Community
Fusion Design, Validate & Document
Stuck on a workflow? Have a tricky question about a Fusion (formerly Fusion 360) feature? Share your project, tips and tricks, ask questions, and get advice from the community.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

how do I join two chamfered surfaces to each other

17 REPLIES 17
Reply
Message 1 of 18
owenhooker
1455 Views, 17 Replies

how do I join two chamfered surfaces to each other

Whats the easiest way to add a rigid joint to the chamfer below the thumb screw head to the chamfer on one of the holes in the fixture? In solidworks I would just select both faces and add a coincidence mate. Is there a way to do this without adding an offset? sometimes I feel the joints work well but so often I miss the solidworks mates for their simplicity and versatility.joint to two chamfers.png

17 REPLIES 17
Message 2 of 18
vex
Collaborator
in reply to: owenhooker

Rigid joint the center point of both the thumb screw and the chamfer.

 

Alternatively you could try to implement/use the joint origin command.

Message 3 of 18
owenhooker
in reply to: vex

I can use a rigid joint to and pick the center point but it won't make the two surfaces coincident.  I could use a joint origin but then I would need to create a sketch and calculate what distance I would need to get the faces coincident.  I'm not sure that with the joint origin or an offset I would be able to maintain the surfaces being coincident if I change the size of the chamfer on either part.  In solidworks the coincident mate would maintain the contact of the two parts even as the chamfers are adjusted.  I feel like I must be missing something obvious considering this is no different than constraining a flat head bolt to a countersunk hole. 

Message 4 of 18
LMD001
in reply to: owenhooker

Hello owenhooker,

 

Probably I totally misunderstand what you want to achieve, but if both chamfer angles are equal, the method @vex proposed should work.

 

This is what I got that way:

Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 10.37.39.png

 

Best regards,

Ludo

Message 5 of 18
LMD001
in reply to: owenhooker

Hello owenhooker,

 

Just for reference, here is a nice video @TrippyLighting made on Joints.

 

Best regards,

Ludo

Message 6 of 18
owenhooker
in reply to: LMD001

I can see how your example would work because your chamfers are the same length. My problem is a bit different because the chamfered surfaces are not the same length and the joint centers don't line up axially.  I know I could use a  joint origin but It would be a pain to make it so it would change parametrically if the chamfer length on either part is modified.  The one example of something similar is a autodesk video mating a flat head machine screw to a countersunk hole assumed the top of the bolt would coincident with the top of the chamfer. The example didn't take into account that someone might want to have a larger countersink to guarantee clearance in which case the top of the bolt is not at the top of the chamfer.  anyway here is a section view of what i get if i dont use an offset.chamfer joint problem 2.png

Message 7 of 18
LMD001
in reply to: owenhooker

Hello owenhooker,

 

Chosing the lower edges of both chamfers is not an option? The chamfers can be of a different length.

 

Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 15.57.23.png

 

Of course if the diameter of the lower chamfer is larger than the bolt, the bolt will drop below the upper chamfer edge.

Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 16.09.27.png

 

I'm guessing you need to keep the chamfers in sync.

 

-Ludo

Message 8 of 18
owenhooker
in reply to: LMD001

Ludo in your examples the bottom edges of your chamfers are the same diameter which is why they work. What I want to do is to join parts regardless of the bottom or top diameter.  My parts are close to the same diameter on the bottom but not exactly so they still are not coincident when choosing the lower edges. This is why I think Fusion needs the ability to add a coincident Joint/mate. I would be interested to hear from someone at autodesk as to what they would do to constrain these parts.chamfer joint problem 3.png

Message 9 of 18
LMD001
in reply to: owenhooker

OK, got it (finally...  Smiley Mad

 

-Ludo

Message 10 of 18
HughesTooling
in reply to: owenhooker

Here's an example using a contact set and a cylindrical joint. You can drag the pin up and it will pull back to a touch.

Capture.PNG

 

File attached

Mark

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


Message 11 of 18
owenhooker
in reply to: HughesTooling

yes, a cylindrical joint and a contact set would work but it seems like more work and clutter than should be necessary. Also if contact sets get turned off then there is no garante it will be in the correct position. This would take 2 seconds in solidworks as a coincident mate and it would be positioned correctly until the mate was deleted. I think I'll submit this to the Idea Station and see if it gains any traction.
Message 12 of 18
vex
Collaborator
in reply to: owenhooker

I've been brain storming a solution for you. It might be a bit more involved than you would like... but it should work:

Since you're dictating the chamfer dimension for both from a parameter, why not use that information for your rigid join along the lower center point?

 

For instance, if you know the diameter of the thumb screw to be 1/4" and the chamfer to be a 1/4" on the thumb screw and a 1/4" on the recess, then your parameter for the rigid on center will be 0.

If you increase the chamfer on the thumb screw to 1/2" the offset remains the same: 0

If you increase the chamfer on the recess to 1/2" (thumb screw is 1/4") the offset is: 0

(unless of course you are determining height from another point; threads, standoffs, etc)

 

The only time I can think of in which the offset would not be 0 is if the chamfer on the recess is steeper than the chamfer on the thumb screw, or if the ID of the chamfer is greater than the OD of the thumb screw. In the latter case it's a relatively simple math problem to ping the parameters for the diameters and chamfers to dictate the offset:
(For an symetrical chamfer) Offset is equal to (ID-OD)/2.

 

For an asymetrical chamfer it gets a little more involved so I won't go in to it unless you need me to.

Does that help at all?

Message 13 of 18
owenhooker
in reply to: vex

I'm not actually using parameters on these parts. The Thumbscrew is a linked part anyway so It would be modified outside of the assembly. I'm not entirly shure I follow you Vex. If I use the bottom of each chamfer as the reference it never lines up correctly with an offset of 0.  Right now I'm using a cylindrical mate with a rest point below the chamfer and a contact set to limit it. The problem with this is that the contact set doesn't seem to always update reliably and sometimes I have to manualy drag it to get it to snap back into place. I'm not sure what I'll do when I have 30 or 40 flat head machine screws that need a head clearance on the countersink.  I imagine using joint and a contact set is far more of a burden on the processor than necessary anyway. I'm really thinking a feature is missing here as this seems like a common and very basic thing to need to do. 

Message 14 of 18
HughesTooling
in reply to: owenhooker

Are all the thumb screws identical and the chamfers on mating part, if they are you only need to get one right using a contact set then align the top faces for all the others using a planer constraint.

Simple example file attached

 

Mark.

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


Message 15 of 18
vex
Collaborator
in reply to: owenhooker

Hmmmm, I'll have to play around to see if what I imagine is possible. I know it is in Inventor, albeit a little more round-about way than simply utilizing the parameter screen (actually writing code to pull the information from the linked part in the assembly).

As an alternative you could create user parameters for the various ID/ODs of the parts and just update those user defined fields in the parameter screen without continually updating the individual component values (IE update two values vs 2n component values).

 

EDIT: Looks like my original intention of relying on the chamfer angles is a no go as Trig functions appear to not be a valid input in the parameters. Can still do an offset based on OD/ID though--but doesn't really help you in this situation.

Message 16 of 18
kb9ydn
in reply to: owenhooker

So has anyone come up with any better ways to do this in the last year or so?

 

 

C|

Message 17 of 18
kb9ydn
in reply to: kb9ydn

Message 18 of 18
HughesTooling
in reply to: kb9ydn

Here's a workaround using 2 hole features. The first hole sets up the countersink through hole to the smallest size of the cone on the screw so you can use it for the joint. After setting up the screws using joints use a second hole feature to make the clearance hole. With all the joints setup you can edit the countersink diameter or the clearance hole and the screws will stay seated in the countersink. 

 

Mark

Mark Hughes
Owner, Hughes Tooling
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.

EESignature


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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report