Community
AutoCAD Forum
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Problem making 3x3 square tube diagonal bracing

17 REPLIES 17
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
1076 Views, 17 Replies

Problem making 3x3 square tube diagonal bracing

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

Here is the problem:

 

How do I make accurate 3x3 diagonal braces, where the top lands 1.5 inches below the top of the post and the bottom lands 1.5 inches above the bottom of the opposite post. 

 

Allign would work perfectly, but not without knowing the exact length.

ive tried making  a long 3x3 and attaching it to the bottom and rotating it using the bottom center as a rotation point (and then slicing the ends off). This gets me close, but it isnt accurate. 

 

Is there a way to do this that doesnt require me to dust off my trigonometry text books?

Diagonal Bracing.png

0 Likes

Problem making 3x3 square tube diagonal bracing

Here is the problem:

 

How do I make accurate 3x3 diagonal braces, where the top lands 1.5 inches below the top of the post and the bottom lands 1.5 inches above the bottom of the opposite post. 

 

Allign would work perfectly, but not without knowing the exact length.

ive tried making  a long 3x3 and attaching it to the bottom and rotating it using the bottom center as a rotation point (and then slicing the ends off). This gets me close, but it isnt accurate. 

 

Is there a way to do this that doesnt require me to dust off my trigonometry text books?

Diagonal Bracing.png

17 REPLIES 17
Message 2 of 18

dany_rochefort
Collaborator
Collaborator

@Luke_Y.AGII  Just draft everything out in 2d, then extrude it to 3d. Rather than trying  to ''slice to fit'' 3d elements. 

0 Likes

@Luke_Y.AGII  Just draft everything out in 2d, then extrude it to 3d. Rather than trying  to ''slice to fit'' 3d elements. 

Message 3 of 18
Kent1Cooper
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

Kent1Cooper
Consultant
Consultant
Accepted solution

Assuming you mean you want the top face of the diagonal 3x3 to hit the inboard face of the right vertical at that distance from the top, and the bottom face of the diagonal likewise to hit the left vertical that far up from the bottom....

Kent1Cooper_0-1656613564519.png

A and B are the ends of your diagonal Line in the image [red here].  With a UCS set in the plane of the overall frame at the red Line, OFFSET the red line by 3" down-rightward [yellow Line].  Draw a CIRCLE centered at A and passing through B [dashed green].  ROTATE the red and yellow Lines, with A as the rotation base point, and using the Reference option.  The Reference direction will be from A to C, which is the INTersection of the yellow Line with the green Circle [not the end of the yellow Line], and the new direction will be to B.  The right side above is after that rotation.  OFFSET either the red or yellow Line by 1 1/2" toward the other, for the center-line path to EXTRUDE or SWEEP your 3x3 along.

Kent Cooper, AIA
0 Likes

Assuming you mean you want the top face of the diagonal 3x3 to hit the inboard face of the right vertical at that distance from the top, and the bottom face of the diagonal likewise to hit the left vertical that far up from the bottom....

Kent1Cooper_0-1656613564519.png

A and B are the ends of your diagonal Line in the image [red here].  With a UCS set in the plane of the overall frame at the red Line, OFFSET the red line by 3" down-rightward [yellow Line].  Draw a CIRCLE centered at A and passing through B [dashed green].  ROTATE the red and yellow Lines, with A as the rotation base point, and using the Reference option.  The Reference direction will be from A to C, which is the INTersection of the yellow Line with the green Circle [not the end of the yellow Line], and the new direction will be to B.  The right side above is after that rotation.  OFFSET either the red or yellow Line by 1 1/2" toward the other, for the center-line path to EXTRUDE or SWEEP your 3x3 along.

Kent Cooper, AIA
Message 4 of 18
imadHabash
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

imadHabash
Mentor
Mentor

Hi,

Click on below image and follow commands to complete your issue .. 

- Ucs command >> ZAxis 

- draw a rectangle by Rectang command .

- Extrude command >> Path 

 

xd.gif

Imad Habash

EESignature

0 Likes

Hi,

Click on below image and follow commands to complete your issue .. 

- Ucs command >> ZAxis 

- draw a rectangle by Rectang command .

- Extrude command >> Path 

 

xd.gif

Imad Habash

EESignature

Message 5 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: imadHabash

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

you could do the same thing with SWEEP, the problem here is that the white line you are using as a path (if it is a copy of the line i used to connect the two horizontal lines)  is not the correct path. Move the object into place and you will see it doesnt land correctly. 

0 Likes

you could do the same thing with SWEEP, the problem here is that the white line you are using as a path (if it is a copy of the line i used to connect the two horizontal lines)  is not the correct path. Move the object into place and you will see it doesnt land correctly. 

Message 6 of 18

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

Yeah, that does work, but I was hoping for a quicker way to do it. thank you.

0 Likes

Yeah, that does work, but I was hoping for a quicker way to do it. thank you.

Message 7 of 18
Washingtonn
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

Washingtonn
Collaborator
Collaborator
Accepted solution

Draw a diagonal line segment between posts (from low point to high point).

At the mid-point of this line segment, draw a circle having a diameter equal to the tubing outside dimension.

Draw a perpendicular line passing through the mid-point of the original line intersecting the circle.

This is the angle for the tubing between the posts. move the line to the center of the circle, extend to the other post.

Adjust the tubing length to account for angle trimming.

Washingtonn_1-1656614947293.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draw a diagonal line segment between posts (from low point to high point).

At the mid-point of this line segment, draw a circle having a diameter equal to the tubing outside dimension.

Draw a perpendicular line passing through the mid-point of the original line intersecting the circle.

This is the angle for the tubing between the posts. move the line to the center of the circle, extend to the other post.

Adjust the tubing length to account for angle trimming.

Washingtonn_1-1656614947293.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 8 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: Washingtonn

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

this is very similar to the solution that I came up with as well. i just wish there were an easier way to move about the 3D objects and trim them up, instead of having to draw a 2D version of each new instance.

0 Likes

this is very similar to the solution that I came up with as well. i just wish there were an easier way to move about the 3D objects and trim them up, instead of having to draw a 2D version of each new instance.

Message 9 of 18
imadHabash
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

imadHabash
Mentor
Mentor

LOFT command .

 

acad_gXmsRvPAxw.gif

Imad Habash

EESignature

0 Likes

LOFT command .

 

acad_gXmsRvPAxw.gif

Imad Habash

EESignature

Message 10 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: imadHabash

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

the profile of a 3x3 sq tube cut on an angle will terminate in a rectangle, not a square , the height of the brace you created is less than 3". Since you don't know the height of the profile the brace will make at the post, you cant really use this method. But I appreciate you trying to help!

the profile of a 3x3 sq tube cut on an angle will terminate in a rectangle, not a square , the height of the brace you created is less than 3". Since you don't know the height of the profile the brace will make at the post, you cant really use this method. But I appreciate you trying to help!

Message 11 of 18
Kent1Cooper
in reply to: Washingtonn

Kent1Cooper
Consultant
Consultant
Accepted solution

@Washingtonn wrote:

....

Draw a perpendicular line passing through the mid-point of the original line intersecting the circle.

This is the angle for the tubing between the posts. ....


It's not quite clear to me from the description, but if by "This" you mean that the direction from the INTersection-of-perpendicular-Line-with-Circle to the top end of the original diagonal is the angle, that's not correct.  For an exaggerated example, that would be the green here, when what you want is really the magenta:

Kent1Cooper_0-1656616336156.png

You can do it by drawing a Circle at the mid-point of the original diagonal, but if that's the approach, then skip the perpendicular Line, and instead draw one of the magenta Lines, from the original endpoints [A & B here], TANgent to that Circle, to get the correct direction for the diagonal tube.  Move that to the center-of-Circle/midpoint-of-original-diagonal, and Extend/Lengthen it as needed for the mid-line path to Extrude/Sweep along.

Kent Cooper, AIA


@Washingtonn wrote:

....

Draw a perpendicular line passing through the mid-point of the original line intersecting the circle.

This is the angle for the tubing between the posts. ....


It's not quite clear to me from the description, but if by "This" you mean that the direction from the INTersection-of-perpendicular-Line-with-Circle to the top end of the original diagonal is the angle, that's not correct.  For an exaggerated example, that would be the green here, when what you want is really the magenta:

Kent1Cooper_0-1656616336156.png

You can do it by drawing a Circle at the mid-point of the original diagonal, but if that's the approach, then skip the perpendicular Line, and instead draw one of the magenta Lines, from the original endpoints [A & B here], TANgent to that Circle, to get the correct direction for the diagonal tube.  Move that to the center-of-Circle/midpoint-of-original-diagonal, and Extend/Lengthen it as needed for the mid-line path to Extrude/Sweep along.

Kent Cooper, AIA
Message 12 of 18
Patchy
in reply to: Kent1Cooper

Patchy
Mentor
Mentor

Rotate is the precise way.

Same as in the shop, hold one end of the tube and rotate the other end, no mistake about it.

0 Likes

Rotate is the precise way.

Same as in the shop, hold one end of the tube and rotate the other end, no mistake about it.

Message 13 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: Kent1Cooper

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

this would result in a width or height of larger than 3". You dont need a circle at all, just a line that is 1.5 inches on either side of the connecting line that is perpendicular to the line. 

DIag solution.png

0 Likes

this would result in a width or height of larger than 3". You dont need a circle at all, just a line that is 1.5 inches on either side of the connecting line that is perpendicular to the line. 

DIag solution.png

Message 14 of 18
Kent1Cooper
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

Kent1Cooper
Consultant
Consultant

@Luke_Y.AGII wrote:

this would result in a width or height of larger than 3". You dont need a circle at all, just a line that is 1.5 inches on either side of the connecting line that is perpendicular to the line. 


Not so, because what you suggest will give you the green Line in my previous image twice, and the perpendicular distance between those two, which should be the desired dimension of the tube, will be less than that dimension.  Not by much at the size of the OP's image, but still less, as the exaggerated situation illustrates.  EDIT:  Measure the distance perpendicularly between your Lines that meet the ends of that 3" Line, with sufficient precision to show the difference, and you'll see.

Kent Cooper, AIA
0 Likes


@Luke_Y.AGII wrote:

this would result in a width or height of larger than 3". You dont need a circle at all, just a line that is 1.5 inches on either side of the connecting line that is perpendicular to the line. 


Not so, because what you suggest will give you the green Line in my previous image twice, and the perpendicular distance between those two, which should be the desired dimension of the tube, will be less than that dimension.  Not by much at the size of the OP's image, but still less, as the exaggerated situation illustrates.  EDIT:  Measure the distance perpendicularly between your Lines that meet the ends of that 3" Line, with sufficient precision to show the difference, and you'll see.

Kent Cooper, AIA
Message 15 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: Kent1Cooper

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate
Accepted solution

Please see the attached video.

0 Likes

Please see the attached video.

Message 16 of 18
Kent1Cooper
in reply to: Luke_Y.AGII

Kent1Cooper
Consultant
Consultant

You didn't do it with high enough precision to see the difference, as I suggested.  Using your technique [yellow Lines], the perpendicular distance between is, and in fact must be, less than 3":

Kent1Cooper_0-1656619656716.png

whereas drawing them TANgent to a 3"-diameter Circle at the middle:

Kent1Cooper_2-1656619952376.png

As I said, it's not very much less in your approach at comparatively large size [and how much less will vary with the ratio of the diagonal length to the desired width], but it is less.  A more exaggerated example, with the desired dimension larger in relation to the overall size of things, so the difference, in Aligned Dimensions taken perpendicularly between, is clear even at lower precision:

Kent1Cooper_3-1656620606416.png

Kent Cooper, AIA

You didn't do it with high enough precision to see the difference, as I suggested.  Using your technique [yellow Lines], the perpendicular distance between is, and in fact must be, less than 3":

Kent1Cooper_0-1656619656716.png

whereas drawing them TANgent to a 3"-diameter Circle at the middle:

Kent1Cooper_2-1656619952376.png

As I said, it's not very much less in your approach at comparatively large size [and how much less will vary with the ratio of the diagonal length to the desired width], but it is less.  A more exaggerated example, with the desired dimension larger in relation to the overall size of things, so the difference, in Aligned Dimensions taken perpendicularly between, is clear even at lower precision:

Kent1Cooper_3-1656620606416.png

Kent Cooper, AIA
Message 17 of 18
Washingtonn
in reply to: Kent1Cooper

Washingtonn
Collaborator
Collaborator

Kent is technically correct regarding the dimensions being less than 3" for the method shown in Luke's video - BUT  consider the following:

1. Existing manufacturers' allowable tolerances of all the steel members (both brace and posts)

2. Measuring and cutting tolerances of the steel in the shop/field.

3. Welding tolerances when components are assembled together in the shop/field.

4. Acceptable assembly installation tolerances.

Conclusion:

Luke's method is the correct one to use for the task at hand as it is the easiest/quickest to implement.

Kent is technically correct regarding the dimensions being less than 3" for the method shown in Luke's video - BUT  consider the following:

1. Existing manufacturers' allowable tolerances of all the steel members (both brace and posts)

2. Measuring and cutting tolerances of the steel in the shop/field.

3. Welding tolerances when components are assembled together in the shop/field.

4. Acceptable assembly installation tolerances.

Conclusion:

Luke's method is the correct one to use for the task at hand as it is the easiest/quickest to implement.

Message 18 of 18
Luke_Y.AGII
in reply to: Kent1Cooper

Luke_Y.AGII
Advocate
Advocate

I see what you mean. Thank you for your input! 

0 Likes

I see what you mean. Thank you for your input! 

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

Post to forums  

AutoCAD Inside the Factory


Autodesk Design & Make Report