Compound/Triple piping in CAD/Solidworks

Its not real difficult at all, however I do it very different - I draw a whole bunch of elbows, like if I was going to do a sch10 tubular manifold, I draw them up el1, el2, etc then throw them into an assembly. You can adjust the angle easily, then I mate the inner edges concentric and allow the length to float, or adjust that, piece it together, the rotations between them change and you come up with lenghts of straights, angles, etc pretty easily. Here is an example I built with only elbows at first then inserted the straights.

swmanifold.jpg
 
That works easy too. :D

Now....if someone had access to a laser scanner....all the "off-the-shelf" components can simply be scanned for the outside surfaces. Once the solid parts are in the software, we can use the "shell" command and just shell the tubes out to the correct wall thicknesses. Scan all the parts individually and then assemble them in the software and figure out what will work and what won't pretty fast. I would assume that some mandrels bend uniquely to brands or manufactures' specs, so even the same piece from different folks may or may not be the same geometry.
 
JFettig said:
Its not real difficult at all, however I do it very different - I draw a whole bunch of elbows, like if I was going to do a sch10 tubular manifold, I draw them up el1, el2, etc then throw them into an assembly. You can adjust the angle easily, then I mate the inner edges concentric and allow the length to float, or adjust that, piece it together, the rotations between them change and you come up with lenghts of straights, angles, etc pretty easily. Here is an example I built with only elbows at first then inserted the straights.

swmanifold.jpg
Click to expand...



This is what I was thinking, create a bunch elbows, model my turbos and fab it in solidworks.

I'm going to take some measurements of my turbos and see if I can make a 3D model. I'll post what I come up with.
 
4x4dually said:
Now....if someone had access to a laser scanner....
Click to expand...

I was about to say this, 3D scanned would be the best bet.


So do you guys just want this to visualize things or actually use for manufacturing drawings? If you're using off the cuff measurements with a tape measure, I don't think your fabrication is going to fit together so easy. I can dig up a couple outlet flange drawings I can toss in to help guys save on machining
 
straight 6 roar said:
I was about to say this, 3D scanned would be the best bet.


So do you guys just want this to visualize things or actually use for manufacturing drawings? If you're using off the cuff measurements with a tape measure, I don't think your fabrication is going to fit together so easy. I can dig up a couple outlet flange drawings I can toss in to help guys save on machining
Click to expand...

A little bit of both, of course the is no guarantee with fab work it will be accurate right off the bat but this would sure get us VERY close. Flanges would be helpful as well, sure would save a lot of time!
 
This is as far as I got modeling my S478/96/1.32 before I had to fly back to Monterrey. I won't be back to Salt Lake until the 15th. Hopefully my shortblock will be ready to pick up and I can start making 3D models of my manifold and secondary, then put the 3 in an assembly with everything located accurately in relationship to each other.


[ame="http://s513.photobucket.com/user/Sidious6661/media/S478.jpg.html"]S478.jpg Photo by Sidious6661 | Photobucket[/ame]
 
As was mentioned previously, a 3D scanner would be about the only efficient way to accomplish what you are after. You need to locations of the inner fender, frame rail, shock tower, exhaust manifold, and intercooler inlet at the very least.
 
bna5017 said:
As was mentioned previously, a 3D scanner would be about the only efficient way to accomplish what you are after. You need to locations of the inner fender, frame rail, shock tower, exhaust manifold, and intercooler inlet at the very least.
Click to expand...

More efficient and easier? Slightly. More expensive, harder to find and a pain in the ass? Yes. It would take 10 minutes to make some reference points in SolidWorks. Also, if anything changed you could move the reference point instead of having to go through the whole 3D scanning process again.

For flanges and such yes a 3D scanner would be swell.
 
Last edited:
DDually said:
More efficient and easier? Slightly. More expensive, harder to find and a pain in the ass? Yes. It would take 10 minutes to make some reference points in SolidWorks. Also, if anything changed you could move the reference point instead of having to go through the whole 3D scanning process again.

For flanges and such yes a 3D scanner would be swell.
Click to expand...


Obviously it would be more expensive, but I don't see any other way to accurately locate all of the items I mentioned earlier...
 
Just a guess but I am sure you can set a couple common reference points to measure out to with the proper angles to mimic collision points.
 
This model of my S478 is actually very accurate as far as inlets and outlets locations are concerned. I don't have access to a 3D scanner. I do have access to height gauge, granite table, calipers etc. I've come up with some creative ways to take accurate measurements on odd shaped parts over the years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top