Morning,
I'm having an issue when trying to create a conditional subassembly while trying to tie into my existing surface. I'm overlaying a runway with 9" of pcc pavement and within the first 25' off of pavement we can have a min-max slope of -1.50% to -5.00%. We'd like to match in as quick as possible to minimize the dirt work. If we cannot match by the 25' offset with the -5.00% max, then we have to use a min-max of 1.50% to 3.00% beyond that offset throughout the remaining runway safety area. After running the assembly with the -5% slopetosurface subassembly, there are a couple of areas that go beyond our 25' shoulder that will need to be changed to the -3%. The problem I have is that the -5% slope does not stop at the 25' max condition in order for the -3% to begin and then tie into the existing surface. I've enclosed an image of the assembly off the EOP that I'm using. The "Fill 0-25" has a slopetosurface at -5%, and the "Fill 25-9999" has a slopetosurface link at -3%. Any ideas why the initial condition (0-25) is going past the 25' and not allowing the second condition to take effect?
Are you creating your Subaseembly with SAC or code?
Can you post your dwg file?
In case you can't:
Don Ireland
Engineering Design Technician
And does it say Cut or Fill?
One thing that you might try is to change layout width to 30 and see what happens. All the examples I've seen have this number much larger than the Max Width -- I'm not sure why but I'm game if you are.
My duh! The image SAYS fill. That answers that.
Don Ireland
Engineering Design Technician
Any ideas why the initial condition (0-25) is going past the 25' and not allowing the second condition to take effect?
Yes, beacuse Layout Grade and Layout Width have no effect regarding the corridor model.
fcernst wrote:
Any ideas why the initial condition (0-25) is going past the 25' and not allowing the second condition to take effect?
Yes, beacuse Layout Grade and Layout Width have no effect regarding the corridor model.
I was just getting ready to say that I just re-read up on conditional SA. It's been a while since I used them.
Layout Width
Specifies the grade of the line that is drawn to represent this subassembly in
layout mode. This parameter, in combination with the Layout Width parameter,
allows you to position the ConditionalCutOrFill subassembly and subassemblies
that are attached to it, but does not display or have any effect in the corridor
model.
Layout Grade
Specifies the grade of the line that is drawn to represent this subassembly in
layout mode. This parameter, in combination with the Layout Width parameter,
allows you to position the ConditionalCutOrFill subassembly and subassemblies
that are attached to it, but does not display or have any effect in the corridor
model.
The max refers to how high above or below the point the existing ground is.
Don Ireland
Engineering Design Technician
It sounds like you might be better off using a custom SA. You can set one up that will accept a min and max WIDTH then if you can hit the surface within that range using a specified slope, then do so --otherwise use the alternate slope.
Don Ireland
Engineering Design Technician
You can still use the ConditionalCutFill subassembly to test whether you are in cut or fill at the 25' offset mark, then proceed accordingly:
Use generic link subassemblies to shift the conditional test location 25 feet. Test to see ff the depth is greater than 1.25 (25' x 5%). Then on the end of each condition, use generic links to return back 25'.
Read more here: http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-General/Comparison-point-on-conditional-subassemblies...
One scenario that simply testing for cut or fill at 25' @ 5% like I suggested with a ConditionalCutFill SA would fail at, would be if you had a hump in between that you did not want to grade out through, and you were in fill at the 25' offset test point.
Reading the original post I want to be sure that I understand the intent. Starting from the shoulder the section extends outward at -5% until it daylights or reaches 25' from EOP. If it reaches the 25' without daylighting, then it continues at -3% until it daylights, or falls of the edge of the surface.
This is DaylightGeneral. With the Fill1 link is set to -20:1 for 25' and the Flat fill slope set to -33.333/1 it should perform as shown below.
Steve
Please use the Accept as Solution or Kudo buttons when appropriate
I can confirm.
I didn't realize DaylightGeneral had this initial Fill Width funtionality for this problem (Kudos given). This will solve that hump scenario where the cut/fill test at 25' would fail.
I did not try this last scenario and will need to give it a try. I ended up creating a new baseline along the EOP and running out the -5% to determine where it went past the 25' offset. In the areas that went past it I just created a different assembly that went to the 25', then matched from there at the -3%. For the most part, the areas that went past were confined to 2 long areas and so it was pretty easy to designate the regions. This also allows me to basically let the pavement on the runway to be independent so-to-speak from the infield area as they usually need some additional contour tweeking. Thanks for all of the help guys......
Boon's suggestion automates all of this and is easy to set up.
I never use DaylightGeneral because it doesn't have capability to target horizontal and elevation targets which we always need to tie ditches into culverts and bridges.
However it works perfectly for your Fill problem, and I will consider using it for more Fill scenarios now.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.