Pipe Networks - Connect to Part issue

[Jay_B]

I have a 18' x 10' special structure where I'd like to be able to connect the pipes as shown to the structure but I'm not aware of any way to force the Connection point of the pipe to the desired location along the structure.

Normal behavior is to connect all pipes to the same insertion point or center of structure.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to go about maintaining pipe connection orientation to reflect the design requirements? Any suggestions are appreciated.

Trapezoidal shaped structure in caption with 4 large pipe connections.

[jmayo-EE]

I have handled this a few ways. No option was perfect.

1. Use multiple stc's to mimic one. Trouble going to hydro apps if these are disconnected.

2. Use small null nonplotting node to create the config u want within the custom stc's boundary and then place a block or a stc from a new network over these for plottong needs. This helps the hydro app but requires some tweaking and blocks need to hide the network.

3. Deal with the center attchment. 😮

[jmayo-EE]

I have also just disconnected the pipes and placed them where I needed but again you will have isues if your going to a hydro app.

[Jay_B]

Thanks John, just using for drafting and conflict checking etc. in this case, sounds like another wish list item.

Fortunately this is an oddity for me but if I had to deal with it on a daily basis as I'm sure many folks do it would be a little frustrating.

Having the option to connect a pipe to user specified locations along structure wall would be a good thing.

Seen several posts re: people wanting the inverts recognized at structure wall vs. center and on a large structure such as this it would really help.

[Anonymous]

When I run into this issue, which seems like often, I will get creative with null structures.  This method seems to work the best for me.

[Joe-Bouza]

I have had some success gripping the pipe end anf forcing it to the wall location and maintaining connection, but the tolerance of the connection point may be too limited for your situation ( my structures considerably smaller

[emelendez · Accepted solution]

I have had 95% success with dragging the ends of the pipes and keeping them attached. The trick I found is in the linework of custom block used. Make sure there is an outline around the entire perimeter of the structure even though you are using some sort of fill hatch pattern or a solid. Also, it normally is a multi step process because when you first create the pipes and structures, the pipes will connect to the insertion point of the block used. You will then need to use the grips from the pipe and adjust the end location of the pipe to be along the edge of the structure. Just make sure you still get the "connect to part" symbol. (you know, the circle with the 4 lines from each quadrant) Attached is a screen shot of a network that I created a custom block for the structure just for this situation. I have done this in both Civil 3D 2012 and 2013.

[Cadguru42]

---

@emelendez wrote:

I have had 95% success with dragging the ends of the pipes and keeping them attached. The trick I found is in the linework of custom block used. Make sure there is an outline around the entire perimeter of the structure even though you are using some sort of fill hatch pattern or a solid. Also, it normally is a multi step process because when you first create the pipes and structures, the pipes will connect to the insertion point of the block used. You will then need to use the grips from the pipe and adjust the end location of the pipe to be along the edge of the structure. Just make sure you still get the "connect to part" symbol. (you know, the circle with the 4 lines from each quadrant) Attached is a screen shot of a network that I created a custom block for the structure just for this situation. I have done this in both Civil 3D 2012 and 2013.

---

That's the way I've handled it, but I've always had problems when I need to move the pipe again. The grips disappear after I do the initial move and I can't ever get the pipe to show it's grips again. The only way I've found to fix is to disconnect the pipe, reconnect the pipe again, then move again. This happened to me on 2011 through 2013. Haven't tried in 2014, yet.

[emelendez]

I too have had some problems with that happening and my reolution is the same as yours. That is why I said "95% success" and not 100%. Although detaching and reattaching is frustrating, it's better than any work around of extra structures and tricking the system to give me what I want.

[losfotos]

I do this all the time. As long as the pipe ends are within the boundary of the structure they will stay "attached". Also, if you grip the end of a pipe and the grips disappear it just means that the end of the pipe you are editing has gone to an elevation of 0. Just use the pipe properties and put the correct elevation back in and the grips will reappear.

[Cadguru42]

---

@losfotos wrote:

I do this all the time. As long as the pipe ends are within the boundary of the structure they will stay "attached". Also, if you grip the end of a pipe and the grips disappear it just means that the end of the pipe you are editing has gone to an elevation of 0. Just use the pipe properties and put the correct elevation back in and the grips will reappear.

---

That does not happen for me. Once I grip move the end of a pipe, leaving it connected, the elevation does reset to 0. I can edit the invert to what I want again, but the grip never shows up again. I've even closed C3D and reopened it and the grip is still gone. 

[losfotos]

Weird. As long as the end of the pipe stays within the structure boundary it stays connected for me. Oh Civil 3D how we love thee. LOL

[mickreynolds]

I generally don't mind trying to trick Civil 3D into doing things it should have been designed to do from the outset, but doesn't.  Unfortunately, I believe the generally accepted "solutions" provided in this and other threads on the topic overlook one VERY important fact about the insertion point of a structure, and the connection points within the structure for the pipes.

The "tricks" presented as a solution doesn't work because we may be changing the insertion point of the block we use to represent the structure in plan view so it reads the correct rim or flowline elevation from a surface and into a label, the actual structure in Part Builder is still inserting itself based on it's own constrained insertion point of the modeled geometry.  This insertion point is MUCH more difficult to change as it must be perfectly constrained to the insertion point in the X, Y, Z planes, and in many cases determined by calculated variables within Part Builder.  Simply moving the pipes to the location where they really would be placed into a structure, but keeping them attached to the structure seems like it works until you really understand what is taking place.

In the attached image, the white outline of the plan view block with the insertion point I would like at the gutter flowline is identified, but the purple outline clearly shows where the actual Part Builder structure is located.  Remember that Civil 3D reads the insertion point information into the label for rim/flowline elevations, and in this case it would be reporting an elevation 2.5' into the street, rather than at the flowline.  Manually adjusting those rim elevations for a large network is a nightmare, and even having to do it for small systems introduces opportunities for errors during the manual data entry process.

I haven't had the opportunity to dig into the new tools for authoring gravity system parts (Inventor/Infraworks), but I would be very curious to know if this problem has been addressed by Autodesk.

[mickreynolds]

I generally don't mind trying to trick Civil 3D into doing things it should have been designed to do from the outset, but doesn't.  Unfortunately, I believe the generally accepted "solutions" provided in this and other threads on the topic overlook one VERY important fact about the insertion point of a structure, and the connection points within the structure for the pipes.

The "tricks" presented as a solution doesn't work because we may be changing the insertion point of the block we use to represent the structure in plan view so it reads the correct rim or flowline elevation from a surface and into a label, the actual structure in Part Builder is still inserting itself based on it's own constrained insertion point of the modeled geometry.  This insertion point is MUCH more difficult to change as it must be perfectly constrained to the insertion point in the X, Y, Z planes, and in many cases determined by calculated variables within Part Builder.  Simply moving the pipes to the location where they really would be placed into a structure, but keeping them attached to the structure seems like it works until you really understand what is taking place.

In the attached image, the white outline of the plan view block with the insertion point I would like at the gutter flowline is identified, but the purple outline clearly shows where the actual Part Builder structure is located.  Remember that Civil 3D reads the insertion point information into the label for rim/flowline elevations, and in this case it would be reporting an elevation 2.5' into the street, rather than at the flowline.  Manually adjusting those rim elevations for a large network is a nightmare, and even having to do it for small systems introduces opportunities for errors during the manual data entry process.

I haven't had the opportunity to dig into the new tools for authoring gravity system parts (Inventor/Infraworks), but I would be very curious to know if this problem has been addressed by Autodesk.

[Joe-Bouza]

---

Remember that Civil 3D reads the insertion point information into the label for rim/flowline elevations, and in this case it would be reporting an elevation 2.5' into the street, rather than at the flowline.  

Hello @mickreynolds

I respectfully disagree. When a block is used to represent the part builder part the Part insertion point is coincident with the insertion point of the the block  used 

Screencast will be displayed here after you click Post.

3c142a07-6ebb-4785-acb5-18e5165fe108

[mickreynolds]

Joseph,

I appreciate your reply Joseph.  With the understanding that we definitely agree that the insertion point of the block coincides with the insertion point of the Part Builder structure, I think we may have a bit of a misunderstanding.  The image I uploaded should have displayed the problem, but apparently it did not, so I will attempt to clarify.  If you move the insertion point of the block representing the structure in plan view to the flowline of a curb and gutter location so the labeled information refers the location information into a dynamic label for a structure (elevation being the most obvious), and the insertion point of the block is NOT in the geometric center of the block (white outline in my posted image) you get matching elevations.  The issue with this is that the outline used for the profile view will not represent correctly as almost all (eccentric parts being the most obvious possible exceptions) are always modeled at the center of the Part Builder structure (purple structure outline in my posted image).  I believe my earlier post was erroneous in pointing out the elevational information would be different, when in fact it would be the same, so good catch.  Where the problem does exist is when the insertion point of the block is at the structures geometric center, but not at the exact location to report flowline/rim elevations.  In this instance, the coincidental insertion point of the block and structure will populate information from a non-relevant location (not on a flowline) into labels.  In addition to this problem, if you choose a flowline location for the insertion point of the block, the part boundary in profile will NOT be accurate, as it will model profile view of the part builder outline in profile, but it may be different since the insertion points of the block and structure don't refer to the same coincidental location.

As a test, take a block representing a structure where you would prefer the insertion point was not at it's center (like a combination inlet), and use it to for your structure plan view.  Once in place, trace the outline of it's position.  Then change the setting of the style to use the structure boundary instead.  You will see the elevation it's reporting should be the same, but the part builder location is different than where the block thinks it is located.

Thanks for the critical feedback, it's greatly appreciated!