Head design and casting cost?

[mekilljoydammit]

I have SolidWorks, 3DS (Dassault Systems) supplies it to me for application development.

"Surface Modeling" and "Controlling a Surface by its Poles" are 2 different things.

I found functions to control surfaces by poles in Solidworks, is what I'm saying. I'm at work where we're a Creo shop (I'm not proficient in Creo yet, it's not my main job function) but I'll try to do a (bad) port vaguely similar in shape to what you posted using surface modeling and post some screenshots tonight after I get home.

I have no idea if it will work as well as I think it will, but messing with some surfaces I did in SW by other (bad) means, it seemed like it works the way I think it does. I may be wrong and will have no problem admitting it if it turns out that way.

[mekilljoydammit]

This is not a good port nor is it supposed to be, I did not place the control points densely nor move them well to make a smooth surface, etc. It is just a screenshot after 5 minutes of playing around making a vaguely portlike shape lofting a shape between two sketches with a 3d sketch as a guide curve, then shifting the surface with the Freeform tool.

I'm sure that in other packages there's quite a few things to make it easier but then again I'm far from an expert at doing things with surfacing in Solidworks.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

That is an example of using sections and guides.
I used to ports heads that way.
Very tedious and difficult to get an acceptable shape, small changes often require starting over with a different topology.

I wouldn't think of doing it that way today.

[mekilljoydammit]

I guess what I'm getting at is, given the overall tradeoffs, I'm willing to put up with "tedious" to start with as long as it can work and it sounds like it could. Definitely going to teach myself Creo on on work's license though to see if it works noticeably better. Neither has CFD though so there's going to be a bunch of messing around with external software packages either way.

Different tradeoffs if I were likely to earn one red cent from any of this.

[Xnke]

Considering the KN1 cylinder heads posted a few posts up-I think retail cost on one head from that original project was 10K$, but I don't remember how much Derek said he had invested.

As far as modeling the heads in CAD, use whatever program you like. One isn't any better than the other, given that they all have the same operator. Designing heads in CAD, well, that may be quite different, depending on the performance level and cost constraint on the project.

I've cast heads in my back yard. I've cast engine blocks in my back yard. Total cost was under 500$, but add to that the 2 thousand or so hours in patternmaking, practice, machine and equipment building, and the final cost if I paid myself 20$/hr would have been 40,500$ to pour one head, and one block.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I guess what I'm getting at is, given the overall tradeoffs, I'm willing to put up with "tedious" to start with as long as it can work and it sounds like it could. Definitely going to teach myself Creo on on work's license though to see if it works noticeably better. Neither has CFD though so there's going to be a bunch of messing around with external software packages either way.

Different tradeoffs if I were likely to earn one red cent from any of this.

Post a good port modeled in SolidWorks.
I have heard many people claim they can do it, but never a good example.

Probably the best hope of doing it in Solid works is to do a loft with a series of 10 or more sections.
The surface will be have a choice of being lumpy or conforming to the shape of the natural surface tension (never an ideal shape).

[mekilljoydammit]

Well, if I get to where I have a good port, I'll post it. I need to build infrastructure to evaluate anything I do outside of digital first anyway.

edit: It was to, in my mind, whether to even try with the software tools I have or not, so I might as well try.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Hoosier Pattern has a 15% off sale for 3D printed sand molds.
If you want to make a small number of castings, this can be a good way to go.

https://hoosierpattern.com/news/3d-sand ... al-tooling

[998gp]

This is the base surface of a port (before guide boss and other details are added.
The base surface is one single face created without guide or section curves in NX.
(I modified this surface to show here, I never show clients work or identities)

port_1.jpg

Here you can see the UV grid curves on the surface, these enable you see the parameterization of the surface. Ideally the UV curves will flow smoothly and with shape that follows the flow direction and curvature change.

port_2.jpg

The curves in this images below show the reflection of the lines that would occur if the port were in a spherical room with stripes on the walls. The shape of the curves tell you about the curvature of the surfaces and help the designer to see inflections (unwanted reversals in curvature). These are the same tools used to design automotive body surfaces.
Generally, when I create a surface based on a port scan, I make it close to the scan until the lumps in the shape become evident, then I use the CAD tools to make a high quality smooth shape that isn't possible inside a port with revolving tool.

port_3.jpg
port_4.jpg

This is a reflection of a beach sunset, you can reflect any image that you choose.
port_5.jpg

These are some of the controls for the surface shape.
These controls enable 1,000's of times more control over the shape than section and guide curve controlled surfaces.

port_6.jpg

Here is a video showing the reflections in rotation.
There are many other tools involved in evaluating and adjusting shape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdMz5rV ... e=youtu.be

In the big picture, to do effective work, it is ideal if you can use one software that can do all of the following tasks, using the same files without translation so that any change made to the design files is associatively updated to the downstream processes.
If you do them with care, you can reuse a finished project as a foundation to the next project and add refinement in each cycle. Frankly, if you don't do associative reuse, you won't be competitive or have time to do excellent work.

Design
CFD Analysis
CNC Machining
Tooling Design
Tooling Machining
Fixture Design
Part Machining
Packaging Design

I know this is old but are you using NX Realize shape? Is that similar to Fusion 360's T Spline Form feature?

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I know this is old but are you using NX Realize shape? Is that similar to Fusion 360's T Spline Form feature?

I use XForm it is different than Realize Shape and T-spline in that I make the whole port with a single surface except maybe the valve guide boss.

You could make a perfectly good port with Realize Shape 360's T-spline.

But I would only do that if it was to make a porting model.

To make a casting model you need to use a very strict methodology of freeform surfacing to get the parting lines, draft angles and radii perfect.

[998gp]

I know this is old but are you using NX Realize shape? Is that similar to Fusion 360's T Spline Form feature?

I use XForm it is different than Realize Shape and T-spline in that I make the whole port with a single surface except maybe the valve guide boss.

You could make a perfectly good port with Realize Shape 360's T-spline.

But I would only do that if it was to make a porting model.

To make a casting model you need to use a very strict methodology of freeform surfacing to get the parting lines, draft angles and radii perfect.

Thank you for the response.

By porting model do you mean a port intended for CNC?

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Thank you for the response.

By porting model do you mean a port intended for CNC?

Yes, a smooth surface for porting.

Not useful for a casting design.