- 14
- 53 965
Engineering Maths
United Kingdom
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 4 ธ.ค. 2017
Maths, coding and other useful things for engineers of all kinds (but mainly mechanical / aerospace!)
Additive and subtractive pipes in FreeCAD? No (topological) problem!
Are you scared of using advanced tools like "additive pipe" in FreeCAD because of the topological naming problem? In this video we look at modeling practices to avoid that, with a quick detour into subtractive pipe and loft.
If you like what you are seeing and you want to see more, consider buying me a coffee :) www.buymeacoffee.com/dacrivelli
Timestamps:
00:00 intro and objective
00:25 Foundation and sketches - preparing for the additive pipe
06:44 Using the additive pipe tool
08:41 Sketches and using the subtractive pipe tool
12:11 The Loft tool
13:15 Trying (and failing) to break the model
If you like what you are seeing and you want to see more, consider buying me a coffee :) www.buymeacoffee.com/dacrivelli
Timestamps:
00:00 intro and objective
00:25 Foundation and sketches - preparing for the additive pipe
06:44 Using the additive pipe tool
08:41 Sketches and using the subtractive pipe tool
12:11 The Loft tool
13:15 Trying (and failing) to break the model
มุมมอง: 4 871
วีดีโอ
CSWA exam in FreeCAD, without topological naming issues
มุมมอง 5Kปีที่แล้ว
Join me on a wild ride as I attempt to speedrun the Certified SolidWorks Associate (CSWA) exam using the PartDesign workbench in FreeCAD in 42:43! In this video, I try to use ALL the keyboard shortcuts in the sketcher to fully constrain a reasonably complex sketch. Also watch me struggle for a full 10 minutes with a thin-walled structure that would have taken only a few clicks in any other CAD ...
Reducing stress concentration through shadowing: parametric study in FreeCAD FEA
มุมมอง 1.2Kปีที่แล้ว
Did you know that you can add a notch next to a notch, and reduce the stress concentration factor in a part? In this video I give a demonstration of this effect using a parametric finite element analysis set up in FreeCAD. You can download the freecadparametricfea library via pypi pypi.org/project/freecadparametricfea/ Want to get involved? Contribute on Github at github.com/da-crivelli/freecad...
An (almost) painless top-down design approach in FreeCAD
มุมมอง 7Kปีที่แล้ว
We're back to modeling practices, this time looking at top-down driving part changes from a skeleton model. I explain how to avoid the topological naming problem when working with master sketches across multiple parts in an assembly. The process is simple: - create a skeleton model in a document containing driving sketches and planes - create your part and use the link tool to import the geomet...
I wrote a Python / Freecad library to do HUNDREDS of simulations in less than 20 minutes
มุมมอง 8Kปีที่แล้ว
I wrote a library to run quick structural parametric studies in FreeCAD! It's available to everyone on pypi, instructions on the project's GitHub: github.com/da-crivelli/freecad-parametric-fea Did I mention it's free and open source? And that it only takes 20 lines of Python to run hundreds of test cases? You can download the tutorial model and Python script from here: github.com/da-crivelli/fr...
Making models that don't break in FreeCAD
มุมมอง 14Kปีที่แล้ว
Can you make a FreeCAD model that won't break every time you try to change something, due to the topological naming problem? Sure you can! This tutorial is also available in text format, together with the code I used in the video, at: github.com/da-crivelli/freecad-tutorials/tree/main/part-changes Want to see more of these videos? Buy me a coffee :) www.buymeacoffee.com/dacrivelli Timestamps: 0...
Easy parametric FEA with FreeCAD and Python
มุมมอง 8Kปีที่แล้ว
Can you run a parametric finite element analysis with a few lines of Python? Sure you can! This tutorial is also available in text format, together with the code I used in the video, at: github.com/da-crivelli/freecad-tutorials/tree/main/fea-parametric The library I am developing is currently work in progress at: github.com/da-crivelli/freecad-parametric-fea Like this? Buy me a coffee :) www.bu...
Engineering Maths
มุมมอง 1.9K6 ปีที่แล้ว
Maths shouldn't be considered a hard topic for "the smart". Sometimes it's only about how things are explained. We believe in teaching in different ways to allow everybody to understand.
Fourier series of synthesizer waveforms
มุมมอง 2816 ปีที่แล้ว
This video contains the detailed calculation on the Fourier coefficients for the waves we heard in the synthesizers video: th-cam.com/video/Rje2fZZzVww/w-d-xo.html We cover the Fourier expansion of sine, saw, square and triangular waves.
Fourier and synthesizers
มุมมอง 9076 ปีที่แล้ว
This video is a demonstration of Fourier series and harmonics using synthesizers. I use VCV Rack (vcvrack.com/), an open source modular synthesizer software, to show how different waves (sine, sawtooth, square and triangle) sound like, and why. The detailed calculations are available in this video: th-cam.com/video/aks3WMjmma0/w-d-xo.html The "how-to" VCV rack setup video is coming soon!
Lego, structures and matrices
มุมมอง 1956 ปีที่แล้ว
How do you solve a Lego structure using matrices? In this video I show you how to use the matrix inversion method to solve a 12x12 system of equations, which tells you how the various beams are loaded. I also show what happens when your matrix cannot be inverted. Click below to skip to the start of: - 1:50 free body diagram solution - 9:50 balance at nodes - 14:10 writing the solution in matrix...
Scalar and vector products
มุมมอง 2496 ปีที่แล้ว
What is the difference between scalar and vector product? What happens when I forget which one is which, and what is this mysterious right hand rule?
Statistics: a very short introduction
มุมมอง 5646 ปีที่แล้ว
This video is a short introduction which lays down the basics of statistics. With closed captions! Using a box of bolts and a Vernier caliper, we define events, population, sample and variable. Then we calculate some descriptive statistics: mean, median, variance, standard deviation, mode and coefficient of variation. Bolts are fun!
Thank you, really appreciate the tutorial! Going to start learning Ondsel today as a 9 year SolidWorks user :)
Hi, how did you center the rectangle at this moment? How did you get a center point from the two construction lines?
Thank you for making this video, it saved me so much time in troubleshooting and learning. I hope you keep making videos like these!
Thank you for the informative videos! Would you be interested in revisiting this subject with the recent releases of FreeCAD?
Maybe I'll just use paper and pencil. Probably a lot faster. lol. Anyway thanks for the vid.
Name your pad lengths and required sketch constraints. Use them instead of projecting volatile objects. Even projecting sketch objects is ok. If you relevant sketches visible it's easier to see what is real. Once you have teached a point of surety use simple-copy. You can still scale, move and boolean.
thats a nice work of parametric analysis using FEM
This does not work. If I change the parameters of the model the datum planes do not change position. I now have to link the datum plane parameters to the model parameters which is a lot of work. This is marginally better than topological naming problems but not by much. Have the FreeCAD developers not hear us? Fix the topological naming problem, period! Instead they are adding new features and pretending like having a parametric modeler that does not accept changes to parameters is okay. We should all be using FreeCAD Link Branch and abandon FreeCAD until they get onboard.
just hitting m again will change the polyline type while the tools is still active. That whole perimeter of the first sketch can be done with one polyline.
TNP is really a misnomer. It is a topographical renumbering/renaming flaw. I wonder why they refer to it as being "topological" .
*Topology* is a branch of mathematics concerned with the properties of geometric objects that remain unchanged under continuous deformations. These deformations include stretching, twisting, crumpling, and bending, without introducing holes, tearing, or gluing. In other words, topology studies the “shape” of objects in a flexible way. Here are some key points related to topology: *Topological Space* A topological space is a set of points endowed with a specific structure called a topology. The topology defines which subsets of the space are considered “open” (in a precise mathematical sense). Open sets capture the idea of “closeness” between points. Examples of topological spaces include Euclidean spaces (like our familiar 2D and 3D spaces) and more general metric spaces. *Topological Properties* A property that remains invariant under continuous deformations is called a topological property. Examples of topological properties include: - Dimension: Distinguishing between a line (1D) and a surface (2D). - Compactness: Distinguishing between a line and a circle. - Connectedness: Distinguishing a circle from two non-intersecting circles. *Historical Context* The ideas underlying topology trace back to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the 17th century. Leonhard Euler’s famous “Seven Bridges of Königsberg” problem and his polyhedron formula are considered early topological theorems. The term “topology” was introduced by Johann Benedict Listing in the 19th century, but the concept of a topological space fully developed in the 20th century. Now, let’s connect this to topological naming: In computer science and modeling, “topological naming” refers to a naming convention that preserves the topological relationships between objects. When we perform operations on a model (such as attaching a blend to an edge), the resulting names reflect the previous state of the model. Essentially, it’s about maintaining consistency in naming based on the underlying topology.
@@emiellrWow. What a comprehensive explanation on the subject of topology . Thanks. I don't dispute the naming of a shape remaining consistent but my observation of freecad is that it will, say renumber edges, that one has already chamfered to be other edges, with the same name, but with a different numerical suffix, as it changes the numerical numbering of edges, if one changes something one has created a couple of steps before in the workflow. I am sure it is a complex issue to solve as it involves a deep historical depth of understanding of how the computational construction of the software was used to depict a 3 dimensional object . I am grateful to the people who are contributing to hopefully solving the problem.
th-cam.com/video/dg7aSDL6CIU/w-d-xo.html (Freecad?????)
Thank you for your amazing explanation on top-down design. I started on working on a written tutorial based on your video. Unfortunatelly I wasn't able to send you my donation, since it's not possible to pay via PayPal.
Hey no worries! Glad you found it useful either way, the channel is not eligible for donations yet but appreciate the thought!
Thank you for this video. @1:15, did you hit a shortcut on your keyboard, not exactly sure what command you used there.
I'd love to know too! I couldn't figure out what he did, but I used "Split Edge (G , Z)" to find the center
Also, see the "Centered Rectangle" tool as @LFANS2001 commented 😆
sweet capability.. I think I am going to jump to FreeCad and python.
Great video idea, thank's
won't it be easier to create master plan in two planes and then reference it?
I'm not a fan of that approach as you tend to lose design intent depending on what features are used for
Hot tip: When you're using the polyline tool, you can press the "M" key to circle through behaviors! One of them is arc, so there's no need to switch to the dedicated arc tool and then back to polyline.
The shape binder approach seems robust, but given you have to sketch over it, how does it work when the sketch geometry is more complicated than a square, or if the geometry changes?
It's difficult to be robust to sketch geometry changes in general unfortunately (have been working with Solidworks recently and the tree will break easily in it too if your sketch geometry changes significantly)
This is very helpful, thank you. I see you're separating the bodies into separate files, with one body per file. In general, would you avoid having multiple bodies in a file? Part Design has the yellow "Part" container, but I've never really understood the best way to organise these things
I would recommend creating a STd_part_container, the yellow kind and the add bodies to it, ie. a part container could contain a screw body, spacer body, washer body and a nut body in one file. Then you could reuse that part container along with others in another file to build up an assembly in another part container
pity you can't speak without uttering "uh" in between every word.
Great video, thanks for sharing. One thing I did on initial sketch was start with a construction line bounding box as a reference, seemed to speed up the sketch.
Nice run .. Thank You for sharing .. Cheers :)
It looks interesting. Currently planning on learning about FreeCAD myself. Learning about CAD design but it's open source and free, compared to AutoCAD.
This explains why I was having issues with pipes, very helpful, thanks...
So this video is for the more pro users?! Shame cause I didn't understand a word. For me it sounds like just use as many datum-planes as possible 😂
Wow... Nice work. I will try this next week on my design. Habe you ever heard form evolutionary algorithms?
I have programmed the SKO method in Abaqus in the early 2000s for a few projects but haven't touched evolutionary algorithms in ages! I assume technology has changed a lot since...
Wow thank you.... This is what i was looking for so long
This has to be one of the most helpful single freecad videos I've watched! Especially calling out the shortcuts as you're using them
Thank you :)
Thank you for your video! It was very helpful for me. :)
I was thrilled to find your video on top-down design in FreeCad. I am retired and recently have been working on some hobbyist designs after doing years of mechanical cad design in industry. Just starting to learn FreeCad. I became a proponent of top-down design years ago (in both ProE and Inventor) when I discovered how much faster it is with the TDD process to make dimensional changes in an assembly that might affect hundreds of parts, and possibly hundreds of associated parts drawings. I also made it a practice to include kinematics geometry in the same top level skeleton, to allow for animation and simulation analysis of the assembly. I will be interested to see if FreeCad also includes that possibility, but learning how to make it work for a set of parts will be a great start for me in my very simple hobbyist designs. Thanks again for sharing this brilliant video!
Great to hear it helped! Pro-E user as well, it's an uphill battle but the reward of top-down are huge once you start changing things.
The "external geometry" option is nice in theory, but unless you are 110% sure you won't ever touch the "external" shape (whatever it is) again, it is just a recipe for a continuously breaking model. I'm avoiding it like the plague. I wish you could simply name an edge (or vertex) of a sketch and any reference would be to that name (and you'd get a warning if you try to delete a named and referenced edge). In pads or revolves the extruded faces (or in case of an "extruded" vertex) should automatically name themselves with the same name. Then external geometry might actually be more useful than a hassle.
Thank you for taking the time to make this useful tutorial.
Great Tutorial! Also checked your videos on FEA simulations, have you ever tried automating this type of assembly change and recomputing from a python script?
Haven't tried this but it seems like it could be a great approach for designing multiple variants of the same part / assembly
Awesome! 😍 thanks for making this! Keep up the great work! 👌
You've got a "Centered Rectangle" tool, there's no need to draw construction lines.
As someone with a programming background this workflow feels natural to me because it allows properties to be propagated independently to many parts. However I always seem to keep running into issues when updating the master sketches. I am aware of the topological naming problem in freecad so obviously creating new edges or deleting edges from master sketches is bound to have issues in parts that reference geometry in the master sketches. What's not so obvious to me is that just modifying the constraints values (for instance changing the diameter of a circle just slightly) can also break references for some reason. There is no way to manually name the edges so I guess this will always be a problem? Updating external geometry references in sketches is also extremely difficult since you have to delete the references and re-add them which makes you lose all of your constraints... How do you cope with this?
Excellent. Thx.
Am I the only FreeCAD user to think the TNP is a big joke, that it only exists because people will it to exist, by doing things The Wrong Way ? I had never used any CAD software ever before 6 weeks ago and FreeCAD is the only one I've used. Working my way through some of the tutorials, most of them wanted me to sketch on a surface that was dependent on some other operation. With no prior knowledge of the TNP, my response to this was 'WTF' - what happens if that surface is changed to be too small or gets split into multiple planes ? I decided there and then to design all my design parts separately, combining them geometrically using numbers from a spreadsheet. Then I came across various WB tools which require me to specify a face# or an edge #. Again, WTF ? This is like declaring an int in a programming language and then writing code assuming that that int will always have a fixed location in memory, or a fixed offset on the stack.
The tutorials do this because pretty much every other parametric design tool isn't fundamentally broken and models don't explode every-time something is done like adding a chamfer. They want people to think FreeCAD is usable for doing serious work when in reality it is a mess.
THANK YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!!
There is no reason to look for ways to work around a very serious bug. Forget main branch and use the linkstage branch which no longer suffers this issue
Very informative.😎 Hint 1: @ 2:25 you can add an arc to your polyline by pressing M on the keyboard three times. Hint 2 : If you extend an arc by a polyline, you will automatically have a tangency constraint. Just press M twice on the keyboard to avoid this constraint.
Thanks for the tips! Will definitely try to use these from now on
Thank you thank you thank you for this amazing tutorial video. Super informative and easy to follow. Really appreciate your effort to make the video and share your knowledge with us.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video. One thing escapes me: 2.6" you created a DatumPlane and few seconds later deleted it. What was it? I'm newbie, so pls. excuse my ignorance 🙂
I think I was going to draw the second cross section but then realised I didn't need it just yet, because I wanted to drive the planes' spacing through the path sketch instead!
Very interesting! Looks like a great assistance in the making!
This video showed up at exactly the right time! I have been learning FreeCAD for the last couple weeks and was about to leave it behind. I had hit a point where I was spending hours "fixing" my models when they would break for whatever reason they were breaking. Spending an hour creating models and the spending 10 hours incessantly crawling back through the model and trying guess how to fix stuff that broke was burning the last bit of patience I had for the thing. Based on your explanation it seems I had diagnosed the issue correctly but I had no idea the issue had a name nor did I know the issue is kind of intrinsic to 3D modelling. I am a programmer and could see many of the issues the FreeCAD programmers would have been dealing with in their data structures. Until this video, however, I had reached the conclusion that they had simply chosen their data structures poorly and were now stuck with years of legacy that guaranteed the issue would basically never go away. Also, ironically, I can also see that my fixing attempts worked just fine but pretty much guaranteed the issue would remain no matter what I did. This is because most of my fixes involved forcibly going in and picking the same (to me) face that it had just completely forgotten about. I can now see that this would only humorously keep the problem as bad as it always was and possibly make it worse. I am already heavily using spreadsheet, variable names, etc. (mostly defaulted to that because that is what I would do if programming it ... ala OpenSCAD) but I knew nothing about the datum pieces nor that they could solve the problem I was having that I knew everybody must already know about but had a name I was oblivious to and a workflow that could lessen it or remove the issue entirely. Thank you, my friend. I will try this approach out when I get home from work tonight and I am hopeful that it will make me happy to use FreeCAD again! 🙂
The Macro "CenterOfMass" lets you enter basic materials to get mass output. Works great and allow to have many bodies with different properties. It is very interesting.
Oh awesome, will definitely check it out!
Macro "fcinfo" also does mass calculations. Workbench "quick measure" is useful for volume, distances, etc.
Great explanation and great video.
Thanks. I've had issues trying to make parametric models so this is a good guide to get in the right path.
Cool, thanks again!
Could pls let me know how to implement the freecadparametericfea to advanced versions of python
Currently I have not tested it with anything other than python 2.8.10 and I have restricted the pypi package to that version to ensure it works with freecad 0.20. If you want to test it with different Python / FreeCAD versions, the source code is available at github.com/da-crivelli/freecad-parametric-fea/
@@engineeringmaths thank you for the support, i tried the way but my python terminal is showing that it is for older versions less than 3.9.0 where as min is 3.10.0.could you help me regarding this