Looking For Guidance in Pipe Network Workflow

[hestingjj]

Hello. I am working on setting up a standard process for creation of storm drain pipe networks within a design file. The options that have been discussed are as follows:

1) Keep all storm drain pipes/structures in the model in one pipe network.

2) Create separate pipe networks for each drainage basin in the model (Example: If you have a large site with two outfall points, A and B, you would have two separate pipe networks. One network for all pipes and structures draining to outfall A, and another for everything draining to B).

3) Create separate pipe networks for each alignment in the model. This option is my least favorite and seems like it would create far to many networks if you have a large storm drain network.

Any input on the 3 workflows listed above is appreciated. Feel free to add alternative suggestions if I am missing something.

My thoughts are to just keep everything in one network. This allows for easier data referencing to other utility files and keeps the storm drains together. This option was described as being not as effective for the creation of pipe and structure tables. I was told keeping everything in one network would mean that the pipe and structure tables would need to be large and would encompass the entire network, rather than possibly break the tables up by basin or alignment which would be easier to follow.

[MMcCall402]

I've been using option 2.  All structure in system A are prefixed with A, and B with B, etc.

Also, only pipes and structure within the same network can connect to each other.

[hestingjj]

Does breaking up your pipe networks by Basin give you more flexibility in terms of labeling, data referencing, creating tables, etc?

[Anonymous]

It is really a case by case basis depending on your work flow and what your trying to accomplish, and what you need your end product to look like.   maybe it's the same as option 1, but did  you mention having the storm network on it's own drawing separate from the original topo and proposed linework with xref'd versions of each of these as a overlay under the pipe networks?   We use this method and it works fairly well.  As for structure tables, there is always the option to manually select the structures that go into a table instead of picking the entire network.

Good luck to you, and happy quarantine work from home drafting.

[hestingjj]

Thanks for the info! We typically keep the storm drain in a separate file from other utilities unless the job is very small. Like you said, we would then xref overlay any additional drawings needed and data reference the surfaces to the file. Were you saying that you typically use Option 1? I am still leaning towards Option 1. I guess I don't yet see the added benefit/feature of breaking our storm drains into separate networks. If everything is in one network (even if the storm drain lines don't connect somewhere) it seems easier to manage since everything saved together and only one network needs to be synchronized if changes are made. I would be happy to hear about any benefits I am missing by keeping the storm drains all in one network!

[Kevin.Spear]

Context is your answer here. Yes, you can do it multiple ways, but it seems you are looking for an efficient method to either create labels/tables or to analyze and report.

For labels and tables, break it up based on selection methods. Easy to label/table an entire network. Hard to label using manual selections.

For analysis, break it up based on how you want the data presented in the reports (presuming you are exporting networks for analysis). Also, the analysis engine may or may not like everything in one network if they are not physically connected or draining to the same basin.

My 2 cents...

[lynn_zhang]

Hello @hestingjj ,

Did the response from above help answer your question? Let us know if you still need help.

[Sinoj.Ravindran]

Hi,

I have recently done a project with same scenario. 

There were three different break downs to network. I have different outputs in selection method how to break down networks. 

1. All networks together. 

Easy to label everything in one mouse click.

Difficult to manager structure and pipe table for three different break downs.

2. Networks separated.

I have to click three times for labels, that seems not difficult.

Easy to manager structure and pipe tables as its already separated by networks.

3. Create separate Networks for each alignment. 

Never did go for that as it will be eating head in terms of labelling and managing elements.

Dataxref is helpful to bring data into other network drawings but its not working if we are on a revised drawing as in case of road network.

My personal choice is with option 2.

Regards

[MMcCall402]

Option 2 with labeling and network defaults set up to auto-label as they are added to the drawing.

[jae.kwon]

Option 1 is usually best. Storm networks that cannot connect to each other although they do in real life is a real pain if the arse.

[Sinoj.Ravindran · Accepted solution]

Hi Jae, 

That is an expected one or rather say  I missed,

If you have two different outfalls, its better to go with two networks as it will save  your time while creating pipe and structure tables.

I am trying to see these all through an eye of a cad manager not as a designer.

If you got one outfall only and project is divided into different regions, that is a case to think!!

Here, if you go with different networks for regions connection point is an issue as the labels wont show for connecting pipes. But, think about the pipe and structure table.. that will be done in a click as you have already braked networks. And for connecting pipes, we can use a style hidden and label connecting pipes and it wont appear in plots.. 

So, always I choose option 2 to break it down, as a Cad Team.

Regards