Call me lazy (Pressure Pipe Catalog)

[JCyganiak]

Call me lazy but is there somewhere we can purchase a AWWA pressure pipe catalog parts list? The company i work for doesn't have the time or resources to build our own parts. It's great that 2014 comes preloaded with ductal iron pipes and fittings but here in Florida DIP is only used when we cross a road or have separation issues.

[drenaud]

Thanks Joe,

I used to use C3D (and LDT) pipe networks to model water systems in the past and I thought it was fairly straighforward. I had about 3 years away from C3D in production, and tried pressure systems for the first time. It seems really buggy and incomplete. And from reading threads here, it seems like nothing significant has been done to improve it since the release.

I do like how I can curve a pipe horizontally and have it follow a surface at bury depth. However, I had just that situation about 20 minutes ago - a horizontal and vertical curve happening at once. After I edited it in profile to be 6 feet down the horizontal portion of the pipe straightened out into a straight segment - even though there was a grip at the midpoint of the curve where the pipe was supposed to be. I had to delete the pipe and redo it to get it to work.

I am testing C3D for possible implementation department and city wide replacing mstn & Inroads. If this is where it's at, along with the steep learning curve my Inroads users will face for AutoCAD+Civil 3D+Pressure Systems it's going to be a hard sell. Too bad, because mstn/Inroads is a POS. We have to draw everything "by hand," but at least we know where it is going for sure. Unless I can get pipe networks to mimic the way pressure systems to follow curves. I'm gonna try, it seemed way simpler and fool proof than pressure systems from what I recall.

[csevers]

What kind of pipe curves horizontally (or vertically for that matter)?

"I do like how I can curve a pipe horizontally and have it follow a surface at bury depth."

I'm not familiar with this capability, you're using 2014? I don't see any way to accomplish this. Can you point out in the screenshot your procedure?

[gccdaemon]

---

@csevers wrote:

What kind of pipe curves horizontally (or vertically for that matter)?

Ummm...HDPE...lol.

[csevers]

I've never seen a city install curved HDPE water lines. I've also never seen a curved HDPE product that is approved by AWWA. They may bend slightly during installation but it is not designed. Water line bends at the connections, C900, C901, DIP, etc. Can you provide a link to some product brochures?

[gccdaemon]

Most uses of HDPE are going to be force mains for wastewater, not so much water distribution. The application doesn't have to be specifically for city installations either. The samller diameter HDPE (2"-4") are used all the time in private development because of the ability to bend the pipe.

[csevers]

True, but we wouldn't use civil3D to model those. Good point, I wasn't thinking about force mains but I still have never seen a curved force main. I've used 4"-6" HDPE infrequently in private development in situations where I need a bend and can't put in a manhole for whatever reason (cheap client, clearance, etc.), but I highly discourage it. I do mostly facilities site design for industrial clients and public entities so I don't have much experience with private residential development or commercial development where I suspect what you're talking about is more common place.

[drenaud]

we use ductile iron up here in the north. 18 ft lengths, 5%%d allowable deflection at joints; it's warped in along curved streets and profiles. I'm producing plans - the pipe is going in where it goes in. location is not as critical as with gravity systems as long as we maintain minimum depth and separation from other utilities. but it still has to be depicted as following horizontal and vertical curves because that is how we want it installed. I've attached a quick and dirty plan/pro sheet that shows where I have both going on at once. in the plan view the pipe follows CL, but offset. in profile what you see is the results of profile editing having told it to be 6 feet under the surface.

so I'd rather use pipe networks (not pressure pipes) if it is all around simpler and more stable. but I've got to be able to account for this situation as it is quite common around here.

[drenaud]

By the way, I tried to generate a sheet to depict this situation, but when I referenced the pipe network it failed to show it 6 feet down except at the very ends of the pipe segment. it was straight-lined in between two pipe ends (at fittings or whatever). the profile shown in the sheet is in the design drawing where I edited the pipe - i made my own sheet instead of using sheet tools.

so add this "bug" to the bug that straightened out my curved pipe in the plan layout after editing it in profile to be 6 ft. under (as mentioned in earlier post). I'm never going to be able to sell this to the city to adopt if the inconsistencies haven't been ironed out of the routine. users will want to stick with their overall inferior, albeit more comfortable, Inroads.

[drenaud]

I've been involved in force main jobs that the pipe came on big rolls and was layed into the trench and could curve any way you wanted it to. it was still staked for horizontal & vertical location. we used C3D to do the plans, but I wasn't the tech, so I don't know just how it was done.

[drenaud]

Oops, sorry, Chris, I missed your questions regarding curved pipe networks. Using C3D 2015 here.

In plan layout of pressure networks, when drawing a pipe you can enter <C> to draw a curve, the same way as when you draw a polyline for curved segments. <S> straightens it out again.

In the profile pressure network edit, there is a Follow Surface command that will put the end of each 18 ft. pipe at the specified depth below the surface. If the surface profile is curved then so will the pipe be.

In both cases it uses 18 ft. (user definable) sticks of pipe to approximate a curve.

[JCyganiak]

If you create the force main as a polyline and join all of it and can
create a pipe network from object thus having curved pipe with pipe
networks. Then delete the pipe that you faked in to join all the polylines
as 1.

[JCyganiak]

Sounds like HDPE pipe

Joe Cyganiak

Sent from my iPhone

[jpatriquin]

Did you ever find out how to add fittings?

I am also trying to create a pressure network for both water and sewer forcemain. I have figured out how to create fittings and turn them into . CONTENT files but when I try to add a part in the Content Catalog Editor it will only allow me to add pipe not fittings.

[drenaud]

No, not really. the utility that allows me to add parts is broken - something to do with a bad install or what, I don't know. nobody here helped. I am getting a new machine eventually, and with it hopefully a stable install of C3D, so I put everything on hold till then. We use Inroads, and since we have to integrate with several other agencies at the coty, Civl 3D is a test platform. so far, there's been nothing compelling to justify the cost of switching. meanwhile, production goes on with what works.

[Anonymous]

In regards to the original post have you considered contacting Brian Hailey at https://cad-1.com/products/part-builder-library/

inregards to creating fittings there is another post that may help.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-civil-3d-general/pressure-pipe-how-do-i-create-new-fittings-an...

Yes I agree that C3D is not perfect, but there hasn’t been anything compelling in other products, for me anyway.

I started in AutoCAD 1.8 and what I like about the Autodesk products was it ability to customize it.

But that's just me, I enjoy that type of thing. Molding the product to attain efficiency gains that are specific to my industry and geographic area.

There will never be a software that will be able to meet all industries, especially the specific requirements in each geographic area.

Just one humble man’s opinion.

But yes I agree, in some cases Autodesk needs to step up to the plate, and in this case there should have been a compressive pressure pipe catalog, before the release of the tool.

[BrianHailey]

The CAD-1 part builder library is a library of pipe network structures used to model pressure system in the days when there were no pressure networks. The parts DO NOT work with pressure networks.

As for not being able to import a .content file into the content catalog editor, this is a known issue in 2015 (I'm assuming you're using 2015 because it's broken there). The fix can be found HERE.

[jpatriquin]

Yes I am using 2015 version, Thank you that fix worked great.

[nkg2]

OP - I feel your frustration not only from Autodesk content standpoint but the fact that now in three four interations (years) of product releases, that pipe manufacturers like US Pipe, JW Eagle, and ISCO do not provide these catalogues for download.  You are a design engineer, how cool or faster would it be to spec a product linked to the parts list, with full labels, and correct nomenclature.  Tie all of that into list pricing and now you have quantities and pricing all in one.  Take it a step further and list materials properies in the listing too so that when Autodesk gets into pressure hydraulic analysis that the particular pipe's properties are there and either autopopulate those fields or have the ability to link those fields to other hydraulic programs.  Oh and for the record, who set the initial catalogue up as if you look in AWWA C149 does not even exist for DI pipe...where on earth did that come from?

[nkg2]

Another thing that frosts me is that apparently there is a free autodesk app that contains the AWWA catalogue of standards in Plant 3D but for whatever reason there is not one for Civil3d...anyone care to shed some light on this?

[Civil3DReminders_com]

Well when Autodesk did the pressure pipes for Civil 3D they couldn't just take Plant 3D and pluck it into Civil 3D. So they took chunks of Plant 3D objects and used those as a basis to then create the Civil 3D pressure pipes. The problem is I think they just took the properties of the pipes and left out most of the methods and features. I think the thought process was we want Autodesk objects to be the same across products, but since civil people outside of Plants want to design differently we should create our own methods and workflows for Civil 3D. Looks like Autodesk didn't budget enough money or development time to actually implement the features. They did however check the box on the to do list, so pressure pipes then went into the not to be worked on bin, but tell the customers that they are thinking about improving it.

Another issue is Plant 3D uses SQLLite databases to store information for larger projects. I think a program design decision was made they didn't want to bring over the SQLLite features, so we ended up with Plant 3D LT and LT usually means disabled to the point where you'd want to buy the version without the LT. Unfortunately Autodesk doesn't offer a version of Plant 3D that will work with Civil 3D alignments and profiles.

You also now have two forks of code, the Plant 3D code and the Civil 3D implementation. Since I doubt the two teams are using the same code base at Autodesk it now becomes more work to bring them back to the same while keeping the same functionality of both products.

I think they should scrap the Civil 3D pressure pipes, add in the Plant 3D features in Civil 3D and provide a way to add the Plant 3D pipes to profile views and have Plant 3D labels have the ability to show alignment and profile information. 

But then we now have a fundamental difference in how you print out of the products. Plant 3D creates snapshots of the pipes and puts them into sheets that you then label. Where as Civil 3D prints the objects. How do you put the two together?