ChamferDDOperation: Operation(s) selected can not be patterned alone.

[Lew_Merrick]

Hi Stuart -- Had I the Basis for your Model, I could probably make it work -- but guessing frim images makes it hard to be accurate. -- Lew

 

[DavidJ]

Does a Shell Operation not create a feature? I can't add it to the pattern list.

I strongly suggest you avoid multiple shell commands by any means. A Shell operation is performed on the whole part, multiple shell operations can create major headaches.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

It may require some additional cuts to clean up after but I don't see anything preventing using a revolve.

 

[bigseb]

Trying really hard not to use boolean unite. You can't have a part configuration select the configuration of the boolean'd part. That's already giving me a headache in another part.

Try A different boolean op for each config

or

Model the chamfer separately and boolean unite tha to your model.

 

[Stuart]

Here's the problem I faced. The chamfer that needed to be patterned was applied to the shell, but the shell can't be patterned so the chamfer on the shell can't be patterned.

Here's the solution:

1. Create a single wedge segment with the desired features
2. Shell the wedge
3. Chamfer the shell
4. Feature pattern the wedge and everything before the shell. Now you have a full solid circle with one shelled segment
5. Topology pattern the shell. Now you have all the segments with the chamfer
6. Add a plane between features to project the inside shelled "cross section"
7. Revolve cut the cross section to remove the side shell walls.
8. Feature pattern the revolve cut to the other segments

Other than a bit awkward to remove the shell side walls, it was pretty smooth. Anyone have a better solution for the shell side walls?

 

[DavidJ]

Can't be sure without seeing your file - perhaps, do you first stage (but remove sides as part of the shell) - then Part Boolean a circular pattern of the part.

There is no 'correct' method, whatever gives the result you need and that you are comfortable with is a 'good' method.

 

[Stuart]

How do you remove the sides during the shell? I tried overriding the side faces with zero thickness but it gave an error.

 

[Stuart]

And if the sides were removed before the topology pattern, will the topology pattern be ok with the side of the patterns touching where the wall thickness is zero?

 

[DavidJ]

Use the 'faces to remove' box in the shell dialogue. As I said - difficult to be sure without seeing your file, I also didn't use a topology pattern in my suggested method (I suggested Part Boolean instead).

It's just a possible approach...

 

[Stuart]

With the side walls removed in the shell the topology pattern fails.

If I use a part boolean, then I have more work to do adding multiple booleans and suppressions for the configuration variants (6 so far, more to come). At the moment it's easier to use the not so elegant way to remove the side walls after the shell, and only have to do it once.

 

[NateLiquidGravity]

In this part I still don't see shell doing anything that couldn't be done with other simpler features like thin wall boss and cuts. It will take multiple features though.

 

[Stuart]

Thin wall extrude wouldn't have been easier when I started, but the way the design has evolved, it probably would easier.

I'll give it a try.

 

[Stuart]

In my opinion the thin extrude method is a many more steps. It starts with a more complex "shell" sketch to revolve. The number of surfaces that need to be repaired is quite high. The round hole extrude needs to go from the middle out in each direction because of the curved outer face. Where the two thin extrudes meet, there's clean up to be done. The list goes on and on.

All that to get to the equivalent of...

1. Simple wedge block profile, revolve it.
2. Extrude cut a round hole on the sloped surface.
3. Extrude a cut for the horizontal channel.
4. Shell the bottom.

Both methods use the same planes, axis, etc, so those are a wash.

 

[bigseb]

Two pages in and you haven't uploaded a part/package. Would make it a lot easier to help.

 

[Stuart]

I'm not willing to share this design publicly. Remember this all started with what I thought was a simple question about a chamfer error. That said, I do appreciate all the help you and others have given.

I have shared the files with Alibre, which I assume/hope treats their customer's IP as confidential.