Autodesk Fusion 360 Quiz: Fillet And Chamfer

10 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Fillet And ChamferQuestion 1 of 10

A molded housing has a top boundary made from three consecutive edges. The first straight edge meets an arc tangentially. The arc then meets a second straight edge at a visible corner. In the Fillet command, Tangent Chain is enabled and only the first straight edge is selected.

Which edges should Fusion include in the fillet selection?

Only the first straight edge, because Tangent Chain does not cross an edge junction.

The first straight edge and the arc, stopping where the visible corner begins.

All three edges, because Tangent Chain continues through any connected boundary.

Only the arc and second straight edge, because propagation begins after the selected edge.

← Back to quizzes

Autodesk Fusion 360 Quiz

Autodesk Fusion 360 Quiz: Fillet And Chamfer

Practice Fillet And Chamfer in Autodesk Fusion 360 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Fillet And Chamfer, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Autodesk Fusion 360.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Which edges should Fusion include in the fillet selection?

Only the first straight edge, because Tangent Chain does not cross an edge junction.
The first straight edge and the arc, stopping where the visible corner begins. (correct answer)
All three edges, because Tangent Chain continues through any connected boundary.
Only the arc and second straight edge, because propagation begins after the selected edge.

Explanation: When working with Fusion 360's Fillet command, the Tangent Chain option is the key concept being tested here. Tangent Chain automatically propagates your fillet selection along edges that meet tangentially — meaning smoothly, with no visible break or corner. The moment the chain encounters a sharp, non-tangent junction (a visible corner), propagation stops. In this scenario, the first straight edge meets the arc tangentially — a smooth, continuous transition. So Tangent Chain extends the selection from the first straight edge onto the arc. However, the arc meets the second straight edge at a visible corner, which is a non-tangent junction. That break in curvature continuity acts as a stop signal. The fillet selection therefore includes the first straight edge and the arc, but goes no further — making B the correct answer. Choice A is wrong because it misunderstands Tangent Chain entirely — the option does cross edge junctions, as long as those junctions are tangent. Choice C is incorrect because Tangent Chain does not propagate through any connected boundary indiscriminately; it specifically halts at non-tangent (sharp corner) transitions. Choice D has the propagation direction backwards — selection always includes the originally clicked edge and extends outward from it, never skipping past it. A useful rule of thumb: think of Tangent Chain as a "smooth road" traveler. It keeps going as long as the path is smooth, but it parks the moment it hits a sharp turn. When a question describes edge connections, always identify which junctions are tangent and which are sharp before predicting where the chain stops.

Question 2

A consumer-product enclosure already has smooth, curved exterior faces. A new fillet must blend into those faces without an obvious change in curvature under reflected light. The fillet radius and selected edges are otherwise acceptable.

Which continuity setting best addresses the visible transition?

Use positional continuity because shared boundaries alone eliminate reflection changes.
Use tangent continuity, $G^1$ , because matching direction also guarantees matching curvature.
Use curvature continuity, $G^2$ , so direction and curvature transition more smoothly. (correct answer)
Use Tangent Chain because selecting neighboring edges automatically creates curvature continuity.

Explanation: When designing high-quality consumer products in Fusion 360, reflective surfaces reveal surface quality problems that flat renders hide. A "reflection break" — that harsh line you see under studio lighting — signals a curvature discontinuity at a surface boundary. Understanding the three geometric continuity levels helps you choose correctly here. Surface transitions are classified by what they match across a boundary:

G^0

(positional) shares only a common edge,

G^1

(tangent) also matches surface direction, and

G^2

(curvature) additionally matches the rate of curvature change. Each level up produces a smoother visual transition under reflective conditions. Curvature continuity,

G^2

, is the right choice here. When the existing exterior faces already have smooth, flowing curvature and the requirement is to eliminate visible reflection changes, matching curvature — not just direction — across the fillet boundary is what prevents that telltale highlight break. This makes C correct. A is wrong because positional continuity (

G^0

) only guarantees no gap — surfaces can still meet at a sharp angle, creating an obvious crease in reflections. B contains a critical misconception: tangent continuity (

G^1

) matches surface direction, but direction-matching alone does not guarantee matching curvature. Two surfaces can share a tangent yet have very different rates of curvature, still producing reflection discontinuities. D is wrong because Tangent Chain is an edge-selection tool that chains adjacent edges for convenience — it has nothing to do with setting the mathematical continuity type of the fillet itself. As a study tip, remember: the higher the surface quality requirement (especially under reflective light), the higher the continuity level you need — and

G^1

does not imply

G^2

Question 3

A fillet follows an edge whose adjacent-face angle changes along its length. With a constant-radius fillet, the apparent width of the blend varies more than the design allows. The designer wants the cross-sectional chord of the blend to remain consistent.

Which Fillet radius type should be used?

Use Constant Radius and enable Tangent Chain to equalize the visible blend width.
Use Chord Length so the blend is controlled by a consistent cross-sectional chord. (correct answer)
Use Variable Radius with identical endpoint values to force a constant face angle.
Use Setback so the fillet width remains constant along the entire selected edge.

Explanation: When working with fillets in Fusion 360, it helps to recognize that the radius and the chord are different measurements. The radius controls the geometric curve itself, while the chord is the straight-line distance across the blend's cross-section — essentially how wide the fillet appears to span between the two adjacent faces. When an edge's adjacent-face angle changes along its length, a constant radius produces a visually inconsistent blend width because the chord varies as the dihedral angle changes. Chord Length is the correct radius type here. By specifying a fixed chord value, Fusion 360 automatically adjusts the underlying radius along the edge so that the visible cross-sectional span of the blend stays uniform throughout — exactly what the design requires. That makes B the right answer. Looking at the distractors: A is tempting because Tangent Chain does help propagate a fillet across connected edges, but it does nothing to normalize the apparent blend width when face angles vary — the radius stays constant, so the chord still fluctuates. C sounds clever, but setting identical endpoint values in Variable Radius only anchors the radius at the two ends; between those points the face-angle variation still causes inconsistent chord widths, and you haven't actually solved the root problem. D confuses two different fillet concepts — Setback controls how a fillet behaves at a vertex where multiple edges meet, not how width is managed along a single edge. As a study tip: whenever a question mentions visual blend width or cross-sectional span varying in an unwanted way, that's your cue to think Chord Length, not Constant Radius.

Question 4

A machined plate requires a chamfer on one perimeter edge. The two newly created boundary edges of that chamfer must then receive small fillets. The final model must preserve this sequence in the timeline.

Which workflow most directly creates the intended geometry?

Create the fillet first on the original edge, then chamfer the fillet's center boundary.
Create the chamfer first, then fillet the two new edges bordering its sloped face. (correct answer)
Select the original edge in both commands before creating either timeline feature.
Apply one variable fillet to the original edge and use its endpoints as chamfer controls.

Explanation: When working in Fusion 360's parametric timeline, operation order matters. Each feature references the geometry that exists at the moment it's created, so you must build geometry in a logical sequence where earlier features produce the edges that later features consume. Here, the chamfer must come first because it's the chamfer's sloped face that generates the two new boundary edges you want to fillet. Once you create the chamfer, those two edges exist as real, selectable geometry. You can then apply fillets to them as a subsequent timeline step. This is exactly what B describes — chamfer first, then fillet the two new bordering edges — and it's the only workflow that naturally produces the intended geometry in the correct sequence. A inverts the logic entirely. Filleting the original edge first rounds it, and you'd then be chamfering a curved surface — you'd never cleanly get the flat chamfer face with two distinct sharp edges to fillet afterward. C is a misconception about how parametric features work. You cannot pre-select an edge for two separate, not-yet-created features simultaneously. Each command captures its edge selections at creation time; the second feature still needs edges that only exist after the first runs. D describes a single variable fillet, which produces a rounded surface — not a flat chamfer face at all. Fillet endpoints don't serve as chamfer controls; these are entirely different geometric operations. A reliable strategy: whenever a question describes a geometry sequence, ask yourself "which feature creates the edges the next feature needs?" That dependency chain tells you the correct order.

Question 5

A single constant-radius fillet feature includes six edges. A radius of $5\text{ mm}$ works on five edges, but the feature fails because one edge is close to a narrow wall and cannot support that radius. The five acceptable edges must remain at $5\text{ mm}$ .

What is the most robust introductory-level correction?

Reduce the shared radius until all six edges succeed in the original selection set.
Change the failed operation to a chamfer while keeping all six edges selected together.
Enable Tangent Chain so Fusion automatically removes the edge causing the failure.
Separate the constrained edge into another fillet feature and assign it a smaller radius. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a fillet feature fails in Fusion 360, the instinct is often to fix it by adjusting the whole feature — but the smarter approach is to isolate the problem. Fillet failures are almost always caused by geometry conflicts on specific edges, not the entire selection set. When you see a question like this, ask yourself: can I separate the problematic edge without disrupting the rest? That's exactly what option D does. By moving the constrained edge into its own fillet feature, you assign it a smaller radius that fits within the narrow wall geometry, while the original five edges keep their

5\text{ mm}

radius untouched. Two features, two radii, zero failures — this is the standard workflow for handling mixed-constraint fillet scenarios in Fusion 360. Option A forces you to reduce the radius on all six edges, violating the requirement that the five successful edges stay at

5\text{ mm}

. That's a direct contradiction of the problem's constraints. Option B switches to a chamfer, which changes the entire character of the geometry — a chamfer is a flat cut, not a rounded edge, and applying it to all six edges doesn't solve the radius conflict; it sidesteps it inappropriately. Option C misunderstands what Tangent Chain does: it automatically adds edges that are tangentially connected, it doesn't selectively remove a failing edge from the selection set. A useful rule of thumb: whenever one edge in a fillet fails but the rest succeed, split the feature. Fusion 360 treats each fillet feature independently, so isolating the difficult edge is always a clean, non-destructive solution.

Question 6

While editing a chamfer, a designer attempts to select a partially obscured edge. A nearby edge from another body is repeatedly highlighted instead, and hiding that second body is undesirable because it is needed for context.

Which workflow most directly selects the intended edge without changing model visibility?

Use Select Other at the overlapping location and choose the intended edge from the candidates. (correct answer)
Enable Tangent Chain so Fusion transfers the selection to the edge behind the visible body.
Increase the chamfer distance until the obscured edge becomes the nearest selectable entity.
Select the nearby body first and convert all of its perimeter edges into the chamfer set.

Explanation: When working in Fusion 360, crowded viewports often make precise edge selection frustrating — edges from different bodies overlap visually, and Fusion highlights whichever geometry sits closest to your cursor. Questions like this test whether you know Fusion's built-in disambiguation tools rather than workarounds that change your model setup. The right move here is Select Other (A). When you right-click at the ambiguous location, Fusion presents a small pop-up list of all selectable entities beneath your cursor — edges, faces, and bodies — letting you scroll through candidates and click exactly the one you need. No visibility changes, no model edits, no parameter adjustments. It's a direct, non-destructive selection tool designed precisely for this overlapping-geometry scenario. B is wrong because Tangent Chain is a selection modifier that extends a selection along a tangent path of connected edges — it doesn't "transfer" selection depth through obscuring geometry. It has no ability to reach behind another body. C is wrong because increasing the chamfer distance is a geometric change to your model, not a selection technique. It also doesn't guarantee the obscured edge becomes more accessible and could corrupt your design intent entirely. D is wrong because selecting an entire body and converting all perimeter edges adds far more geometry to the chamfer set than intended. This is a blunt approach that creates extra work and potentially breaks the feature. Study tip: Memorize Select Other (right-click → Select Other) as your go-to tool whenever Fusion selects the wrong entity in a dense area — it's one of the most practical precision-selection tools on the exam and in real workflows.

Question 7

Three selected edges converge at one solid corner. A standard rolling-ball fillet produces a corner patch that is too bulbous. The designer wants the three fillets to terminate short of the vertex and transition through a more controlled corner region.

Which corner treatment is most appropriate?

Use a Setback corner treatment to control where the fillets terminate near the shared vertex. (correct answer)
Use Tangent Chain to extend each fillet beyond the vertex onto neighboring edges.
Use Chord Length to replace the bulbous corner patch with a planar chamfered region.
Remove one of the three selected edges so only two fillets meet at the vertex.

Explanation: When working with fillets in Fusion 360, the corner treatment option controls how three or more fillets behave where they meet at a shared vertex. The default rolling-ball method blends all three fillets into a single smooth patch, which can look overly round or "bulbous" on sharp, prominent corners. Recognizing which corner treatment addresses geometry control near a vertex is exactly what this question tests. Setback (answer A) is the correct choice because it lets you pull each fillet back a specified distance from the shared vertex, creating a distinct triangular transition zone between the three fillet terminations. This gives you direct control over how far each fillet extends toward the corner and produces a cleaner, more intentional corner region — precisely what the designer needs here. Answer B, Tangent Chain, is a selection behavior, not a corner treatment. It automatically includes edges that are tangentially connected to your selected edge, expanding your selection rather than shaping the corner geometry. Confusing selection options with corner treatment options is a common trap. Answer C, Chord Length, defines how the fillet width is measured (across the chord rather than along the surface), affecting fillet shape along an edge — it doesn't replace or restructure the corner patch into a chamfered region. Answer D is a workaround, not a solution. Removing an edge changes your design intent entirely and doesn't actually use any corner treatment — it just avoids the problem. A useful study tip: in Fusion 360's Fillet dialog, always distinguish between measurement type options (Chord Length, Arc Length), selection options (Tangent Chain), and true corner treatment options (Setback, Rolling Ball) — exam questions often blend these categories to test whether you know each option's actual function.

Question 8

An equal-distance chamfer of $4\text{ mm}$ is applied to an edge where two planar faces meet at $90^\circ$ . The chamfer offsets the boundary by $4\text{ mm}$ along each original face.

Approximately what width will be measured across the resulting sloped chamfer face, from one new boundary edge to the other?

$2.83\text{ mm}$ , because the entered distance is the chamfer-face diagonal.
$4.00\text{ mm}$ , because equal-distance chamfers always retain the entered face width.
$5.66\text{ mm}$ , because the face width is the diagonal of equal setbacks. (correct answer)
$8.00\text{ mm}$ , because the two setback distances are added directly.

Explanation: When a chamfer cuts across a 90° corner with equal setbacks, you're essentially creating a right triangle on each side — and the chamfer face itself becomes the hypotenuse of that geometry. This is a Pythagorean theorem problem hiding inside a CAD question. Here's the core reasoning: with a

4\text{ mm}

equal-distance chamfer at a 90° edge, the tool offsets

4\text{ mm}

along each of the two original faces. Those two setbacks form the two legs of a right triangle, where the chamfer face is the hypotenuse. Applying the Pythagorean theorem:

w = \sqrt{4^2 + 4^2} = \sqrt{32} \approx 5.66\text{ mm}

This confirms C is correct — the actual width across the sloped chamfer face is approximately

5.66\text{ mm}

. A gets the math backwards:

\sqrt{4^2 + 4^2} \approx 5.66

, not

2.83

. The value

2.83

would come from

\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}

, which has no meaningful role here. B confuses the setback distance with the face width — the

4\text{ mm}

value describes how far back each original face is trimmed, not the width of the new chamfer surface itself. D simply adds the two setbacks (

4 + 4 = 8

), which would only be valid if the faces were coplanar and the chamfer ran flat — ignoring the diagonal geometry entirely. Your study tip: whenever you see "equal-distance chamfer" on a 90° edge, immediately think 45-45-90 triangle. The chamfer face width is always the setback distance multiplied by

\sqrt{2}

Question 9

A designer creates a two-distance chamfer on an edge shared by Face A and Face B. The first distance is $3\text{ mm}$ and the second is $7\text{ mm}$ , but the preview places the $7\text{ mm}$ setback on the wrong face. The parameter values must retain their current assignments.

What is the most appropriate correction within the Chamfer command?

Use Flip to reverse which adjacent face receives each distance assignment. (correct answer)
Select the edge near its opposite endpoint to reverse the edge's selection direction.
Change to equal distance and enter the average of the two current distances.
Enable Tangent Chain so Fusion reevaluates the two adjacent face directions.

Explanation: When working with two-distance chamfers in Fusion 360, you need to understand that each distance value is assigned to a specific adjacent face — the chamfer cuts

3\text{ mm}

back from one face and

7\text{ mm}

back from the other. The question tests whether you know how to correct a face assignment mismatch without altering the parameter values themselves. The Flip option (A) is exactly the right tool here. It swaps which adjacent face receives each distance assignment — the

3\text{ mm}

setback moves to the face currently holding

7\text{ mm}

, and vice versa. The values stay identical; only their face associations are reversed. This directly solves the problem the passage describes, since the constraint is that parameter values must not change. Answer B is tempting but incorrect — reselecting the edge near its opposite endpoint changes edge selection direction, which affects tangent chains and edge traversal, not which face receives which chamfer distance. It doesn't solve a face assignment problem. Answer C contradicts the scenario entirely: averaging the two distances to create an equal chamfer changes the parameter values, which the passage explicitly prohibits. Answer D, enabling Tangent Chain, controls whether adjacent tangent edges are included in the chamfer operation — it has no effect on reassigning distances between the two faces of an already-selected edge. As a study tip, remember that Flip in Fusion 360's chamfer dialog is specifically designed for face-assignment corrections on asymmetric chamfers. Whenever a preview shows the correct shape but on the wrong side, Flip is your first move — not re-entering values or reselecting geometry.

Question 10

Four disjoint edges must be rounded in one Fillet command. Two edges require a constant radius of $2\text{ mm}$ , and the other two require a constant radius of $5\text{ mm}$ . No individual edge should vary along its length.

How should the edge selections be organized?

Place all four edges in one selection set and enter the average radius.
Use one variable-radius set and assign alternating values to consecutive endpoints.
Create separate selection sets, assigning one constant radius to each edge group. (correct answer)
Enable Tangent Chain and let Fusion infer the radius from each edge length.

Explanation: When working with the Fillet command in Fusion 360, the key concept being tested is how the tool organizes multiple edges with different radius requirements. Fusion 360's Fillet dialog allows you to build multiple selection sets within a single command, each carrying its own constant radius value — this is the workflow you should reach for whenever edges fall into distinct radius groups. Since two edges need

2\text{ mm}

and two edges need

5\text{ mm}

, the correct approach is C: create two separate selection sets inside the same Fillet command, assigning

2\text{ mm}

to the first group and

5\text{ mm}

to the second. Fusion applies each set's radius independently, so all four edges are filleted in one operation without any edge varying along its length. Choice A is tempting but wrong — entering an average of

3.5\text{ mm}

would give every edge the incorrect radius, satisfying neither requirement. Choice B misunderstands variable-radius fillets entirely; that mode lets a single edge transition between different radii at its own endpoints, which is the opposite of what "no individual edge should vary" means. Choice D misidentifies what Tangent Chain does — it automatically expands the selection to adjacent tangent edges, but it does not infer or assign radius values from edge geometry. A useful pattern to remember: whenever a Fillet question describes edges with different but constant radii, think "multiple sets, one command." Fusion 360 is designed so you never need to run separate Fillet commands just because radius values differ across edge groups.