As stated in the topic, I found all these values to be incorrect; they are far off from the correct values. There is another minor problem I have with the terminology used in the strength section, strictly speaking, the "Tensile Strength" should really be called "Ultimate Tensile Strength".
Hi hleeatsurf,
About the minor issue mentioned, this issue has been entered in our tracking database as ID 1453137.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I've added another comment so that we know the issue is identified by our users.
Best regards, -Hugh
About the actual physical values being off from expected values is logged as 1468285.
Has this problem been fixed with any updates to inventor 2013 as of yet? I am having this same issue now and REALLY would like to not load the model in another software just to check its correct weight!
If you find a material property is incorrect - you should be able to create your own. Not sure why you would need to go to another software?
Yes, I now have the specs of the material and am making my own, but the simple fact is that I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. It's an industry standard software that somehow has a wrong material spec sheet? Great, until that data is really crucial and someone doesn't even realize it's wrong. Why Autodesk added it (AND STILL HASN'T UPDATED IT) is beyond me. I wasted 2 hours trying to figure out what the problem was before realizing that the material properties may be the culprit.
Do you accept such blatent errors so easily?
@Anonymous wrote:Yes, I now have the specs of the material and am making my own, but the simple fact is that I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. It's an industry standard software that somehow has a wrong material spec sheet? Great, until that data is really crucial and someone doesn't even realize it's wrong. Why Autodesk added it (AND STILL HASN'T UPDATED IT) is beyond me. I wasted 2 hours trying to figure out what the problem was before realizing that the material properties may be the culprit.
Do you accept such blatent errors so easily?
You are right.. But we just know better.. Autodesk takes FOREVER to fix anything (if they do at all) so we all learn to point out the problems then correct them ourselves instead of wasting energy complaining about it..
Don't hold your breath with anything from Autodesk.. You will turn blue and die 5000 times over.
Its a shame yes.. But its life.
HAHA
Your reply made me laugh. Well, I suppose you are right on that, although I am surprised with all the marketing hype and product comparisons they do that they wouldn't fix such an easy issue. I mean, would it really take more than 5 minutes to fix? More than that, I am curious what other materials are incorrect...
Cheers,
TT
@Anonymous wrote:
Do you accept such blatent errors so easily?
I wasn't commenting on the error, I was commenting on your "solution". Seemed like a lot more work (and possible expense) than a solution of simply defining your own material properties to suite your needs.
Continue to make plenty of noise about the errors when you find them.
Ok, I finally made the material so that others don't have to. You can download the custom material library from my dropbox link below. I took the specs from Solidworks because converting units from http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641 just seemed impossible and I was afraid I would make an error.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/96pz8t50n2bc5da/hNRSzXCjb0
I hope anyone who needs this material is able to update their library from this and does not assume that Inventor's data is correct.
Cheers,
We've corrected the material propertiy values in R2014 to be consistent with Autodesk Simulation Mechanical.
Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.
Best regards, -Hugh
Thanks for the update Hugh. In light of this correction, it might be an idea for your QA/QC folks to do a random check on ~ 10% of the other materials. If any of those are also incorrect then its time to send them all back for a full check.
I just checked the material properties of Inventor 2014 for Ti-6AI-4V, and they are different than the properties I took from Solidworks to make the new corrected material. (image attached). What is even funnier is the material properties I see in Inventor 2014 are different than those of the image you posted. Perhaps I have leftover materials from Inventor 2013, but the ones I see are closer to Solidwork's than the image posted above.
Solidworks or Inventor, one is wrong. I would hate to see Autodesk get it wrong twice in a row...
Hi Synapse701,
I'm not sure that either ADSK or SW values are "wrong". I believe that for a fair number of materials there is an allowable range, especially when the material is not specified to the type of heat treatment or grade. For an extreme example "alloy steel" has many variants in real-life and it seems to be the case with this titanium alloy as well.
I searched on MatWeb for "ti-6al-4v" and received 27 material results (image attached). The one I believe we are closely matched to is Titanium Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5), Annealed.
The point I'm trying to make is that the material properites supplied with the product should be within the acceptable range to achieve accurate and realistic results. If the material properties are grossly inaccurate (as it was previously in this case) then there cause for concern.
Warm regards, -Hugh
Hi JD or any others still on this thread.
Would inventor be able to calculate the force shown below on a "cut type spring" design like the below
Using Grade 5 Ti , clearly the cut lengths / number of cuts would effect the Nm amount.
looking at the below out of 3mm plate and looking for 50Nm force ( only in one plane / direction )
I have drawn this in dxf ( dont have Inventor )
your thoughts would be appreciated.
Have a great weekend !
Kind regards,
Pete from South Africa
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.