I’m not proficient in Rhino, and only a bit in Jewelcad, but I want
to share some thoughts. In Autocad, and Rhino, too, if you want to
draw a sphere you go to the attributes box and type in numbers. In
Maya, Zbrush, 3dsMax and others, if you want to draw a sphere you but
the mouse or stylus in the window, pull it outwards and brrrrink -
instant sphere. I would dub them vector drawing vs object drawing,
even though it’s all vectors internally. Then you can size it
precisely if you want by typing attributes. In Autocad if you want to
draw a complex curve you basically have to be a mathematician, in
Maya you just poke and prod it to your liking. I’m trying to make two
points: First is that I, for one, am not a draftman, and I don’t want
to become one. I’m an artist (by contrast), and I want to be free to
design. Which is related to point 2: jewelry is only partly
mechanical. Autocad, solidworks, and yes, Rhino are very mechanical
programs. If you go to the Rhino site and look at the gallery, just
about all of the work is very mechanical, static, and machine-drawn
looking. Although they all are capable of doing work that could be
called Art-Nouveau-like - lots of flowing curves, figurative art and
the like, it is not what they are meant for. They are meant to make
boxes and spheres. Yes, one can do curves easily in them, but Maya
drew Monsters, Inc. and Toy Story - and Star wars. Way, way beyond
mere curves. I have also a demo of 3design Jewel. It’s a really nice
program for jewelry, and embodies quite a lot of what I’m saying. You
can get it, too - go to the site, download it, and they’ll send you a
link for a two-week trial license. The other issue I have is
reinventing the wheel - you can accumulate a library of objects, but
why would one want to have to draw a whole shank, or a setting, over
and over again, and then have to size it all, over and over again. I
don’t need a “setting”, I need a setting for a 3 point diamond and it
has to machine to that. The point being that 3design Jewel, and
Jewelcad to a lesser degree, understands jewelry. It is made to make
jewelry that has stones, channel setting, pave, they have gold,
silver, and platinum and rubies, built into the rendering engines,
they have ring sizes - all that stuff, all built in. I would suggest
that anyone shopping for a high-end progran check out 3design Jewel,
it’s a nice program…
Jesse,
Gee thanks for laying this one on me 
I'm aware of FEA (finite element analysis) software, but I don't know of any jewelry manufacturers using it. Maybe Neil George can step in and elucidate on that subject. :-)
I haven’t done any research on jewellery companies using it, so I
really don’t know. I use FEA for plastic injection evaluations, but
that’s as far as it goes
This is about as complex a subject as you will ever find in
jewellery. Whether this is in mechanical engineering or any other
industry that requires simulated analyses of data stemming from a
model, FEA is an invaluable tool. The data, can be crunched from
solid models, surfaces or from design tables that merely have
numerical values to represent the object. Finite Element Analysis is
a method that encompasses many methods and laws stemming from
Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics which would include such elements
as Young’s Module, Poisson’s Ratio, Shear and Tensile Strength
Modules, Ritz method, dynamics and many other forms of scientific
criteria’s that are way above and beyond my intellectual level.
However, that’s the beauty of software. Some FEA solutions can be as
complex and requires the necessary qualifications to utilize them
efficiently. Other solutions have simplified the tasks to allow less
academically qualified individuals to use them and perform the
analysis with confidence. There is only one person that I know of,
that has the credentials to utilize FEA in it’s purest form, and is
also a jeweller, and that would be Steve Attaway. I believe he and
Nancy had an article in Lapidary Journal some time ago. I have spoken
with him many times on the phone, a very very interesting individual.
So, I can't say I know of a program used for jewelry that automatically analyzes a model to tell you if it's castable or not, but you can accurately determine dimension to as many decimal points as you would ever need, in any real CAD program.
If you are referring to jewellery specific programs, then I would
agree to a point, which I will clarify later. As you may know, I use
Solidworks, and as I know, you run Rhino. In reality, neither of the
two solutions are jewellery specific, however, both have a tremendous
amount of 3rd party solutions that can provide you or me, with as
many tools or solutions for many different criteria’s of operation. I
happen to know about FEA, at least to the point of knowing how to use
it to garner the data I need to accomplish a task. Could I run the
same tool to crunch numbers for a crash test, hell no. The key is to
find the tools, and they are available, and use it for your needs,
and generally speaking, not look at it from a “not my field of
expertise” standpoint.
Now, I did say that Rhino was not jewellery specific, but I do know,
FEA solutions are available for Rhino, therefore, the Matrix/ Rhino
combination I would imagine, could utilize FEA as a 3rd party
solution also. Would this be considered a jewellery specific ability
to perform Casting analysis of a model as in the Matrix/Rhino
solution?. I say it could work.
On a side note, and it is meant as a general observation, and not
based on any individual. Buying a CAD/CAM solution, getting trained
and heading straight for the forum is all fine and dandy. The problem
I see, is that many are locked into the “jewellery” solution
mentality and therefore will never progress any further than the
other 90% of individuals doing the same exact thing. If I have heard
it once, I have heard it a hundred times, “but I’m a jeweller not an
engineer”. Well that’s ok, if that’s the mind set that works for
you, but in my opinion, this is a major detraction from the real
power that other solutions from other industries can provide, by
utilizing added functionality, and therefore allowing a more
efficient and productive designer to emerge. Many of the things that
jewellers think about, and the casing point is the evaluation of
models for casting, the tools are available in one form or another.
In a nutshell, you have to break the barrier and step outside of
jewellery to find it. For the Rhino users, I suggest you do what
Jesse has obviously done, and go and take a look at the pluggins that
are available. I know that many of you are familiar with pluggins for
rendering and for stones, but why stop there?. Start right here, and
take a look at this scenario of evaluating casting models via FEA.
Whether you invest in it or not, you will at least learn. Ask the
question on the Rhino jewellery forum, if nothing transpires, go to a
forum that could answer it for you. Everything you need is pretty
much out there. It seems that until a jewellery specific company pays
royalty to a 3rd party solution, and brings it into the fold of the
solutions native environment, then most will never progress, and if
they do progress, it will be at the same pace as the other 90%. I
remember when Jesse arrived on the scene, and at the beginning just
like all of us, knew diddly squat about CAD/CAM and it wasn’t that
long ago. Now, and in my opinion, he is an essential element for
CAD/CAM discussions on this forum. Practical, knowledgeable and more
than willing to share. I don’t know what his motivation for breaking
out and progressing as fast as he has done was, but take a leaf out
of his book.
The bench jeweller will look for and buy, and in many cases, make a
tool that will make things easier. Whether the functionality of the
tool was derived from another industry is irrelevant, as long as it
works. The same applies to the CAD arena.
This question about wall thicknesses often arises because of the tendency to depend too much on visual feedback, since you can't touch the material or gauge it as you normally would if you were working at the bench. Using your eyes to determine if a model is viable can be "iffy", because when a ring or setting is magnified to fill a good portion of your monitor, everything can look big enough, including a .09 mm gap between pave stones or a .37 mm wall thickness.
This is precisely why I am a big fan of parametrics. Due to the fact
that constraints and dimensionally driven attributes are in play, the
program essentially has all of the regarding the model on
demand.
Solidworks has many built in tools at least for my needs. For
example, I can check if the model has any hidden undercuts that could
cause problems during a part being pulled or ejected from a mold.
Thinking outside the box, the same tool, although for a different
process, could identify problem areas and unreachable areas during a
machining process. The point being, is to try and adapt tools that
have a particular function to be useful somewhere else.
Even if I've designed a model to what I think are accurate dimensions, I'll often double check in Rhino with the distance and length tools, using Osnaps to accurately lock onto specific locations.
If the geometry is too complex to zoom in, to snap to Osnaps, you can select the component, do an "invert hide" (so everything else is hidden), and then extract an isocurve in the exact location and measure the distance from one end to the other of the curve.
There are many methods to to accurately determine thickness, I'll mention a few more If a part is too curvy or complex to easily lock onto Osnaps, you can slice it in half with a cutting plane, delete half and measure the open cross section. (save first) Working effectively with layers will also help organize a model and make it easier to measure a particular area. I sometimes use a Rhino Visual Basic scripted bounding box that reports the size of a part in three dimensions. This measuring stuff sounds a bit complicated, but it usually only takes a few minutes to determine if a model is scaled to the correct dimensions.
I wonder, if someone, somewhere, and probably on an engineering
forum, has written a VB script to automate some of the task you
mentioned above. This is exactly the series of solutions that I would
look for if I was a Rhino user, and in reality it gets individuals to
start looking for tools that can automate functionality.
I know for AlphaCam and Solidworks, you can find a ton of useful
scripts and macros for automating different repetitive tasks for
free. I would imagine, that Rhino users will also have forums
dedicated to VB scripts and macros. Ask the right question, in the
right forum, and someone will e-mail you a gift.
What is Matrix?.
It’s a solution that was built using the same philosophy only taking
it much further. It’s a compilation of macros and scripts with a very
nice front end providing automation and added functionality to Rhino.
Therefore, I am not saying that you could build yourself a solution
such as Matrix, but what I am saying is, that you can put together a
nice compilation of hooks as we say that may benefit you, and offer
added functionality to your base solution at little or no cost.
ArtCAM is much more amenable to using 2D artwork because it works with color as well as vector lines. If you have a good high resolution image, it can be very quick work to generate a good model from a picture. Check out the Welch Dragon tutorial on this webpage:
Hey now. Being a Welshman, I was wondering, can you at least spell
Welsh correctly
Best Regards.
Neil George
954-572-5829
I'm not proficient in Rhino, and only a bit in Jewelcad, but I want to share some thoughts. In Autocad, and Rhino, too, if you want to draw a sphere you go to the attributes box and type in numbers. In Maya, Zbrush, 3dsMax and others, if you want to draw a sphere you but the mouse or stylus in the window, pull it outwards and brrrrink - instant sphere. I would dub them vector drawing vs object drawing, even though it's all vectors internally. Then you can size it precisely if you want by typing attributes.
Actually, in Rhino you can make a sphere both ways. While it’s
possible to do it all from the command line, by typing Sphere and
entering the diameter numerically, you can also invoke the Sphere
command from the Solids menu and drag it out to the size you want,
dragging it dymamically to the correct diameter, clicking a center
and dragging the radius, or by picking 3 points. Most of Rhino’s
commands work similarly. Sometimes you’ll want to do it one way,
sometimes the other - enabling different modes of working is one of
the program’s strong points.
In Autocad if you want to draw a complex curve you basically have to be a mathematician, in Maya you just poke and prod it to your liking. I'm trying to make two points: First is that I, for one, am not a draftman, and I don't want to become one. I'm an artist (by contrast), and I want to be free to design. Which is related to point 2: jewelry is only partly mechanical. Autocad, solidworks, and yes, Rhino are very mechanical programs. If you go to the Rhino site and look at the gallery, just about all of the work is very mechanical, static, and machine-drawn looking. Although they all are capable of doing work that could be called Art-Nouveau-like - lots of flowing curves, figurative art and the like, it is not what they are meant for. They are meant to make boxes and spheres.
I have to take issue with that one too, John. While Rhino is
certainly capable of doing mechanical-looking types of parts, its
real strength is in making swoopy compound-curved surfaces. It’s hard
to say what Rhino was “meant” to do, since its development came about
through the inputs of a wide range of users doing all sorts of
things, but its NURBS (Non Uniform Rational B-Spline) basis makes
this sort of thing much more feasible than in AutoCAD, Solidworks,
and most other CAD programs. Of course it’s easier to do simpler
projects, but that’s a limitation of the users, not of the program.
Yes, one can do curves easily in them, but Maya drew Monsters, Inc. and Toy Story - and Star wars. Way, way beyond mere curves.
Maya’s underlying architecture is actually quite similar to Rhino’s;
both had their roots in Alias. Maya has specialized in animation,
Rhino in making models.
April do you or does anyone else have further about the non-forgiving nature of Rhino files in reference to "printing". (I assume you mean a rapid prototyper like Solidscape?) Could someone describe what happens when a "failed" Rhino file goes to the printer? How does one recognize a construct that is going to fail? Does the software that comes with the printer sqwak at you and tell you it doesn't like it or does it blindly go forth and waste time and material?
This is due to the nature of the additive Rapid Prototyping process.
Rhino is a “surface” modeler. That means that it makes things out of
a series of surfaces which have no depth until they are joined
together to make a solid object. Anytime you want to turn a model
into a 3d part, the pieces that are to be “printed” must be solid.
If there’s a hole anywhere in your assemblage of infinitely-thin
surfaces, then the program has no way to tell the inside from the
outside, and it can’t make a solid part. Fortunately, Rhino has some
tools that ensure that an exported STL file (the preferred format for
3d printing) is “watertight”. On saving in this format, it will warn
you if any objects you’re exporting are open, and ask you if you want
to export them anyway. If there’s a problem, you can join and weld
your meshes (STL files are polygon meshes) at 180 degrees, and then
unify your mesh normals. To check if there are still any “naked
edges” (around holes) you use the SelNakedEdgeMeshPoint command.
(This is all explained in more detail in the Help files, under
Index/Import and Export/Other file formats/STL). Of course, if
you’re using a CNC mill instead of an RP machine, this is less of a
problem; the subtractive process is more forgiving of small holes
than the additive ones.
Andrew Werby
Hi Neil,
I vaguely recalled seeing 3rd party FEA solutions for Rhino, but I
was too tired the night I wrote about it to do the research to verify
it, So, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I agree, a
jewelry-specific software company could eventually implement a casting
analysis feature.
I’d also like to thank you for the kind words regarding my
explorations into the world of CAD/CAM. You’ve been a forerunner in
taking the initiative to push past our familiar frame of reference as
jewelers to develop a real expertise in the field, so coming from you,
it really means something to me.
I must apologize for the misspelling of your native country… Could
it have been spellchecker’s fault? 
Although I’ve gained some knowledge and practical ability, I feel
like it’s just the beginning for what’s to come. As the entire
technology progresses, programs becomes easier and better as more
options become available; so it’s a constant learning experience to
keep up with the changes.
I’ve tried to learn from the various professionals I’ve met on the
Rhino newsgroup. You might think draftsmen, architects, industrial
designers, or mechanical engineers are primarily technically or
mathematically inclined, but their creative ability to come up with
solutions for surface modeling issues of jewelry models that I’ve asked
for help with, has been inspirational.
I’ve often thought that if those of us on Orchid who use Rhino were to
get together on the Rhino newsgroup and ask the scripting gurus to
write some jewelry specific tools, we’d eventually have an open source
jewelry-specific toolset for Rhino with the capability to automate
many of the more tedious tasks we need to do on a regular basis.
With the help of a friend on the tech support team, I once made a
scripted toolbar with icons that created circles for every ring size,
so I wouldn’t have to look up the inside diameter whenever I started a
new project.
I’ll probably never learn to scripts more complex repetitive tasks,
but I’ve found many of the scripts and toolbar plug-ins (that have been
freely shared by those who have the talent to create those things) to
be very useful in my everyday work.
One example is a button that David Rutten made for me that
automatically tells you where the lowest “Z” point of a model is,
something you need to know to create a ground plane for rendering.
I’ve mentioned the bounding box manager…it also comes from David,
who as an architectural student in the Netherlands, latched onto Rhino
and found he could model circles around his classmates using Maya. He
taught himself programming and developed his own scripts and further
developed some of the scripts and macros contributed by other members
of the newsgroup, incorporating them into a custom workspace scheme,
complete with his own icons and toolbars. It’s no longer available
because it will become obsolete when Rhino 4 is released. He’s now
working with McNeel to develop the interface for Rhino 4.
In yesterday’s Orchid Digest, Andrew Werby did an excellent job of
clarifying some of the lesser understood subtleties of surface
modeling and Rhino’s toolset in general. He’s right on the money in
terms of the difference between a program that makes low polygon models
good for CGI or animated movies and a geometrically accurate NURBS
modeler that can produce models that can be turned into jewelry.
If I may, I’d also like to comment on the issue of “naked edges”…
models that aren’t “water-tight” therefore, making meshes that aren’t
printable by an RP machine.
As Andrew said, it’s possible to repair the STL mesh before exporting
it. As a matter of fact, the Rhino 4 Beta version has some more
powerful meshing tools than Rhino 3.
It’s very frustrating to work on a model for three hours or so, only
to find it isn’t meshing successfully and not knowing where or when the
error happened. I’ve found that with some good basic modeling habits,
naked edges become a very rare occurrence, and if they do happen,
they can be immediately detected, making it possible to go back a step
and fix them with a slight adjustment of a union or subtraction, by
moving or scaling a part by as little as.005 of a mm.You’ll sand or
buff off 20 times that thickness of metal before your done with a
casting, so a little tweaking isn’t going to be noticeable.
There’s some good technical on how to avoid Boolean
failures and successful meshing techniques on the Rhino Wiki page.
http://en.wiki.mcneel.com/default.aspx/McNeel/BooleanFAQ.html
http://en.wiki.mcneel.com/default.aspx/McNeel/MeshFAQ.html
Hope this helps.
Jesse Kaufman
Jesse,
I vaguely recalled seeing 3rd party FEA solutions for Rhino, but I was too tired the night I wrote about it to do the research to verify it, :-) So, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I agree, a jewelry-specific software company could eventually implement a casting analysis feature.
With enough individuals requesting it, you may be surprised how
quickly someone may implement it. The more people involved, the more
economic sense it makes for a Company to now add these little
functions to not only have excisting jewellery users pay for updates,
but additionally, in having a valuable tool that may attract new
users.
Side Note :-
I have no idea how many Rhino jewellery users are out there, but I
would say it has to be a very high number. Therefore, and as an
example. If there happened to be a 1,000 users that all agreed on an
added function, why not band together and get the ball rolling. Even
if someone wrote a program/script/macro and made it available, and as
an extreme example it cost $10,000 to create. The cost spread per
person would be $10 each. In my opinion, you can get scripts done at
a very reasonable dollar amount, and I’m thinking on average 50 cents
to a $1.50 a head, therefore it could be something to think about.
There you go Jesse, start a Rhino added functionality group
Each member puts $20 into the kitty and creates a wish list with
personal preferences on which functionality takes priority for their
needs. The functionality with the highest number of requests on line
item #1 will be the first to get done. It could take a little
organizing, so why not have a portion of the money, and as an example
25% going to Orchid to have Hanuman set it up. From that point on,
and after the initial setup, he could make them available to others
as in non-members for a fee. The members of the group receive 50% of
the proceeds into the coffers for further development, and Orchid
receives 50% for hosting and managing. It could get to the point,
where the members may never have to add any more money period, and
it could provide new tools at no cost to the original members. The
original members become the initial bank roll, and lets say that the
cost per head for a script was 50cents, by not allowing new members
to join the core group, there is no reason, why you could not get
$5-$10 per script. Could it pay dividends?
I'd also like to thank you for the kind words regarding my explorations into the world of CAD/CAM.
Well Deserved
You've been a forerunner in taking the initiative to push past our familiar frame of reference as jewelers to develop a real expertise in the field, so coming from you, it really means something to me.
Thank you.
I must apologize for the misspelling of your native country... Could it have been spellchecker's fault? ;-)
No problem, I was only busting your chops
Although I've gained some knowledge and practical ability, I feel like it's just the beginning for what's to come. As the entire technology progresses, programs becomes easier and better as more options become available; so it's a constant learning experience to keep up with the changes.
I am still learning something new everyday, and personally, I feel I
know less today, than when I started. Staying within the realms of
jewellery, I felt a few years back, that I had accomplished my
mission of being pretty good at using the technology. However, the
minute I stepped outside of jewellery, that’s when I realized, I
didn’t know diddly squat. Therefore, all I am trying to do, is to get
people to think outside the box, and hopefully point out that none of
this originated in jewellery, and therefore you have to step outside
of jewellery to progress. When I say step outside of jewellery, I am
not referring to staying away from jewellery specific programs, on
the contrary. What I am saying is that it does not hurt, if you
expand your knowledge base of manufacturing methods stemming from
other industrial elements.
I've tried to learn from the various professionals I've met on the Rhino newsgroup. You might think draftsmen, architects, industrial designers, or mechanical engineers are primarily technically or mathematically inclined, but their creative ability to come up with solutions for surface modeling issues of jewelry models that I've asked for help with, has been inspirational.
Exactly the point I try to make.
I've often thought that if those of us on Orchid who use Rhino were to get together on the Rhino newsgroup and ask the scripting gurus to write some jewelry specific tools, we'd eventually have an open source jewelry-specific toolset for Rhino with the capability to automate many of the more tedious tasks we need to do on a regular basis.
An excellent idea. I did add some thoughts to that above and below.
With the help of a friend on the tech support team, I once made a scripted toolbar with icons that created circles for every ring size, so I wouldn't have to look up the inside diameter whenever I started a new project. I'll probably never learn to scripts more complex repetitive tasks, but I've found many of the scripts and toolbar plug-ins (that have been freely shared by those who have the talent to create those things) to be very useful in my everyday work. One example is a button that David Rutten made for me that automatically tells you where the lowest "Z" point of a model is, something you need to know to create a ground plane for rendering.
Therefore I can deduct that you know exactly where I am coming from.
I started thinking about this about 5 years ago, when a good friend
of mine, showed me how they received data for machining optics with
compound surfaces, and how he could in five minutes get the job ready
for manufacturing. In a nutshell, he would enter the data into a
design table in excel, and with one click of an icon, excel would use
the tools in Powershape to plot the geometry and surface curvature
without even opening the program. Everything worked in the
background. It then automatically, used the resources in Powermill to
create the toolpaths, again without opening the program. It was mind
boggling. Needless to say, it got me thinking, about slick tools for
automation and increased productivity in my everyday repetitive tasks
in both CAD and CAM.
I didn’t just wake up one morning with an epiphany or a spark and
decide, well this is what I am going to do today. Many of the things
that I have learned, and the directions that I took, where influenced
by other people. Many of the influences where indirect in the sense
that I happened to read something and a seed was sown. Others where
direct in the form of my friend. Therefore, inspiration and
influences can come at you from different directions. Being willing
to receive and act upon those influences is another matter.
I've mentioned the *bounding box manager*...it also comes from David, who as an architectural student in the Netherlands, latched onto Rhino and found he could model circles around his classmates using Maya. He taught himself programming and developed his own scripts and further developed some of the scripts and macros contributed by other members of the newsgroup, incorporating them into a custom workspace scheme, complete with his own icons and toolbars. It's no longer available because it will become obsolete when Rhino 4 is released. He's now working with McNeel to develop the interface for Rhino 4.
Why not see if David would be willing to take on the task of writing
custom scripts for your new group :-).
Get an idea of what he would charge to write something like his
Bounding Box script and take it from there. The more members, the
lower the cost. Do you happen to know how many Jewellery Rhino users
there are, and how many can you approach with this concept?
In yesterday's Orchid Digest, Andrew Werby did an excellent job of clarifying some of the lesser understood subtleties of surface modeling and Rhino's toolset in general. He's right on the money in terms of the difference between a program that makes low polygon models good for CGI or animated movies and a geometrically accurate NURBS modeler that can produce models that can be turned into jewelry.
Yes he did. Andrew is another great source of
Personally, I have never used any of the animation programs such as
Maya, 3D Max, Bryce and the one I find very interesting, the open
source solution Blender. So I always learn something useful from him
also. I normally forward his posts to my nephew who is currently
studying animation and he frequently goes to Andrew’s site, to see if
there is anything new.
If I may, I'd also like to comment on the issue of "naked edges"... models that aren't "water-tight" therefore, making meshes that aren't printable by an RP machine. As Andrew said, it's possible to repair the STL mesh before exporting it. As a matter of fact, the Rhino 4 Beta version has some more powerful meshing tools than Rhino 3. It's very frustrating to work on a model for three hours or so, only to find it isn't meshing successfully and not knowing where or when the error happened. I've found that with some good basic modeling habits, naked edges become a very rare occurrence, and if they do happen, they can be immediately detected, making it possible to go back a step and fix them with a slight adjustment of a union or subtraction, by moving or scaling a part by as little as.005 of a mm.You'll sand or buff off 20 times that thickness of metal before your done with a casting, so a little tweaking isn't going to be noticeable. :-)
I can understand your frustration, which is why I feel 3Design being
a hybrid modeler, offers the perfect solution for jewellery specific
modeling. The control of Solidworks, and the flexibility of Rhino.
Best Regards.
Neil George
954-572-5829
There is at least one FEA program out there that will work with
standard mesh data that can be generated by most CAD programs to
simulate the casting processes. I saw its output shown as a part of a
presentation by Dr. Jorg Fischer-Buhner titled Computer Simulation of
Investment Casting at the Santa Fe Symposium last year. Here is a
link to the abstract
http://www.santafesymposium.org/2005/speakers.htm
Computer Simulation of Investment Casting
Computer simulation of investment casting is not an easy
process to control, especially considering the material and
process variables, the many interrelations and the sources for
defect generation. But, it can be a tool to improve our
understanding of the process and give us, for example, an
insight into metal flow during filling as well as temperature
profiles of metal and investment material, especially during
the cooling and solidification of the metal. Conclusions about
avoiding defects, particularly shrinkage porosity, could be
expected from this first sample modeling.The aim of this paper
is to demonstrate the capabilities and limitations offered by
the first sample modeling.
Dr. Jrg Fischer-Bhner holds a PhD. in physical metallurgy and
materials technology. Since 1997, he has been employed at the
Research Institute for Precious Metals and Metal Chemistry
(FEM) in Schwbisch Gmnd, Germany. Since 2001, he has been head
of the Physical Metallurgy and Precious Metals Research
division of FEM. This is his fourth year presenting at the
Symposium.
The only drawback to the software is its cost which if I remember
correctly is something like $12000.00 per year! But the things it
can do are very cool and it would be a marvelous tool if it were
just more affordable. Dr Fischer-Buhner had several video animations
of the casting process with different variables tweaked (sprue and
gate size mostly).
Jim
JimJames Binnion
@James_Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts
360-756-6550
Jim,
There is at least one FEA program out there that will work with standard mesh data that can be generated by most CAD programs to simulate the casting processes. I saw its output shown as a part of a presentation by Dr. Jorg Fischer-Buhner titled Computer Simulation of Investment Casting at the Santa Fe Symposium last year. Here is a link to the abstract http://www.santafesymposium.org/2005/speakers.htm The only drawback to the software is its cost which if I remember correctly is something like $12000.00 per year! But the things it can do are very cool and it would be a marvelous tool if it were just more affordable. Dr Fischer-Buhner had several video animations of the casting process with different variables tweaked (sprue and gate size mostly).
Very Interesting. Do you have any more info on this?. I am leaving
Monday on a trip, so if you do, I would love to take a look at it
after the 15th of May. My wife has warned me, that if I get withing
30 feet of a computer whilst on this trip, there will be hell to pay,
but then again, she has to sleep sometime
Best Regards.
Neil George
954-572-5829
Hi Neil,
It is called MagmaSoft ( http://www.magmasoft.com/ ) it is very cool
but also very expensive. The movies I saw of the simulated filling
and solidification of a tree of castings is just fascinating. You
can model flow, turbulence and thermal profiles and I am sure much
more it is neat. You can read about its use in the 2004 and 2005
proceedings of the Santa Fe Symposium
Jim
James Binnion
@James_Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts