Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.

First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
  1. Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
  2. Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
  3. Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
  4. Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.

If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.

Modeling a wave spring in Onshape

lemon1324lemon1324 Member, Developers Posts: 216 EDU
I attempted to use the parametric curve FS from @mahir and @ilya_baran to define and sweep a wave spring, but the curve orientation twists as it goes along the spring, resulting in a spring that is more wavy than it should be: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/75d0d7ea892a9254913c7816/w/62eebb8832d20a306c0e3e13/e/7a14671a00fe193145f2b3ee

Loft with a path seems to maintain the sections level, but only allows 50 path sections, which isn't sufficient for wave springs with more waves.

Anyone have ideas on how to do this better? I could potentially define multiple curves to loft with guides and then configure/instantiate the part studio when I want to use it, but that seems more complicated than it should be. 
Arul Suresh
PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University

Comments

  • mahirmahir Member, Developers Posts: 1,219 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Try using a loft, but don't make the whole spring at once. Make one revolution, then pattern that body. Also, revolved/polar curves like this are MUCH easier if you use cylindrical coordinates.
  • ilya_baranilya_baran Onshape Employees, Developers, HDM Posts: 1,122
    Ilya Baran \ VP, Architecture and FeatureScript \ Onshape Inc
  • lemon1324lemon1324 Member, Developers Posts: 216 EDU
    Oh nice thanks @ilya_baran, not sure how I didn't find that on the forums. Ah okay, loft with inner/outer centerlines and then thicken makes a lot more sense, no need to worry about profile control then.

    @mahir true, I was doing the stackoverflow thing where you copy someone else's equation that you know is less than ideal just to test everything else :D
    Arul Suresh
    PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University
Sign In or Register to comment.