or flexible bracing for this task?
Here's some pics of what I've been dinking around with to try and automate this (I haven't found a good solution yet).
1. Created my skeleton
2. Dropped beams in
3. Created bracing template
4. Dropped bracing temp in assem
5. Constrained it into place
6. used make parts to place the gusset plates into my assem
7. gusset plates fully parametric
I'd like to have a better process of doing this. Ideally I'd like to drop a whole brace sub-assembly (gussets, brace and bolts) in to the main assem and constrain to the drawing specified work points and be done with it.
Any ideas?
I'm glad to hear from you Jeanchile. I've been reading up on the use of structural items like this in inventor and have came across a lot of your post. It seems like you and I are after alot of the same thing. I assume your located in the U.S? Could you post some pictures when you get settled back down? This seems like exactly what I'd like to do (setting up a bracing library). As you know structural steel can be an irritation to do in inventor BUT I think with the proper set up it could be great. I've tried other programs like Advance Steel but inventor being my main software since schooling; its difficult for me. Plus it seems like the parametric capabilities of inventor are better. I like the idea of having one skeletal model controlling my entire assembly. I couldn't do simple things quickly like I do with inventor in AutoCad based Advance steel. I mean don't get me wrong the connection macros are amazing for placing standard connections but when it came to things more complex or not so standard it got difficult. Also little other annoyances like their bracing macro doesn't have WT as an option. WTH, no WT? That's the main type of bracing we use. And the holes on the stairs would only go down to 1/2" when I needed 7/16". And the auto drawing tool drove me nuts lol. 10 million unwanted views and dims on a page? Anyway your input is appreciated Jeanchile
Paul
Sorry Paul, I've been out of town a lot lately but just got settled back in. Yes, I am in the US and we have been using IV to detail our structural steel, vessels, piping, and other items for 2 years now. It is cumbersome at first but with an investment in workflows and content it has worked out great for us. There is certainly things AD could do to make our lives a lot easier, especially because their AutoCAD Steel Detailing program is pretty much the laughing stock of that industry, but we've managed to make IV an effective tool.
There are some things to note though:
1.) In most of our projects, by the time we get to modelling the structural steel in IV most of the design decisions and constraints have been identified so things like member sizes and stuff don't change all that often (they do sometimes just not every time).
2.) We don't use Vault so we're stuck using the Design Assistant for all of our file management and copying operations. The DA sucks for the most part, and isn't intuitive to say the least, but it's all we have. It would be nice if AD would recognize that not eveyone can use their Vault programs and update the DA a little.
3.) We spent a year and a half analyzing our workflows in an attempt to streamline our software and during that process we were able to identify the best practices for us while using IV to detail the steel. I cannot stress enough how spending some time up front really "saved our bacon" on a lot of issues.
Here's some pictures of what I was talking about:
1.)Here is a picture of a typical double angle chevron brace:
There are about 23 user parameters in the file with comments and instructions to our users. Like I said in my other post, when we need bracing in our design we choose the type and style then use the DA to copy that from our library to the current project. Then we link parameters from our main structure skeleton files to the individual bracing skeleton files (Work-point dimensions, framing sizes, etc.).
When the main skeleton file changes, the linked parameters in the bracing skeleton files change, and everything updates. The only thing that we have to be careful of is when the member sizes change on the structure (columns, beams, etc.) we have to make some parameter changes in the bracing skeleton file. For example, if the beam in the picture above was a W12x35 and it changes to a W16x31 we have to go back to the bracing skeleton file and change the depth, flange width, etc. because we don't put all of the individual framing members profile dimensions in the main skeleton file (it's obviously just lines and such for the framing).
So pretty much we do what you do but take it one step further by having the bracing already complete in our library. You just need to link the parameters that define your work points in your structural skeleton file into skeleton files for the bracing, then assemble everything into the proper assemblies.
I was able to complete this platform in 2 1/2 days last week (detail drawings and all):
I hope all this helps some. Good Luck.
Jeanchile, thanks for the response, and i'm also sorry for such a delay, I'm just getting a little down time. Now if we could only design a macro for this in ilogic along with one for handrail and stairs.. Then I would be a very happy camper! But for now Im getting along just fine. I have actualy gotten pretty fast using view reps and locking. So much easier than LODs! The only downside is the BOM.
AUTODESK PLEASE GIVE US THE OPTION FOR ACURATE PER PAGE BOMS!!
Impressive indeed! Humbled in the presence of greatness.
Chris Benner
Inventor Tube & Pipe, Vault Professional
Cad Tips Tricks & Workarounds | Twitter | LinkedIn
Autodesk University Classes:
Going With The Flow with Inventor Tube and Pipe | Increasing The Volume with Inventor Tube and Pipe | Power of the Autodesk Community | Getting to Know You | Inventor Styles & Standards |Managing Properties with Vault Professional | Vault Configuration | Vault - What is it & Why Do I Need It? | A Little Less Talk - Tube & Pipe Demo | Change Orders & Revisions - Vault, Inventor & AutoCAD | Authoring & Publishing Custom Content
Jean,
Very slick indeed!
You've convinced me to grind-out structural details into a library.
Thanx.
Questions:
How do you easily/quickly change the various sizes of a brace-member in any given project?
When you have 3 "Tee" braces of different size and length, do you have 3 folders, one for each different brace, or do you have a simpler/easier method of accomplishing that?
Where do you define the profile dimensions for each structural proflile?
What I have been doing is save a CC structural shape into my "Template" folder, and then Link it's Parameters into the part file profile.
Thanx ...
I agree about the BOM functionality!
You mentioned "..if the beam in the picture above was a W12x35 and it changes to a W16x31 we have to go back to the bracing skeleton file and change the depth, flange width, etc. because we don't put all of the individual framing members profile dimensions in the main skeleton file..."
I have similar needs to change the beam parameters for various projects. One approach is to create an I-Beam skeleton file. This is basically an iPart with the necessary sketches and parameters of the beam classes we need to address. The main parameters being d,bf, tf, tw, and in our case k-detail. Each iPart member corresponds to a different class, i.e W12x19 or W30x108. This file is then derived into other parts/assemblies as needed. When we need to generate/change a beam, the coresponding member is activated in the skeleton, and everything updates.
Just a thought...
s.mc,
Your work-flow is what I'm currently doing.
I rename the CC iPart to match its use in the structural library (e.g., a w-beam and channel is renamed "existing upper support beam).
Then if it needs to be changed, I just RMB on it in a template iam file and change the size.
It's link to the main wireframe (skeletal file) automatically updates.
That way, nearly everything is linked.
My biggest problem is inability to figure out how to create a set of structural members to suit any conceivable standard scenario, and put them categorically in one file. For example: A simple K-brace could be any structural shape: W, WT, S, ST, C, MC, L, 2L, etc. So, I tried to put them all in the one file, but that backfired on me, due to the myriad of parameters. Plus, there's a number of different end treatments and connection types, depending on the existing/adjoining structural shape and orientation. So this all gets very complicated very quickly.
Any success in doing it that way?
s_mc,
I use FG only for rinky-dink weldments, such as handrail. Even then, I've adopted a hybrid method of using it w/custom library parts, b/c the FG is unreliable during the design process. It's a half-baked module in IV. Pretty sad. I just got done writing a long list of FG rants, but deleted it for the sake of p.r. It just raised my b.p. knowing that Adsk doesn't give a s**t about their end users, but panders to their "investors" instead. Anyways ...
Hope this helps!
Yes, FG is a bit buggy. I'd recommend iCopy, possibly with iPart driven members. I have used this successfully for eccentric bracing. The iPart can be driven by a spreadsheet. The AISC published sheet is extremely useful in this case. The initial setup would take some time, as jeanchile indicates, but your returns could be substantial.
I had one project in which I had to build stairs, railings and platforms for 2 stairwells for a 44 story building. I could not have done it without iCopy and FG.
Your project sounds as if it requires much more custom bracing, however, so this approach may not be the best for your workflow. Without actually seeing your projects, I can only guess...
s_mc,
IMO, FG isn't "buggy", it's "shoddy".
I don't have iCopy in IV2010, and can't justify upgrading for one or 2 useful features.
Most of my stuff is machinery-based, like settling vessels and process plant or mining equipment. Sometimes there's 3 to 4 levels to a supt structure, other times there's smaller, more intricate frameworks for conveyors, feeders, hoppers, etc.
Too bad Autodesk refuses to re-work their program to accomodate people like us who want to use the Core Program to do structural work in conjunction w/equipment, machinery and tanks. It has a great potential if the developers would touch-up the basic Code, and modularize it, and make it more consistently handle the metadata (like allowing use of iProperties and iProperty formatting in other fields of the part and drg w/o having to use iLogic).
I agree that Autodesk has let upgrades to some of its platforms lag in favor of the recent development of its cloud options. I have my own list of gripes that I won't get into...
That being said, I use PDSU 2015, and the differences between it and 2010 are substantial. It is not just "...1 or 2 useful features..." All of its tools, new and old, including FG, are much more robust and efficient. It is possible that a portion of the frustration you are feeling with trying to accomplish tasks in 2010 may be alleviated with 2015. You may want to re-assess the upgrade. You could always install a trial, and run a test project (time and workload permitting). It may change your mind.
Just the increase in efficiency and productivity is worth it...
My .02¢...
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.