Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Slope Stationing Alignments?

15 REPLIES 15
Reply
Message 1 of 16
jasonreese7713
2397 Views, 15 Replies

Slope Stationing Alignments?

I know this has been brought up before and would like to know if anyone has found a way to label the slope stationing rather than horizontal stationing? This is common when doing long pipeline projects (40 miles) or more in very steep terrain. I am doing one now that is only 1 mile and the 2D verses 3D length is a difference of 100'. 40 miles that would mean it would be off 4000'. The client uses this stationing as a guide to know how much pipe they need. If you would do that horizontally that would be way off the mark.

 

Any updates would be great. I am using Civil 3D 2010? Maybe its included in 2012 or could that possibly be an option for future releases since it is a 3D software.

 

Thanks in Advance.

15 REPLIES 15
Message 2 of 16
sboon
in reply to: jasonreese7713

The new 2013 software now includes pressure pipes, with the ability to follow an existing profile line.  I'm wondering if there might be a way to label the length along that pipe, instead of the alignment length.

Steve
Expert Elite Alumnus
Message 3 of 16
Sinc
in reply to: jasonreese7713

Kind of an interesting question, for our entire industry.

 

To a large extent, "slope stationing" (as you call it) is a useless way to use stationing.  But I can see how you would care about that from a materials point-of-view.  So it seems more like a QTO thing to me...  We should have an ability to do this via QTO.  I think that would be far more useful, in a general sense, than "slope stationing".

 

This might actually be something we can do via third-party support in something like the Sincpac-C3D, without needing to completely revamp all the core Alignment functionality in C3D.  We'll add it to our ever-growing list of things to check into...

Sinc
Message 4 of 16
Sinc
in reply to: jasonreese7713

<oops - withdraw this comment>

Sinc
Message 5 of 16

Sinc,

 

I have a 100' difference in 1 mile, a 40 mile project I could be off 4000'

Message 6 of 16
Sinc
in reply to: jasonreese7713

Yep, sorry, I made an error.  You must have seen that comment before I withdrew it.

 

I can understand how an extra (almost) mile of pipe would be significant.  But that's why I think this is a QTO issue.  Trying to use something like "slope stationing" is what I would think of as an error.  It would lead to so many complications during construction that even-bigger errors are the most-likely result, at least in my opinion.  So I don't think "slope stationing" is a good answer.  It should be a QTO thing.

Sinc
Message 7 of 16
jasonreese7713
in reply to: Sinc

Ok thought I would ask the question. I do use an alignment sheet generation software designed specifically for pipeline projects as this is what the client recommends using and it has an option to select slope stationing based on a 3D polyline. I was just curious if C3D had the same option.

 

Thanks

Message 8 of 16
Wilderman2
in reply to: jasonreese7713

There is a similar argument to be made in highway stationing if there are significant grade changes; the plan, or 2D quantity for asphalt, base, etc... will be significantly less than the true 3D quantitity.  Rather than mess with the QTO nightmares, I've just created a finish grade profile, exploded it to a polyline, and measured the 3D length.  C3D will label 3D length for pipes; this is easily reportable, but I'm not aware of a method to station along the slope without a lot of hand work.  For example, you could create a profile along the EG surface, explode to a polyline, measure (or divide) the polyline in 100 ft or meter increments, and create the stations by hand.  Might be easier just to list the 3D length for each sheet or per 10 stations.

Message 9 of 16
sboon
in reply to: jasonreese7713

I have to agree with Sinc on this.  An alignment is supposed to be a reference line, to help people locate the design on the ground.  It terrifies me even to imagine a contractor working from a plan view drawing where the alignment stations are actually 3d lengths, and I have no idea how the surveyor would be able to lay it out.

Steve
Expert Elite Alumnus
Message 10 of 16
Sinc
in reply to: Wilderman2


@Wilderman2 wrote:

There is a similar argument to be made in highway stationing if there are significant grade changes; the plan, or 2D quantity for asphalt, base, etc... will be significantly less than the true 3D quantitity.  Rather than mess with the QTO nightmares, I've just created a finish grade profile, exploded it to a polyline, and measured the 3D length.  C3D will label 3D length for pipes; this is easily reportable, but I'm not aware of a method to station along the slope without a lot of hand work.  For example, you could create a profile along the EG surface, explode to a polyline, measure (or divide) the polyline in 100 ft or meter increments, and create the stations by hand.  Might be easier just to list the 3D length for each sheet or per 10 stations.


What highway will EVER notice the difference...?  Even at a 10% grade, the difference is 0.5%.  Do you really think your quantity estimates are anywhere near this range of accuracy?

 

I can understand it being a bigger issue for pipes, where you may have grades well-over 30%.  But a highway...?  It reminds me of people who are worried that a 10 mile segment of highway was designed in grid, and then when they bring it up to ground, it's 24' longer than plan (and yes, this was a real argument I got into at one point)....  24' over 10 miles...?  Is that really worth worrying about?

 

And in any case, the whole idea behind using our 2.5D paradigm is that it GREATLY simplifies so many aspects of construction and land usage.  If we start getting away from that, and going to stationing that is measured in 3D, then it opens a whole can of worms.  Just like using 3D splines in construction design.  I really don't think we want to go there.  It would create too many nightmares.

 

QTO in C3D is still a mess, I know, and is far too complicated to setup.  But I think that problem is FAR easier to fix than moving to "slope stationing".

Sinc
Message 11 of 16

I agree with you guys that it should be for reference only. But the client that I am working for and we have worked for them in the past uses slope stationing, Even when we receive the survey they locate the stationing on the existing pipe that will be replaced and the statioing is slope stationing. But I agree it would make my life alot easier if I could do it as 2D. I always pull a profile of the alignment or if I have survey points with elevetions of CL of pipe I will draw a feature line snapping to the survey points so it picks up the elevations to get my material take-off or 3D length.

 

 

Jason

Message 12 of 16
Wilderman2
in reply to: Sinc

Sinc-

A 0.5% difference in a mile of hot mix asphalt is $5,000 per lane for the thin lifts we use arouind here.  It adds up.

Message 13 of 16
Sinc
in reply to: Wilderman2

vs. how much total?

 

Reminds me of the arguments in areas like NYC, where a 0.01' difference in a lot measurement makes some lawyer think they can sue for millions of dollars, because they can then multiply that artificial number by the cost/ft^2.

 

But then again, I'm a Land Surveyor by training, so we understand that creating unnecessary legal waves is not our job, when the root cause falls basically within standard error.  And we keep trying to push back on others this fact, whether they are Engineers, Lawyers, or others.  And when you can't even estimate quantities prior to a job anywhere near within 0.5%, it's ridiculous to view it as signiificant because your software spits out that number.

Sinc
Message 14 of 16
sboon
in reply to: Wilderman2

Following that logic you should be adjusting the lane width to allow for the standard crossfall, and if there are a significant lengths of superelevation then you would have to individually adjust at each section.

 

We can design things to the millimeter and the surveyors can lay them out to the centimeter but at the end of the day it's going to be built to the width of an excavator bucket, plus or minus.  There are a lot of factors affecting quantities used in construction and almost none of them are within our control.

Steve
Expert Elite Alumnus
Message 15 of 16
savon
in reply to: jasonreese7713

Is there anything new on this topic that anyone has found out?  Basically I have a very similar problem...Long distance pipeline in steep terraine.  The client wants both Horizontal Stationing (HS) and Pipeline Stationing (PS) in one label.  I know that people argue (myself included) about the validity of having true length stationing but it doesn't matter much if thats what the client wants to pay for.

 

The one way I have been able to solve this on relatively small projects (5-6 miles) is tracing over the vertical profile with a horizontal alignment and using reference text in the label style.  I have tried pressure pipe networks (2015) but it is no where near what it needs to be in order to be useful. 

Message 16 of 16

I have your problem too, I'm designing 650 km right of way of pipeline & its necessary to tag slope stations in clients typical drawing. you can label slope length of profile in vertical geometry points by profile band but i couldn't find any option to label slope station. if you find it please help me
thanks

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report