Hi all,
what I'm trying to do is the same cam you can see in this youtube video.
I have the motion law I want to assign to the rotation of the tower in function of the rotation of the cam.
In Mechanism environment, I've made the trace curves of some points of the roller that I've used to cut the cam with surfaces or variable section sweep.
For now, I've tried only one roller cut (three in total).
The cut was decent but there were points where I have interpenetration between cam and roller; especially at the start and the end of the cut.
So I've thinked that I had to rotate the plane of the roller where I've put the points for the trace curves. The situation was better but the motion law I've assigned to the roller was random: a sinusoidal law, as the main one, that at the half reverses the direction (otherwise the cut plane too on itself).
But, which is the right motion law to assign to the cut plane of the roller?
How would you have done?
Would you know tell me where can I find more detailed informations about this kind of 3D modeling?
I searched on the web, but I've not found nothing if not videos like what I've attached where, however, you can't see HOW to do it.
Thanks.
Bye
This thread is inactive and closed by the PTC Community Management Team. If you would like to provide a reply and re-open this thread, please notify the moderator and reference the thread. You may also use "Start a topic" button to ask a new question. Please be sure to include what version of the PTC product you are using so another community member knowledgeable about your version may be able to assist.
ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Accepted Solutions
I have attached an example of why there is a difference.
This is a comparison with the cutting tool patterned through the groove.
You would have to shape your sweep to make sure you fully remove any interfering material in the cam.
Since this is often critical in the machining operation, you would have to specify the tool path and the cutter diameter to ensure conformance. You will require a small amount of clearance from your guide bearing so it can rotate. It is unfortunate that this is not easy to model correctly as it would be machined. I have been fighting this shortcoming for quite some time in Creo.
Typically we can define the requirements but not adequately represent this in CAD. Milling on a cylinder is just not as cut and dry as many believe. What's worse is that often the feature will fail in the way I have defined this due to accuracy issues. And with Creo 2.0 M040 or earlier, patterns like this fail at random intervals. I am fortunate that this one held up as good as it did.
Hi Antonius,
in the file "cam_challenge_1_patterned", how can I cut off the material as you have shown us in you precedent picture?
I have to solidify (cut) each revolve feature of the pattern?
In this case some of these fails.
It is what you talked before?
Just edit definition on the 1st instance of the revolve. Change it to "solid cut". All the patterned instances will follow.
hello brother Giulio Fraulini how you take a trace curve....can u upload ur creo file where u make a trace curve,,,,i am facing problem regarding same thing...i want to make globoidal cam....but dont know how to model it,,,,can u please help me rrrregarding it.. please check image..this is what i want to make,,...
thanks
asif
Asif, this may help a little in defining motion with custom servo motion rather than tables...
Radial Ball Bearing: Checking your mechanism links
and some more here... see the WF 2 link in comments...
I check clearance between parts, and not in the same locations as the trace curve.
In "partial collision detection" check in playback tab, inside mechanism environment, nothing enter into collision.
I attached a pdf file that explains the question.
Also the measure feature checks that there aren't compenetration (as I showed in the video into the ppt file). Naturally, you have to stare that inside mechanism, where it does the verification over all the time.
This is the motion envelope for the cam. 112,000 polygons and nearly 30Mb.
Enough to bring my computer to its knees.
In order to get the motion, you have to plan on being able to move the entire mechanism.
And talk about mobius,,,
I suddenly have a hankerin' for a softserve 
With the envelope generation, I can create a very close surface on the inner and outer faces. The problem is the face that counts; where the bearing rolls. It is an involute face.
I will have a look at your file to see what may be resolving inherent issues. It is sort of amazing that it requires a study to solve what is actually simple in real life. But with rapid prototyping on the rise, our software should be able to "easily" recreate real world machining operations.
Below is what I know is accurate, but "facetted". And with Creo 2 M040, patterns are still buggy.
This has been my long time solution to such problems.
Giulio, thanks for being so persistent with me and providing this file.
I confirmed your findings against the known validation model above.
Indeed, the surface offset method for the walls where the rollers ride creates an accurate roller surface.
The initial sweep based on the two trace curves are all that were required. This appears the only valid sweep as all others seem to deviate due to a twisting action in the trajectory.
I used the offset on the file above and it came out identical (within the graphic limits, obviously).
I then went back to the envelope model I was working with for validation. The offset surfaces from a center sweep did much better than all the sweeps and blends I was able to throw at it.
I also compared the offset to the thicken and when it does not fail, they are also identical. This means that asm0066 above should also be correct (I will review again).
The only difference I found with the envelope model was the bottom of the milling operation. The boundary blend is an approximation. This is no big deal as this is not a functional feature. Just be aware that if milled, it will be somewhat different. I conformed this with a revolve of the mill in the bottom of your cam.
This is the overlay. Very good conformance on the cam surfaces. I could not achieve this with sweeps or boundary blends.
.
Boundary blend approximation of actual bottom milled surface...
This is the difference with the shaded envelope...
This is the mill shape in the bottom of your cam..
What is nice is that this image shows the tangency between the mill bit cylinder and the offset walls.
I will see if I can make a motion envelope of you device.
Great work, Giulio! Thank you again for sharing.
I reworked your file to get the rollers to generate an envelope. Since I cannot work with skeletons, and since PTC found it "useful" to lock the 1st placed components locked to "default"... I had to replace the skeleton part with a pin-constrained reference part. Fortunately, all the motion features were preserved. I did not have to redefine any of the motors. I simple applied a gear connection to my replacement "skeleton" and the action was "reversed".
The envelope model was generated at the max resolution of "10".
It is actually not too bad on the CPU. But I did run into a bug in the selection process.
There doesn't seem to be any way to tighten up the coarseness.
Nice thing is that selecting two opposite ends on this mechanism will create a closed loop.
By making it an assembly with 3 envelopes, it removed some of the artifacts.
