Can't seem to get User Defined Analysis to work right.

[BreMiSt]

Hello all.

I am currently learning to use Creo and I have a task that requires generating cross section data over the length of a varying cross section model. I need cross section data at 1" increments across the total length of 159". That is a lot of cross sections to analyze so I am playing with User Defined Analysis to see if it will give me the various cross section property data as a function of length.

I found User Defined Analysis in the tutorials which seems to accomplish the type of thing I want but the example given is analyzing a different type of data so it's not a direct correlation to what I'm trying to do. I have set up a model in a manner that I think would give me the data I need but it's not working properly and I am hoping that by describing my setup someone out there can tell me where I went wrong. So here is what I did....

1. I loaded the model I want to analyze.

2. I then created a Field Datum Point on a feature to define the domain or range of the cross sections I wanted. In this case it was a cylinder feature that ran the length of the part.

3. In order to try to get the 1" increment analysis I created datum planes at 1" increments along the length of the model

4. I then created a X-Section Mass Properties analysis FEATURE. This feature measure the cross section properties of the model using one of my datum planes.

5. In the feature tree I then created a UDA local group by grouping the field datum point, all my datum planes, and my analysis feature. The feature tree looks like the following:

.

.

.

(datum planes 4 - 154 are not shown in these pictures but still part of the group)

6. I then ran User Defined Analysis. Everything looks right in the setup dialog. In this case I just excepted the "xsect_area" parameter and the "entire field" domain option defaults just to see what would happen (see pic below). I then hit compute.

And so the problem occurs...

you'll notice that the min/ max values are the same. My expectation was to see 2 very different numbers. The value shown is a real value. I matched it against a single cross section calculation of the 1st datum plane and it they are the same.

After playing with it a while and trying some different things I have not gotten a better result. My conclusion is that for whatever reason my domain is not defined properly but I cant see the issue.

Can anyone help with this?

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.

[ChrisKaswer · Accepted solution]

If I understand your goal properly, you'll need to try the following:

Make sure the field point is placed on a feature that the point can "travel" on from one end of your part to the other. This should be a datum curve that starts at one end of the part and exists along a path that would have the point move through the the region you'd like to measure. Then make sure you create just one datum plane that uses the field point as a reference the plane must pass through. Create the area measure using the plane that is constained by the field point. Group these three items and then make the UDA. The UDA will force the datum point to move from one end of the datum curve to the other and bring the datum plane with it, thereby generating a new cross-sectional area for every increment. Have the UDA provde 159 measurements using the "Settings" button in the UDA dialog box. You can have it generate a graph from this analysis that you can export as an Excel file. I hope this makes sense.

Good Luck

[BreMiSt]

Makes perfect sense Chris.

I did as you suggested (almost) and I am now getting the variable results I expected and furthermore I was pleasantly surprised when the solver automatically popped up excel with the data all lined up and a graph.

The frosting on the cake, however usefull or not, was the graphical display that shows up actually on the model.

At the least it is a fantastic first visual that allows for that initial sanity check of "is thing doing what I think it should".

Thanks for your help. This saved about 3 days worth of copy paste single plane analysis.