Joining a square pipe between two perpendicular pipes at an angle

[Anonymous]

Hello,

I am trying to join a square pipe between two perpendicular square pipes at an angle (ideally the software will know the angle instead of manually calculating what the angle should be). I am unable to join the components unless I predefine an angle of the square pipe and its length, but then if there is a change, I need to recalculate the angle, rotate the component, adjust the length, rejoin the part, and then split the body and remove the excess to join the components together - seems like there is definitely a better way. I also remember reading that only 1 joint should be defined per component so how would you accomplish this with one joint so it will auto change the angle of the component and join with the other two components?

I have attached a screenshot that shows in circled red the part that needs to be connected to the other two components, and the green lines indicate the location of where it is to be connected.

Many thanks!

[g-andresen]

Hi,

1. please share the file

File > export > save as f3d on local drive > attach to next post.

2. Which determinations do you want to make?
     What should remain variable?

günther

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your reply!

1. Shared below!

2. I would like to specify two edges (one on the top of the profile, and one on the bottom) - similar to making an edge joint on both ends of the square tube to determine its exact placement (by specifying these two edges the distance between from the perpendicular connection to each edge is known, and therefore the length of the profile (hypotenuse) and angles as well).

The angle and length of the profile should be variable (it would be nice if the intersecting parts of the profiles were also variable so if the dimension changes, the cut angle of the intersecting pieces get updated as well).

I've also attached a screenshot - the green dots are the joint edge connections, and the red circles indicate the intersecting profiles and how they do not readjust to join with the profile.

Thank you!

[TrippyLighting]

I would start this again from scratch!

In a mechanical design like this, I would not expect to see:

1. a single body move icon

2. a single position capture feature

3. I would expect to see only one single ground feature. 

While the user in this thread clearly is more advanced than you, he also repeated many mistakes in his assembly.

The model attached to my last post in that thread shows how I would design such a base frame. 

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Only this much:
Defining connection positions does not control the geometry of components, neither in length nor in angle.

günther

[Anonymous]

Well you don't have to start from the beginning for this particular problem. It would definitely depend on why this problem happened. I'll assume you are trying to place an extra part at that hypotenuse.

Usually designs like this should traverse at reversal scale. If it's a square that corner will simply be 45 degrees. If you are making something more different than you have to measure of course.

You may start to place one side to the first point. Make sure that it's defined to be within the trusted perimeter. Again if the square pipes are the same size, the diameter is the ideal offset tolerance. 

You can then set the center point for moving that object from first point. And measure the angle and distance to point two. To measure the angle you have to select in order. Either line one and line two, designed as desk crossing. Or point a, point y in the middle and point b.

[TrippyLighting]

If you actually downloaded the design and looked at the timeline and still think the restarting from scratch is not needed, then you are in no position to make that assessment!

[Anonymous]

Well, I will upload the files that I worked with for the demonstration.

I can also attach a video as a link. I have trouble placing the video directly. And I can not guarantee if the video has to go through some kind of a community approval first.

And I'm sorry. I don't mean to rush anyone. I only make the video short because I have to work on a laptop. I have to watch the time it will take to upload everything, and the disk space and all.

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/community/screencast/d84b5de8-b504-43aa-9624-9f9cd4568161 

The server will take about 15 minutes to process the video!

[Anonymous]

You know what I will have to accept your problem here. Because I can not validate that Fusion 360 is getting this project formula correct. It's totally a bug. I even just double checked myself on paper. And if I attempt to make the corner for the other side there is a problem only for the Angle Measure Tool. And Fusion 360 is stuck in a loop actually it thinks that secondary distance measurement is supposed to be 0.00. That's a report!

[Anonymous]

@TrippyLighting I wish. He's actually having a pretty problem with triangle rules of inequality. Or rules of cosines and sines. I'll attach a link for fun. But, you know what I'm talking about. It's the same thing when he's trying to make a rhombus. Maybe that's the problem. I'm about 80% sure this is still a bug.

https://www.mathwarehouse.com/geometry/triangles/ 

Because a third grader knows this.

https://www.freemathhelp.com/feliz-special-parallelograms/#:~:text=A%20rhombus%20has%20the%20followi... 

[Anonymous]

@TrippyLighting it's alright this program is messing me up enough I already started to watch late night news to see sunlight. I seen this problem myself and they still have open questions about the same problem. The price right now is doing this on paper. Just from scratch.

[Anonymous]

@TrippyLighting and I know why this is a problem in the case of 'open close'. But, even if I line this up by eyeing it from my perspective the program is wrong. I need help here just the same. I work my projects different anyway. I sketch everything. And visualize the final before making anything. I do classic considerable math. I don't trust computers. And it all fits in a nice box in my head!

[Anonymous]

@TrippyLighting Here I prepared a different video without the file. I have no idea why not just use .F3d file. This collaboration may be a problem.

And again wait 15 minutes for the server to process the video.

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/community/screencast/b4769387-0d78-46bc-8448-d92fd26741b6 

[Anonymous]

I just have a mistake in my gasket right now. I want to know if you are sure you know what a hypotenuse is?

[g-andresen]

Hi,

just watch the screencast

günther

[Anonymous]

I want to add just one more link why this is important. http://mathbitsnotebook.com/JuniorMath/AreaPerimeterVolume/APVReviewQuads.html 

Why the quadrilateral triangles are important. Because very often do they apply.

But, I have to accept @g-andresen for the solution. This was in the acceptance solution during the start of the program. So I understand as much when a person can ask to make adjustments only using tools for example. That's how they passed beta. They also were not allowed to use much of the sketch and formula during some tutorial testing. I also like that screen cast. As long as it works as a solution with that handicap. 

The only problem is getting used to it. There's usually more than one way to find solutions. And to be honest when dealing with squared calculator everything ends up deep to just a + d x rules. I get that you want to use the program. At the same time it's better not to forget the math. And if you take the same steps with Solid works. Beginner level is actually to use a form for formula. And intermediate level to use constraints. 

I would just recommend asking a better question. Because one side is easier to form than the other. Not to mention Autodesk problem solvers would prefer this question to be as a constrained body with only the position and cut away angle unknown. 

[Anonymous]

From my experience. This is supposed to be super advanced level. Straight cylinder, twisted cylinder and cones come(twisted cone). So it's fine whatever you're doing. As I know it that's 2D. Don't forget trigonometry ethics either. Sometimes all x, y, z dimensions count.

[TrippyLighting · Accepted solution]

@Anonymous attached is a from-scratch model of your frame. That model also answers your actual question and you'll see why I suggested you start from scratch.

I used User Parameters for the width, depth, and height of the Frame. Change those and see the model update. 

The general approach here is to start with skeleton sketches for the frame.

 

Then I create a component with just a sketch for the 1st profile and extrude it.

To create profiles with a different length or method of extrusion I then copy/paste-new that component and delete the original extrusion feature.

Then I join that component to one of the sketch lines and use extrusion not to a fixed distance but to an object.

That extrusion will then update if the sketch dimensions change.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for your replies and apologize for the delay- it has been very helpful to see the different options and approaches one could take for this problem and appreciate all your comments.

Thank you @g-andresen for your reply and screencast. This was definitely very helpful and what I was originally looking for when asking the question. The main reason I chose to accept @TrippyLighting solution was that it allowed for a much more flexible design that was independent of the selected angle and rather focused on the component dimensions which is generally desired in my designs. Although it requires starting from scratch I am very happy to learn a better way to design for the future and learned a lot about proper design practices. 

Great community and support, thanks again! Cheers,