115 SWforCW Part2

Volume 116 The COSMOS Companion
SolidWorks for COSMOSWorks – Part 2
The COSMOS Companion

SolidWorks for
COSMOSWorks Part 2
Sponsored by:
Image courtesy of National Optical Astronomy

Observatory, operated by the Association of Universities
Volume 115 for Research in Astronomy, under cooperative
Image courtesy
agreement of Innovation
with the Engineering
National Science Inc.
Foundation.
1
What is the COSMOS Companion?
The COSMOS Companion is a series of short subjects to help design

engineers build better products with SolidWorks Analysis
Video presentations and accompanying exercises
A tool for Continuous Learning on your schedule
Pre-recorded videos are accompanied by a more detailed webcast with
Q&A
– Download videos and review webcast schedule at:
http://www.cosmosm.com/pages/news/COSMOS_Companion.html
It is not an alternative to instructor-led introductory training

– We highly recommend you take a course with your local reseller to build a solid
knowledge base
© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 2
If you are new to the COSMOS Companion, a few comments on the program are warranted. The COSMOS
Companion series was developed in response to the request from many of our users for more detailed
information on specific and/or new functionality within the COSMOS products. Additionally, many users have
been asking for clarification of common design analysis questions to enable them to make more
representative analysis models and make better decisions with the data. What’s more, users have asked for
this material to be made available in a variety of formats so they can review it how and when they wish. To
address this, each COSMOS Companion topic has been pre-recorded and made available thru the COSMOS
Companion homepage as a downloadable or streaming video with audio, as static PDF slides for printing, or
as a live webcast enabling attendees to ask questions and engage in additional discussion. We are trying to
provide continuous learning on your schedule so you can be as effective and efficient as possible when using
COSMOS for design analysis and validation.
It is important to note that this material is not developed as an alternative to instructor led training. We still
believe that the best introduction to any of the COSMOS products is in a class led by your reseller’s certified
instructor. In this program, we are hoping to build on the lessons learned in your initial training. In fact, we will
make the assumption that you have basic knowledge of the interface and workflow from intro training or
equivalent experience. We will try not to repeat what was taught in those classes or can be found in the on-
line help but to augment that information.
2
A Review of Part 1 Lessons…
An accurate CAD model does not ensure an accurate

analysis
The COSMOS solver has no understanding of
geometry…only nodes & elements
The geometry is only a template for the mesh - If it does not
allow complete and accurate elements to be created, it may
‘hurt’ more than ‘help’
Great geometry cannot compensate for bad
engineering…Get the concept right before finishing off the
CAD model.
In the first part of what will most likely be a several part topic, we discussed the philosophy
of “good” vs. “bad” CAD. This is with respect to building more efficient analysis models, not
necessarily in the same context you may have thought of it previously. One important
aspect of that discussion was that, in the end, the solver inside of COSMOS doesn’t care
how pretty or “precise” your CAD model is. It only cares about the placement and quality of
nodes and elements. They are “geometry” to an FEA solver. Therefore, when analysis is
imminent, you should make geometry decisions that facilitate a more effective and efficient
validation of your design. Let’s face it, if you need to do analysis, there are some doubts
about the integrity of the structure. This is a healthy attitude for new or moderately changed
designs. Therefore, it makes sense that the sooner you can determine you are on the right
course, the faster you can complete, or better yet, optimize a great design.
If you construct highly finished, detailed geometry or a design that isn’t up to the structural
requirements, you may have wasted precious hours or days in the project schedule.
Remember, no matter how cool it looks on screen, the proof is in the validation and if you
can use your COSMOS tools to validate in a virtual environment sooner than later, you can
avoid costly consequences.
3
The Penalties of Poor Planning…
Wasted Time / Cost of Adding Detail to A Design that

Doesn’t Work
Cost of Rework to Fix Current Design
Emotional and or Concurrent Commitment Established
Cost of Less than Optimal Design
– Per unit Cost
– Performance Cost
– Market Share
Cost of Not Meeting Schedule (Market Share Loss)
As we discussed in Part 1, the consequences of poor planning range from lost time undoing
and redoing SolidWorks features all the way down to lost revenue because a project
required a complete redesign when it failed miserably in the prototype stage. As an
analysis consultant, I was brought in to too many scenarios where everyone’s best guesses
weren’t good enough and analysis was required to bail out a program vs. drive a quality
design from the beginning. If analysis can validate after a design is complete, it can
obviously validate in the conceptual stage.
4
Build Geometry to Support Idealization
Choosing the Right Idealization Will

Help Improve…
• Accuracy
• Speed
• Opportunity to Optimize
Beam Mesh
Shell Mesh
Solid Mesh
A key aspect of conceptual validation, and even final design validation, is to plan for the
proper idealization. Idealizations in FEA are conceptual representations of 3D geometry.
Arguably, a solid mesh, the most commonly used by COSMOSWorks users, is an
idealization in itself since it seeks to cature or represent all possible variations the final
manufactured geometry might see. If you put tolerances on your drawings, your CAD
model is an idealization.
For parts that are very thin compared to the surface are of the smaller features, a shell
mesh can provide a faster and more accurate solution than a solid mesh.
For parts that have a small cross section compared to their length, beam elements are the
most efficient solution.
It is important to remember that as you progress further into a conceptual mesh, from solids
to shells to beams, the more detail gets lost at the mesh level. Therefore, as we’ll discuss
later, staying simplistic in your CAD is even more important since many of the details you
might be tempted to put in won’t even show up in the analysis model.
5
Build Geometry to Support Idealization
Properly Connecting
3D Sketch for Beam Mesh
Clean Solids for Tet Mesh
Properly Oriented Surfaces for

Shell Mesh
For the three types of models mentioned, here are the guiding principles of geometry
creation:
For solid models, keep the geometry clean and as simple as you can to validate macro
level behavior before worrying about details.
For shell models, your best results come with properly positioned surfaces. These can be
actual SolidWorks surfaces or outside faces of solids. However, remember that COSMOS
assumes the surface chosen for the mesh is positioned at the mid-surface of the part and
assigns half the defined wall thickness to each side. If your surface isn’t properly
positioned, you may analyze a part that’s smaller or larger than you intended.
For beam models, properly positioned and connected curves, preferably at the neutral axes
of the structural members will give you the best start. You’ll need to create Structural
Member Weldment entities using these curves but don’t worry about the end conditions
until you’ve sized your beam layout and cross-sections.
6
Clean Solids
Don’t outrun your headlights!

– Validate conceptual geometry before adding all the detail
– The simpler the model is, the faster it will run & the less time you will
have wasted if you learn you are on the wrong track
Review face and edge interaction after adding features

– Tweak dimensions if needed to:
Avoid Zero Degree corners
Avoid skinny, sliver surfaces & tiny edges
Review interaction of parts in an assembly for:

– Gaps and penetration
– Slight misalignments
7
Clean Solids
In this example, style was as pressing a reason as manufacturability to fillet nearly every
part of this casting. However, all this filleting created some questionable interactions
between edges as seen in the details on this slide. The designer also felt that since he
didn’t know where the high stress would be, he should include all the fillets just to be safe.
However, he didn’t know if the part was even properly sized so all the time he spent putting
in variable radius fillets may have been wasted. Could he have validated the concept
without the fillets?
8
Clean Solids
Complete Model Conceptual Model
These images show a typical part detail with all the fillets and without. The basic form is
clearly the same. The part without the fillets will analyze a little lighter, if gravity or
accelerations loads came into play. It should also analyze a little more flexible since the
fillets do add to the cross-sectional area of the part legs.
9
Clean Solids
From the images, you can see that the mesh on the conceptual model is much cleaner. If
you look at the Mesh Details, you can see that the percentage of low aspect ratio elements
(low aspect ratio = better calculations) in the conceptual model was higher and that the
mesh time of 11 seconds was much more efficient than the almost 15 minutes of the
complex model. The simpler model would also lend itself to h-adaptive meshing more
readily as the complex part could run into problems in the questionable faces.
10
Clean Solids
62,700 psi 67,800 psi

< 10% Difference in Stress & Displacement
Looking at the stress and displacement plots, you can see that the results distribution
between the two models is identical for practical purposes. The magnitudes vary by less
than 10% so it is reasonable to assume that any design decision that was valid based off
one would be valid on the other. In this example the stress levels indicate the model
requires some optimization to reduce stress levels so that can be done on the simple model
much more readily than the detailed one. Once the response has been brought to
acceptable levels, the detailed fillets can be added and a check run on the final design
completed. Since the additional fillets only improve the structure, you should expect that an
acceptable simplified model will result in an acceptable complex model.
11
Properly Positioned Surfaces
Solid features were the most expedient way to

develop the initial geometry based on styling
requirements
For optimization and expected nonlinearities, a
shell mesh is the way to go
For shell models, the most important aspect of geometry construction is properly placed
surfaces. Remembering that COSMOS assumes that half the assigned wall thickness will
be placed on each side of the selected surfaces, positioning the shell surfaces as close to
the midsurface of the part will usually pay off.
For this example, the shovel was modeled in solids initially for styling purposes but the
problem embodies several complex nonlinearities so a simpler, faster idealization is
important to assess the stiffness and place ribs optimally. There may be 10-12 iterations in
pursuit of the final design so every few minutes you can shave off the solution time is
important.
Once the decision has been made to analyze this part as a shell mesh, you need to
investigate ways to convert the model to a surface representation. Simply choosing outside
or inside surfaces is not an option in this problem for two reasons. First of all, the t-joint
nature of the handle to scoop interface places a wall with thickness on the back of the
scoop. If you selected the outer surface of the scoop, it would have slot-like cut-outs where
the wall of the handle intersected. You couldn’t choose the inside face of the scoop
because it doesn’t touch the handle. The other reason is that the features of the handle are
not significantly larger than the wall thickness. This geometry is on towards the thicker side
of shell modeling and as the wall thickness approaches feature size, it becomes all the
more important that midsurfaces are used to get a proper geometric representation.
Midsurfaces will be required.
12
Insert : Surface : Midsurface won’t resolve

this part
Insert : Surface : Offset gets you most of the
way there
The Insert : Surface : Midsurface command didn’t work for this model. It was too complex
for the automated tool to resolve. However, the Insert : Surface : Offset did the trick for the
most part. Using the Select Tangency selection option, all the surfaces of the Handle were
offset into the part ½ the wall thickness and the same was done for the Scoop.
13
Offset Surface : Delete Solid Body Insert : Surface :Trim Insert : Surface : Extend
The complex end conditions do not allow Surface Extend so

the handle needed to be trimmed to a plane before it was
extended.
Once the surfaces were created, the solid body was no longer of any use so it can be
deleted from the Solid Body Folder using the Delete Solid Body option. This results in a
feature on the tree called Delete Solid Body that can, itself, be deleted or suppressed later
to bring the solid back. When the solid is removed from the model, the surfaces can be
examined.
Unfortunately, this resulted in a ½ wall thickness gap between the Handle surface and the
Scoop surface. These needed to be joined using surfacing techniques in SolidWorks. You
have the option to extend existing surfaces but the end condition of the Handle was too
complex for this technique. Therefore, the complex ends were trimmed back using Insert :
Surface : Trim to a properly positioned plane. The squared off edges can then be easily
extended through the Scoop.
14
The extended surfaces must be trimmed back to the shovel

body
The Handle surfaces can then be trimmed back using the Trim Surface option to force
positional correspondence of the Handle edges with the Scoop back face.
15
Since the edges of the Handle meet the Shovel Body in the middle of
surfaces, the Body surfaces need to be split to force edge compatibility
A Composite Curve used the edges of the Handle surfaces and a 3D
Sketch line to complete the Split Line
When a surface edge butts up to another face, COSMOSWorks will not force a continuous
mesh unless the face has been split to have matching edges. You can use bonded contact
to join the two bodies together but that might create a fictitiously rigid joint on this otherwise
flexible plastic part so getting a continuous mesh in this area is important. For this example,
I used the edges of the Handle surfaces to create a Composite Curve and then added a
line joining the edges of the curve into a closed loop. This is required so that the resulting
split line splits the faces of the scoop into distinct faces. You can’t create a split line that
ends in the middle of a face. As you can see from the image, the split line has created a
split face that is acceptable for getting a continuous mesh.
16
A Split Line was added using Plane5

below to provide a surface for Restraints
This restraint represents a simplified
plunge into wet sand.
To complete the model, since the

anticipated loading would be symmetrical,
a final Surface Trim was made using the
Right Plane to cut the part in half.
Remember that the Symmetry restraint
doesn’t work for shells. You need to
restrain all cut edges as follows:
– Translation Normal to Cut Plane: T=0
– Rotation in the Cut Plane: R = 0
The last steps in preparing the model for analysis include a symmetry cut and a final split
line to provide faces to restrain to simulate the shovel in wet sand. Since we are trying to
make our model more efficient, and since our geometry, loads, and restraints are all
symmetric, symmetry will greatly reduce the solution resources for this problem.
Remember that the Symmetry restraint type is only valid for solids. You’ll need to manually
define symmetry restraints on the cut edges by remembering that a symmetry restraint,
with respect to the cut plane, requires a 0 restraint on normal translations and in-plane
rotations.
This model is ready for analysis and optimization.
17
Properly Connecting 3D Sketches
All features in this dune

buggy frame were sweeps
Top level document was an
assembly
Obvious choice for analysis
is Beam elements
Need 3D Sketch in a Part
Can we work with this
model?
In this dune buggy frame example, the parts are long compared to their cross-section. A
solid mesh of this would require the end conditions of each tube to be cleaned up and a
considerable amount of resources to mesh and solve. It is more appropriate to solve this
model with a beam mesh, new to v2007.
A couple of notes regarding this geometry. First of all, the top level document was an
assembly and all the components were swept solids. The nature of the sweep provided a
curve at the neutral axis of each member. This will be useful when creating the beams.
To use beam elements in COSMOSWorks, the model needs to be rebuilt using Structural
Member weldment entities and to get those, a 3D sketch entities need to be placed at the
neutral axis of the tubes. Since we have those in the sweep features, they can be copied to
a more complete 3D Sketch.
18
All the solid bodies were hidden in the assembly using the right mouse click option in the
Solid Bodies folder for each part. This exposed the driving curves. In some cases, those
curves were hidden and needed to be shown.
19
A new part was added to the assembly called Beams although the name is unimportant. A
3D sketch was then added to the new part and all the existing sweep curves were
converted to sketch entities in the new 3D sketch. This is similar to the technique you
might use to create a Joined part in an assembly that merges all the solids. Once all the
needed sketch entities were converted, we’ll close the assembly and work directly with the
3D Sketch in the new part.
20
Create Library
Feature sketches
for the Structural
Member Profiles
Modify an existing
sketch
Weldment Profile
Library folders
must have
Standard Folder
and Type Folder
Standard
Size
Since Structural Members are required, we needed to develop the profiles that are used in
this model. I’ve found that it is more reliable to copy and modify the default profiles than to
try to create new reference features. You can leave the new profiles in the existing folders
or create a new folder for them. Remember that the folder structure is important if you want
SolidWorks to see the profiles. Under the folder you add to the library folder in the
SolidWorks options, you need to have a subfolder that corresponds to the ‘Standard’
designation and then the ‘Size’ designation. While the names and content of these folders
don’t need to be based on standards and sizes, failing to copy this folder tree structure will
block access to the profiles in the Structural Member dialog.
21
Curve Replaced with

Line Segments
Not shown in the image are some intermediate steps where the 3D curves are ‘cleaned up.’
The Solid-to-Beam converter works best when all the driving curves meet at their ends. A
quick scan of the model should point you to the ends that need to be merged. You’ll need
to remove restraints that tie back to the original assembly in some cases and in others, it
may be easier to simply delete the curve and add a line back into the 3D Curve.
Additionally, the Solid-to-Beam converter doesn’t currently support curved Structural
Members so the curves need to replaced with line segments. For short shallow curves,
simply replacing the curve with a line may be sufficient. For others, you may want to create
2-3 segments per curve as shown in the image.
Once the curves have been cleaned up, you must create your Structural Members.
COSMOSWorks doesn’t currently support the use of multi-segment, non-collinear
Structural Members so to be safe, it is best to simply pick one segment per solid. If you are
working with previously created models containing Structural Members, you may want to
review your part in light of this restriction.
22
When all the solids have been created, jump into COSMOSWorks, create a Beam Mesh
study, new to v2007, and you’re nearly there. You’ll note that a Beams folder has been
added to the Feature Tree. Right Mouse Click on this folder and choose the option to
“Treat All Structural Members as Beams”. This will automatically convert your solids to
beam elements using the cross-sections defined in the profiles that created the Structural
Members. It’s that easy…
23
If you zoom in on the joints, you’ll see that they ends are rather messy looking. While you
may want to clean these up later for the final design, they are OK for the analysis. The
Beam idealization uses virtual geometry that is, internally, a line at the neutral axis of the
beam member. Therefore, end conditions as shown don’t enter into the calculations. One
limitation of the beam element is that these local results are not reliable. You can use the
forces generated at these joints however to properly size welds or other connection
methods.
24
To highlight the importance of clean 3D sketches, we’ll look at this example of a container
frame. Unlike the Dune Buggy frame, the members in this model vary greatly in size and
depth. They don’t all meet at endpoints as in the previous model so joint creation may be a
problem.
25
As this model was originally constructed, the designer chose to create the fewest sketch
entities possible and took advantage of patterning and mirroring to complete the solid
model. This is not the best way to proceed if beam elements are to be used in
COSMOSWorks. The Solid-to-Beam converter is more reliable when the Structural
Member entities are created directly on an underlying sketch. Another technique this
designer used was to place the sketch entities where they were most convenient for his
profiles, not necessarily at the neutral axis or where the joined with each other. This
resulted in gaps between curve endpoint that were often larger than the profile dimensions.
These gaps make resolving a joined beam model in COSMOSWorks difficult.
26
Joints are found automatically using a tool called the Pinball. The Pinball Radius essentially
defines a sphere at each beam end. If more than one beam end falls within any given
Pinball, they are assumed rigidly connected. It is important to choose the Preview Pinball
option and adjust the size based on your typical end-to-end clearance so that the most
efficient joint selection occurs.
27
If Pinball radius is too small, it can’t bridge the larger gaps

If the Pinball radius is set to bridge the larger gaps, it joins too many
structural members
Due to the varies section size and the different gaps between the curves, a small pinball
radius fails to connect some of the smaller floor braces to the side channels but a larger
pinball radius that captures joins those also joins more members than desired. While you
have the option to manually reconfigure your joints, this can be very tedious for large
models. Trust me…it’s better to have the automatic joint detection work correctly the first
time.
28
Rebuilding sketch entities took less time than attempting to resolve even
a few of the Joints in the mesh
Sketch entities can be 3D Sketches or a group of 2D sketches
A better way to create this model is to explicitly define all the frame members with
underlying curves. This takes less time than cleaning up ½ the joints in the previous
attempt and gives you a more robust model. Note that even though the Structural
Members use sketch entities in 3D space, this frame sketch was made with a combination
of 2D sketches. The repeating members were easily created using the Offset Entity curve
creation option in Sketch mode. Note that all the curves either join at end points or their end
points are coincident with another curve.
29
When the beam model is created in COSMOSWorks, all the beams are converted
flawlessly and the members are joined without any manual correction. The resulting model
is ready for validation and optimization.
30
Presentation Summary
Use Design Analysis to get the concept right FIRST

Consider the best idealization option & build SolidWorks
features to facilitate that meshing method
Review your geometry as you create it to ensure that
features don’t cause meshing problems.
– After validation, you can tweak the dims back for manufacturing
Consider the Needs of Nonlinear & Optimization

Focus on the Big Picture (A Working Design) - Not Local
Efficiencies or Successes (Drawings)
To summarize this session, it is important to remember that Design Analysis is most

effective when you use it to drive your decisions at the conceptual stage. You have the
best chance of success if you build geometry that facilitates the idealization in
COSMOSWorks which is most efficient for the problem. Remember that beam elements
are driven by curves and Structural Members, Shells are best represented by properly
placed midsurfaces and even though you can mesh the most complex, detailed solid, this
may not be the fastest path to design validation and optimization.
Always check your model as you are building it for sliver surfaces, short edges and other
features that can give the mesher headaches. If you have to tweak dimensions a little to
make the analysis more efficient, do so in a Configuration or change them back when you
know the design will work.
Also remember that even thought static models of even the most complex geometries solve
pretty fast in COSMOSWorks, when you need to use a Nonlinear study or you know you’ll
be analyzing several iterations in pursuit of an optimal design, keep model sizes small will
pay off in the end.
Finally, remember that it is your job to develop a working and cost-effective design as
quickly as possible. As much as we may feel like it sometimes, a drawing is not the end
product of a design department so take the time at the beginning of the process to work
through some of the driving decisions using conceptual geometry and analysis techniques
before you put in all the detail for manufacturing.
31
Conclusion
For more information…

– Contact your local reseller for more in-depth training or support on
techniques within SolidWorks to make your COSMOS simulation
more effective in your design process
– Review the on-line help for a more detailed description of the features
discussed
– Attend, or better yet, present at a local COSMOS or SolidWorks user
group.
See http://www.swugn.org/ for a user group near you
I’d like to thank you for taking to the time to sit thru this edition of the COSMOS
Companion. These concepts will be revisited using different examples with new techniques
in subsequent units. If you walk away with one lesson, I hope its that a little thought about
the analysis at the time geometry is started can lead to major gains in efficiency for
conceptual analysis later on.
If some of the SolidWorks or COSMOSWorks techniques reviewed in this session are not
familiar to you , I highly encourage you to work with your reseller support team to
understand them better. Having a good relationship with these engineers can help you thru
many design challenges down the road.
As always, I also encourage you to look for local COSMOS or SolidWorks users groups
and get involved. These are excellent resources for networking and learning from the
experiences of others. If the local SolidWorks group hasn’t had any design analysis
presentations in awhile, volunteer and talk about your modeling challenges. You’d be
surprised at how much feedback you can get from your peers, even if they aren’t experts in
analysis. You can find your local groups on the SolidWorks User Group Network website at
www.swugn.org.
Thanks again for your time and I look forward to seeing you again on the COSMOS
Companion.
32

115 SWforCW Part2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

115 SWforCW Part2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Volume 116 The COSMOS Companion

SolidWorks for COSMOSWorks – Part 2

The COSMOS Companion

Image courtesy of National Optical Astronomy

What is the COSMOS Companion?

 The COSMOS Companion is a series of short subjects to help design

 It is not an alternative to instructor-led introductory training

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 2

A Review of Part 1 Lessons…

 An accurate CAD model does not ensure an accurate

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 3

The Penalties of Poor Planning…

 Wasted Time / Cost of Adding Detail to A Design that

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 4

Build Geometry to Support Idealization

Choosing the Right Idealization Will

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 5

Build Geometry to Support Idealization

Clean Solids for Tet Mesh

Properly Oriented Surfaces for

 Don’t outrun your headlights!

 Review face and edge interaction after adding features

 Review interaction of parts in an assembly for:

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 7

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 8

Complete Model Conceptual Model

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 9

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 10

62,700 psi 67,800 psi

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 11

Properly Positioned Surfaces

 Solid features were the most expedient way to

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 12

Properly Positioned Surfaces

 Insert : Surface : Midsurface won’t resolve

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 13

Properly Positioned Surfaces

 The complex end conditions do not allow Surface Extend so

Properly Positioned Surfaces

 The extended surfaces must be trimmed back to the shovel

Properly Positioned Surfaces

Properly Positioned Surfaces

 A Split Line was added using Plane5

 To complete the model, since the

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 17

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

 All features in this dune

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 18

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 19

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 20

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 21

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

Curve Replaced with

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 23

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 24

Properly Connecting 3D Sketches

© 2006 SolidWorks Corp. Confidential. 25

The COSMOS Companion is a series of short subjects to help design

It is not an alternative to instructor-led introductory training

An accurate CAD model does not ensure an accurate

Wasted Time / Cost of Adding Detail to A Design that

Don’t outrun your headlights!

Review face and edge interaction after adding features

Review interaction of parts in an assembly for:

Solid features were the most expedient way to

Insert : Surface : Midsurface won’t resolve

The complex end conditions do not allow Surface Extend so

The extended surfaces must be trimmed back to the shovel

A Split Line was added using Plane5

To complete the model, since the

All features in this dune

If Pinball radius is too small, it can’t bridge the larger gaps

Use Design Analysis to get the concept right FIRST

Consider the Needs of Nonlinear & Optimization

For more information…