Community
Inventor Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Inventor Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Inventor topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

43 REPLIES 43
Reply
Message 1 of 44
jeanchile
2376 Views, 43 Replies

Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

Hello all,

 

We use Frame Generator a lot to create frames for our equipment supports as well as access platforms, etc. Most of the time these platforms are relatively small (20'-0" square or less, usually). I am working on a design that has multiple pieces of equipment and the access platforms are all going to be tied together into one larger frame.

 

I created the skeleton idea for what we need using sketches and I was thinking I would use FG for the whole thing. The sketch looks like this:

Crazy or No Pic.png

I occurred to me after I got this far (it's not complete yet but it's close) that I may be completely nuts.

 

Has anyone ever done anything this big in Frame Generator before?

 

We need to create AISC/NISD compliant fabrication drawings of each piece and we usually use some other company's software to do this but I HATE that program and I want to get rid of it completely. My ability to do that depends on whether IV can handle something this large and remain stable. Any thoughts, workflows, etc?

Inventor Professional
43 REPLIES 43
Message 2 of 44
Lancasterm
in reply to: jeanchile

Though our frames are not that complex as what you are showing..   I would recommend that you break up your overall structure into small manageable frame generator assemblies and then create another top assembly where you assembly all the smaller frame generator models.   In our testing of frame generator many years ago we realized real quick that creating one large frame skeleton was very confusing and time consuming to create and manage. 

Message 3 of 44
julesgf
in reply to: jeanchile

Hi

 

As has been suggested I use many sub assemblies each holing a frame generated frame to reduce each frames complexity.

I find it useful to use one part file as the skeleton for all sub assemblies and place that part into each sub assembly constrained to the origin.

That way all form edits are done in one part file and propagate into all sub assemblies.

In the attached each colour was a sub but driven by one skeleton

I find the tricky part is creating adaptive connections, the best solution I have so far is to use bolted connections at the lowest level in the browser tree possible (with no fasteners) and set auto solve on (with a shortcut key). This works very well but can chew up some processing when you cant avoid many bolt conn's at the one level.

I'd love to hear from one of the resident experts how they reccomend solving the adaptive bolted hole challenge.

 

Cheers

Message 4 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: julesgf


@julesgf wrote:

 

I find it useful to use one part file as the skeleton for all sub assemblies and place that part into each sub assembly constrained to the origin. That way all form edits are done in one part file and propagate into all sub assemblies.



This is exactly what we do for our smaller frames. The guardrails, stairs, etc. are always seperated out into their own sub-assemblies but from the main skeleton file. I've also done this before on frames that are part of the same project but not actually bolted to each other. In this case all of the members are field bolted to the other and there isn't a simple place to split this thing up but I'll find a way to make it work. Thank you (and Lancastern) for the suggestion.

 


@julesgf wrote:

I find the tricky part is creating adaptive connections, the best solution I have so far is to use bolted connections at the lowest level in the browser tree possible (with no fasteners) and set auto solve on (with a shortcut key). This works very well but can chew up some processing when you cant avoid many bolt conn's at the one level.

I'd love to hear from one of the resident experts how they reccomend solving the adaptive bolted hole challenge.


This is always the tricky part with us as well. We have yet to find a solution that creates completely adaptive connections very easily. Paul Doubet had a great suggestion about using workplanes in the skeleton file and constraining everything there. It works great (for what little we've done it) but it takes a while and is cumbersome, and I have yet to get it to work effectively with bolt holes through the webs. Plus, I can only imagine how involved it would be on a frame of this size. I'd have over a hundred work planes by the time I was done.

I'd be really interested to hear workflows from everyone. Specifically we usually use AISC Table 10-1 and 10-9a connections.

Inventor Professional
Message 5 of 44
julesgf
in reply to: jeanchile

Just out of interest where do you find the "bolted connection" tool falls short?

For me it is that updating can be slow with very complex frames and that I cant use it to track the bolts required as they are combersome to place and grind everything to a holt very quickly.

If they were at least quicker to spec in the bolted connection tool I would add some simplifyed bolts to the library. 

Message 6 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: julesgf


@julesgf wrote:

Just out of interest where do you find the "bolted connection" tool falls short?


Well, you've actually got me thinking a little bit here. Can we start one step backwards? Do you ever use clip angles or shear plates for your connections? If so, how are you placing and constraining those? I can't see too many connections in the picture you posted but the one in the top left corner looks to be an end plate connection. What do you do about the intermediate framing?

 

Our problem is that our sub-assemblies need to reflect the fabrication process so we start with the FG model, demote items as needed, add shear plates, brace gusset plates, etc., then create the fabrication drawing of that sub-assembly after that. The field bolts we use are a table driven iPart that is simplified into a simple mass with the nut, washer, and bolt all in one part (no threads) that we haven't set up to use in the BC generator (not actually sure if we could really).

Inventor Professional
Message 7 of 44
julesgf
in reply to: jeanchile

Yes, sheer tabs and clip angles all the time

The difference would seem to be in process

I don’t demote parts within the frame, I don’t like that workflow because, as you've indicated it makes cleating and drilling a horrible process.

I use design view reps to break up the frames for drawings, with a little care and extensive use of view locking I find it is more reliable than demoting.

Message 8 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: julesgf


@julesgf wrote:

... I find it is more reliable than demoting.



We can't use View Reps because of our Parts List requirements (unless I am missing something). The only option I am aware of for us is demoting the FG components. Your quote above is interesting; have you found demoting to be unreliable and do you know how/why? We have been using this workflow for a couple of years and haven't had an issue yet, but like I said in my OP, most of what we've done until now has been fairly small by structural steel standards.

 

Thanks for the help!

Inventor Professional
Message 9 of 44
julesgf
in reply to: jeanchile

Sorry, I should have been clearer, it's me that is unreliable using demote rather than a failure of IV.

I often have to make significant changes to the design as it develops, and I find demoted sub assemblies a real pain, eg promote part from sub A, break / fix constraints, demote to sub B, move plate parts and fix constraints etc etc etc.

not to mention the cleating / drilling.

I appreciate the parts list problem but I've convinced my clients (the ones I could) that they dont really need per sheet parts lists, so long as they have a material ordering list and global cutting list with trackable members they are fine (one client now says they're fabbing faster). Obviously that's not for everyone and the view rep parts list filter NEEDS FIXING 🙂

 

Message 10 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: julesgf


@julesgf wrote:

... Obviously that's not for everyone and the view rep parts list filter NEEDS FIXING 🙂 


Thanks for the advice! We've run into this problem in the workflow before and it is a pain, there just isn't any other option for me because of the parts list issue. People on this forum have been asking for more options on the parts list/BOM for over 7 years and we still have nothing that suits our needs. Why don't they add this stuff already?

 

Thanks for the help and good luck!

Inventor Professional
Message 11 of 44
DVDM
in reply to: jeanchile

Doing a skeletal frame that size looks entirely doable to me. Using that one skeletal model in several subassemblies is probably a good idea though.

Our frames, though smaller in size, are generally welded together, where frame generator works quite well with its built in end treatment tools. When you have bolted connections and webs that's an different story though.

 

I would suggest you look at the following plugin for Inventor, ASi Profile:

http://partnerproducts.autodesk.com/popups/product.asp?rdid=DEDE0108&id=DEP05924

 

Some videos:

http://www.cadgroup.com.au/product.asp?id=18&industry=1&ASi_Profile 

 

Message 12 of 44
stevec781
in reply to: DVDM

A big shortfall with FG is that you can only apply end treaments, trims etc using frames from the same assembly so it can be a pain when using sub assemblies with frames.

Message 13 of 44
julesgf
in reply to: stevec781

Thats where the common skeleton part file comes in, it gives you the geom to place end treatments in all sub assy's

Message 14 of 44
RobJV
in reply to: jeanchile

I too use frame generator a fair bit, typically on smaller frames though.  You have touched on something with the parts list that is a pain for us as well.  We have resorted to using full partslists where possible but it would sure be nice to show partslists that are filtered to the view rep WHERE THE QTY OF THE PARTS YOU SEE IS CORRECT.  Is this the same issue you are talking about?

 

Rob

Message 15 of 44
DanielCTurcotte
in reply to: jeanchile

Frame generator can handle a lot as you can see with the following picture. But for obvious reasons i didin`t make it adaptive. i'm pretty sure the only thing that could stop inventor is the computers hardware­. Note that at that level of complexity i had to forget about any bolting.

Inventor Version: 2022
Message 16 of 44
cbenner
in reply to: DanielCTurcotte

This is typical of frames that we build with FG all the time, they can be up to 12' x 40'.  We generally break them down into sections to simplify both the modeling process, and the drawings.  Easier to weld up in smaller sections and then assemble.  We do not (at this time) use bolted connections on our frames... but we're looking into it.

 

frame.JPG

Message 17 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: RobJV


@RobJV wrote:

 Is this the same issue you are talking about?


This is just one of the BOM issues that have been brought up on this forum, and yes, it is specifically the one I am talking about in this scenario. There are others that have been talked about (and apparently logged as "feature requests") for years and still aren't a part of the operational software. I am no computer programmer, and I imagine that adding functionality to code this large (and purchased from another company), is difficult to say the least. But ten years of people asking for other BOM/Parts List options should be an idea of what you might want to add next IMHO.

Inventor Professional
Message 18 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: cbenner

Thanks for the responses Raskel and cbenner! Both of those works are impressive. Most of our previous FG work would be closer to the work cbenner is doing. I have already begun the modeling process for my frame using the suggestions here. With the field bolting and bracing connections involved she's going to be a doosy.  I've split this into phases like everyone suggested (and like we've done in the past to some degree) and I'll post a screenshot upon successful completion.... if there is a successful completion Smiley Wink.

 

This 3rd party addition ASi Profile looks intriguing. I'm going to get my reseller looking into that for sure. Thanks for the information!

Inventor Professional
Message 19 of 44
karthur1
in reply to: julesgf


@julesgf wrote:

....I've convinced my clients (the ones I could) that they dont really need per sheet parts lists, so long as they have a material ordering list and global cutting list with trackable members.....

 


Thats an interesting concept.....

Message 20 of 44
jeanchile
in reply to: karthur1

I forgot to post the result when I was done with this. Here it is:

Platform-NoEquip-FinalModel.jpg

Over 1000 shop fabrication drawings and 50 design drawings later, it's done.

 

Frame Generator worked great. I split this up into phases as suggested so I was working with more manageable assemblies as I went. In the end it has 6,000 parts and my computer handles it nicely with no LOD's or memory management workflows. It takes about 20 seconds to open but it works great. By far the biggest structure I've done with Frame Generator.

 

The model with all the equipment and mechanical looks really cool but I can't show you that one Smiley Wink.

 

Thanks to everyone for helping me make this a success and giving me the confidence to try this with FG in the first place! Normally we use a different program for this.

Inventor Professional

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report