I am have started to use 9.02 more recently, and, cannot seem to save assisting geometry and hidden lines into DXFs any longer (1-01-05) in D-CAM. I have tried it with several different positions, and tried every check box and option possible. When going into D-CAD 2d, they all come through, just not to DXF.
Is anyone else having this problem? I use this quite often for exporting center lines generated from the engineering "transfer plane frame" (1-03-3) for analysis purposes.
Joe
Woohoo!!
That is easy enough.
Thanks!
Joe
I have, on occasion, imported a DXF into D-Cam that has included arcs / circles. They import fine. But, once I am done with the particular geometry, I cannot delete the arcs/circles, only the lines. Any way I can get rid of these, without turning off the other assisting geometry?
Much obliged!
Joe
OK. Not what I wanted to hear, But, at least it means I wasn't missing something obvious! 
Hi Jason-
I have been using the 2-08 (object info) in D-CAM to get the individual exact weight of each beam, including joinery. The question is, for multiple ones, is there way to get the aggregate volume? In the Project Data, you get the over-all rectangular beam. Normally, this isn't a big deal, since you order the full sized rectangular timber. But there are a lot of big cut-curves, etc in this project, so, it will over-estimate the volume (and hence the weight).
Joe
The position I am looking at has about 400 large timbers in it, so, I'd rather not do it by hand...
The concern is the weight of the timbers once put on a truck, whether it will go over the legal load limit or not. Since they are being trucked a long way, it will be several thousand extra dollars if we have to go to another truck, or, get fined for being overweight.
I am looking for the true volume of a group of timbers. It is possible to get it for individual members in D-CAD ( 2-08 ), but not for groups. Is there some other easy way to do this? I am not concerned with the CG, just the volume.
Thanks!
Joe
I'm always a bit late in getting on board with a discussion topic, but, here are a few pictures of a cone shaped project from earlier this year...
D'oh! I knew it was going to be something easy!
Now I feel like a dolt.
Much obliged!
Joe
Hi Joachim,
It doesn't seem to matter which slice I choose. I never have the option to enter an Obholz, only the Height of the Plate. Conversely, in prior versions, it was always based on the Obholz, and I didn't have the option for Height of the Plate (always grayed out).
When working with a plate, I very seldom know before hand the top height of the plate, and even calculating it and then entering it would be for not if the pitch changed at a later date, etc.
Thanks,
Joe
OK, so I have 7.03 installed, and, wanted to define a plate based of a set obholz, but, I can't seem to do it anymore?
I am guessing I am just missing something simple?
Using the crossing window to select things always speeds things up.
THanks,
Joe
Ok, there is a special way to do markers (3-05-01), but, in general, is there a way?
Joe
Is there a way to delete all instances of a type of process from all beams?
For example, I have a frame with about 300 timbers in it, and, there are a bunch of markers on them in random spots. How do I delete all of the markers (or drillings, or whatever) in the model, but not anything else?
Joe
I've run into the same problem as well, with certain processes not showing up, but being there in the single beam info.
Unfortunately if you are creating single beam drawings (for people to cut it the old-fashioned way), the processes don't show up... Although sometimes they do.
It's the problem with most fun projects; you don't have the time, or, more likely, the budget to engineer it all.
If the OSB is glued on rather than nailed / screwed, it does make the beam a lot easier to analyze, just like an I-beam as you had done.
A quick look at your calculations (or maybe I am not following them) shows that the box beam is adequate for the load as is? (Not included the girder portion of the beam.) If this is the case, the girder / diagonal framing will only further to stiffen this and make the beam perform better. Or, conversely, you could argue that you could take the diagonal framing out all together, and use the standard box beam.
Analyzing the girder portion could also be done in Excel or calculator using a matrix structural analysis technique. Essentially, the same way a finite element analysis or structural analysis software (including Visual Analysis or Robobat) would do it, except, you have to do most of the work (rather than the software.) The nice thing is though, is, it is free (assuming your time isn't worth anything...)
Once you analyzed the girder, you could determine an equivalent moment of inertia (I) and combine this "I" with the "I" component from the OSB.
An interesting project to analyze, and, a chance for me to talk engineerese with someone, which, is even cooler yet!
Joe
When analyzing frames, I normally create centerlines (1-03-3) in DiCam, and, then save those as a DXF, which I then import into Visual Analysis. Visual Analysis is one of the common engineering softwares in North America for analysis and design of timber structures.
This method would work great for exporting the geometry of your box beam, but, a DXF does not include information about each member (Size, grade, etc) so that needs to be re-entered in Visual Analysis.
Accurately taking into account the composite action from the built up plywood and the multi-layers of the top and bottom chords is not a trivial matter, though. This comes down to types of nails/screws used, how much they deform, the shear stiffness of the plywood, and a bunch of other things. I've not seen a software (of any shape or form) that could analyze this adequately without substantial effort. There are ways to do it "by hand", but, it will wear out the buttons of your calculator pretty quick.
Joe
Wish list item! Export centerlines and member data to a standard staad file format so any analysis software can use it...
Much obliged for the responses Jim, Der_Planer, and Wil!
Joe
I've got that all down. But, when I am doing something complicated, it isn't always easy to keep track of that down there. When working with less than 0.5 degrees (for example, I was working on a 16 sided structure, and, was trying to rotate the view 5.625 degrees {360/32}). Knowing which increment I was on isn't intuitive.
Since it is sometimes quicker to use 7-1 than creating custom user coordinate systems, knowing your exact viewpoint is a nice check, and, was hoping there was an easy way to see more down there.
Joe
