Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- 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.
Options
Using a surface with kerf to split a shape.
scott_hess
Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
As a challenge, I was trying to model an "impossible dovetail" box for a 3d printer. A bit I'm a little stuck on is how to slice the box into two parts with consideration of tolerance. As far as I can tell, the sketch I'm using to split the box is a zero-thickness surface. Based on past experience, I know I'll need a something like .1mm on either side of the cut to make for a reasonable interlock.
The best I can figure right now would be to build a shape and use that to split things, which will be ... annoying. Doable, but annoying.
Work in progress:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/d8640e8237336dfd1fceeefe
The best I can figure right now would be to build a shape and use that to split things, which will be ... annoying. Doable, but annoying.
Work in progress:
https://cad.onshape.com/documents/d8640e8237336dfd1fceeefe
0
Best Answer
-
Options
konstantin_shiriazdanov
Member Posts: 1,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
you can thicken splitting surface first, and use boolean subtract option
5
Answers
@konstantin_shiriazdanov has the way there.
Another approach is to split with the surface, then follow that with a Boolean of one of the parts away from the other with an offset, and keep tools selected. (I was surprised to find that parts don't have to overlap for Boolean to work...)
Cheers Owen S
HWM-Water Ltd
I did work up a surface manually "extruded" from the original line segments by using a good dose of parallel constraints and constructs with distance constraints, and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
Konstantin's solution is even nicer, though, because there's less duplication. It certainly is cleaner if I want to modify the surface (as Maker's Muse did :-).
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the offset in your alternative technique. The change needed isn't to shift the shape by an offset, the "slots" need to be slightly wider while the "pins" need to be slightly narrower. Do you mean like shift and remove the intersection?