volume's in GSD
volume's in GSD
(OP)
Hi All,
In the GSD workbench when/why would you use volumes? Why not simply create a solid straight off in the part design workbench?
thanks, thixoguy
In the GSD workbench when/why would you use volumes? Why not simply create a solid straight off in the part design workbench?
thanks, thixoguy





RE: volume's in GSD
RE: volume's in GSD
Thanks for quick response! Excuse my ignorance but could you not use a solid for analytical purposes? I am trying to understand if the use of volumes might provide some advantages in mould design(which is primarily what I do)
I come from a UG background and from what I remember any closed volume was essentially a solid(someone correct me if I am wrong).
thanks, thixoguy
RE: volume's in GSD
There are entire projects modelled with surfaces, rather than solids. There's no simple answer to "why use surfaces instead of solids". I suspect that I haven't got a clue why some people do it, or what processes they are trying to accommodate. But to keep this short and tidy, volumes are the GSD equivalent of solids. This allows you to perform boolean operations on surface entities.
Thixoguy - you don't have to use volumes strictly with other volumes. They can also come in handy if you need counterbores in surface data, for example. I've seen volumes used quite a bit in PowerCopy. And, of course, there are times when you are working with imported data, and maybe you can't make a solid. Using volumes may also help you to get a closed solid, by putting in operations BEFORE trying to close.
The possibilities for using volumes are pretty endless. They're a good thing.
---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.
RE: volume's in GSD
Thanks for the response.Prior to using UG I used a software called Cimatron IT(it had a solids package but it wasn't very robust and has since evolved into Cimatron E which from what I understand has much better solids capabilities). I used to model complete moulds in surfaces exclusively.
Your explanation for the uses of volumes provides some clarity on the issue. If I understand you correctly volumes are used for trimming or modifying existing or imported surface files. I assume if one is starting a part from scratch it would make more sense to work directly in solids, that is, extrude a solid body as opposed to a volume.
For those who do mould design(DBezaire are you there?) is there any advantage to incorporating volumes in mould design?
thixoguy
RE: volume's in GSD
Well, not necessarily. One COULD model in surfaces only - and indeed, some do. However, I'm just saying that most of the cases that I'VE personally seen, are "legacy" operations, as I described.
I think - based on my own usage - that volumes get used quite often in tool design, especially surface conforming tools. In my case, I find it easier to use the original surfaces, and create backside tool geometry, then add in tooling features, and close the volume last. Backside tooling features many times are not an "offset" from front, and sometimes, when they are, cannot be offset due to small radii on the tool side. Aside from that, solids let you get away with making sloppy mistakes, where surfacing is MUCH less forgiving. If that sounds like a bad thing, see what your reaction would be, if a shop halted fabrication on a $3/4 million tool, and was waiting your changes. I've seen those types of things happen alot, and I'm a big believer in surfacing for complex facesheets, layup mandrels, and certain types of dies.
---
CAD design engineering services - Catia V4, Catia V5, and CAD Translation. Catia V5 resources - CATBlog.
RE: volume's in GSD
If you look at core surface development, I generally surface it with most attachment features add to the closed solid.
Regards,
Derek
RE: volume's in GSD
Thanks for the info!
thixoguy
RE: volume's in GSD
RE: volume's in GSD
indocti discant et ament meminisse periti