Welcome to MCAD Central

Join our MCAD Central community forums, the largest resource for MCAD (Mechanical Computer-Aided Design) professionals, including files, forums, jobs, articles, calendar, and more.

Register Log in

Cut Depth Problem


New member
I have a part that is cylindrical in shape (made from a toroidal bend)
that has a series of patterned cuts along the circumference of
it. These cuts are cut into the flat surface before it is
bent. If you were to look at the side profile of these cuts, the
depth of them changes lineraly from .006 at one end to .016 at the
other. They are 9.244 long, and 0.5 wide. I have them all
setup exactly as I want.

However, there in lies the problem!

When I use the analysis
feature to check the depth of these cuts (after the part is bent) it
shows that they are .011 deep in all areas. Interesting enough,
this just happens to be the average
depth! Why does this occur? If I check the depth before the
part is bent, then it matches up with the sketched profile. I am
totally confused! To make matters even more confusing (at least
for me) if I change the depth on the one end to .019, then they do in
fact match the profiles I sketched. Anything less that .019
though results in them being the average depth. Also, I have
experimented with various accuracy values from .0001 Relative to .00001
Absolute and just about everything in between.


New member
Try using different analysis - distance between surfaces, points, edges, etc..

You might upload an image to clarify your problem.


New member
Alright, here goes...

The detail in sketcher was too hard to see, so I made a (somewhat
crude) drawing in MS Paint. The cut profile should look like the
top image (and in fact does, before adding the toroidal bend), and
should be patterned around the cylinder as shown at the bottom of the

View attachment 1095

When measuring before adding the bend (actually with it supressed) I get these measurements:

View attachment 1096 View attachment 1097

After the bend, however, I get the following measurements:

View attachment 1098View attachment 1099View attachment 1100

Sorry about the HUGE post, but does everyone understand the problem now? How can I correct this?


New member
I now understand but don't have any suggestions. As, you previously stated,the problemis probablyin relative or absolute accuracy.


New member
Thanks for trying! Anyone else have any ideas or suggestions?

The thing that really has me confused that tends to make me think that
it's not an accuracy problem is that when I increase the .016
measurement to .019 the cuts are the actually .006 on one end and .019
on the other.