Inventor General Discussion

Inventor General Discussion

Reply
Valued Mentor
jeanchile
Posts: 783
Registered: ‎11-10-2009
Message 1 of 39 (999 Views)

Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

999 Views, 38 Replies
12-01-2011 08:59 PM

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 2013 (SP-2.3), Product Design Suite Ultimate
Desktop: Intel Core i7 3.4GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, 64-bit OS, (2) GeForce GTX 580 (331.81), Space Pilot Pro (3.16.1)
Laptop: Intel Core i7 3.9GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Pro SP-1, 64-bit OS, GeForce GTX 780 (331.81), SpaceNavigator (3.17.7)
Valued Mentor
Lancasterm
Posts: 431
Registered: ‎05-07-2007
Message 2 of 39 (944 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-02-2011 12:55 PM 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. 

Contributor
julesgf
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎01-12-2010
Message 3 of 39 (911 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-03-2011 12:02 AM 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

Valued Mentor
jeanchile
Posts: 783
Registered: ‎11-10-2009
Message 4 of 39 (852 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 03:39 PM 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 2013 (SP-2.3), Product Design Suite Ultimate
Desktop: Intel Core i7 3.4GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, 64-bit OS, (2) GeForce GTX 580 (331.81), Space Pilot Pro (3.16.1)
Laptop: Intel Core i7 3.9GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Pro SP-1, 64-bit OS, GeForce GTX 780 (331.81), SpaceNavigator (3.17.7)
Contributor
julesgf
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎01-12-2010
Message 5 of 39 (849 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 04:01 PM 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. 

Valued Mentor
jeanchile
Posts: 783
Registered: ‎11-10-2009
Message 6 of 39 (843 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 04:34 PM 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 2013 (SP-2.3), Product Design Suite Ultimate
Desktop: Intel Core i7 3.4GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, 64-bit OS, (2) GeForce GTX 580 (331.81), Space Pilot Pro (3.16.1)
Laptop: Intel Core i7 3.9GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Pro SP-1, 64-bit OS, GeForce GTX 780 (331.81), SpaceNavigator (3.17.7)
Contributor
julesgf
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎01-12-2010
Message 7 of 39 (834 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 07:25 PM 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.

Valued Mentor
jeanchile
Posts: 783
Registered: ‎11-10-2009
Message 8 of 39 (831 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 08:03 PM 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 2013 (SP-2.3), Product Design Suite Ultimate
Desktop: Intel Core i7 3.4GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, 64-bit OS, (2) GeForce GTX 580 (331.81), Space Pilot Pro (3.16.1)
Laptop: Intel Core i7 3.9GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Pro SP-1, 64-bit OS, GeForce GTX 780 (331.81), SpaceNavigator (3.17.7)
Contributor
julesgf
Posts: 19
Registered: ‎01-12-2010
Message 9 of 39 (820 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-04-2011 09:59 PM 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 :-)

 

Valued Mentor
jeanchile
Posts: 783
Registered: ‎11-10-2009
Message 10 of 39 (761 Views)

Re: Quick Poll: Am I Crazy???

12-06-2011 06:33 PM 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 2013 (SP-2.3), Product Design Suite Ultimate
Desktop: Intel Core i7 3.4GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, 64-bit OS, (2) GeForce GTX 580 (331.81), Space Pilot Pro (3.16.1)
Laptop: Intel Core i7 3.9GHz, 16.0 GB RAM, Windows 7 Pro SP-1, 64-bit OS, GeForce GTX 780 (331.81), SpaceNavigator (3.17.7)
Post to the Community

Have questions about Autodesk products? Ask the community.

New Post
Announcements
Do you have 60 seconds to spare? The Autodesk Community Team is revamping our site ranking system and we want your feedback! Please click here to launch the 5 question survey. As always your input is greatly appreciated.