Using Tube and Pipe Environment

[emanuel.c]

I have almost zero experience with Tube and Pipe Environment. I would appreciate input on use and workflow on it. Here is an example I am working on:

1. I manually create 3D sketches, which effectively are my routes (Sorry, I can hardly ever get 3D sketches to show fully constrained, even though they are fully constrained. To me, it seems they're asking for directional input. For example, if a line has a dimension then it accepts its position and direction. If it's only equal to another line, then it can obviously go either way, so it's unconstrained though in 2D sketch it de facto locks its direction if it's equal to another line . I try to dimension every line so as to avoid these unconstrained situations on 3D sketches, but they still don't always show fully constrained...)

2. Each line represents a component and I have parameters to account for thread depth, based on an average of min-max NPT thread engagement code.

3. The end product (assembly here) is a combination of Frame Generator, Content Center components and outsourced (downloaded) components. Pipes are frame generated, others are inserted and joined (using offsets from Parameters in the Sketch)

Can I achieve this same goal quicker with Tube and Pipe Environment?

What I care about:

1. Flexibility (be able to easily edit the routes, assembly)

2. BOM workflow: Be able to group items (same part numbers for same pipe sizes and lengths)

3. Can get stock sizes, cut sizes etc. easily from the frame generated components

It's a few days of work here, but I'm willing to learn Tube and Pipe Environment if it's of real advantage. Plumbing (if you will) isn't our core line of work, but it may be useful in the future or even for this project. There are also other electrical / hydraulic lines to be added on the machine as well.

In my experience with Inventor I can say there are situations where one can model quicker (for example mirroring whole assemblies as bodies) but then pay time later in getting correct BOMs, quantities, final drawings etc. Is this one of these situations?

Thank you!

[Gabriel_Watson]

@CGBenner, you might have some wisdom to share on this one...

[Frederick_Law]

If possible, use a few 2D sketches instead of 3D sketch.  It is more stable.

You'll need to test both to see which work better for you.

I only used tube and pipe for illustration and it's quick.

Problem was the fittings were not in library.

[emanuel.c]

Ya, this is probably the biggest issue. There are so many components missing in the content center: unions, only a few valve styles, elbows with female-male ends, limited bushings etc. etc. I would have to add quite a few items to the library.

Yes, totally agree, 2D sketches are much more stable than 3D. There are multiple 3D sketches here (essentially my routes) and they're just quicker than the combination of 2D sketches and extra planes.

[Frederick_Law]

Good thing is IV can route from any circular face.  So I put fittings manually and route the tube.

[emanuel.c]

Yes thanks for the tip. Do you know why Inventor creates a different thread engagement distance on different types of fittings? Every fitting gets it slightly different. In truth, that's what will happen anyway so I suppose it's all good. It's just interesting...

[A.Acheson]

Yes tube and pipe would be much quicker for this work. It will allow you too rotate easily fittings for alignment and engagement etc. I would  build these in logical runs/assemblies that are easy to handle for later break down and shipping. Any fitting to fitting would be best connected together rather than built into the route which is the harder method as each node needs to be spaced exactly per fitting engagement. Use routes for the threaded pipe and just ensure you constrain the routes to included geometry like parallel to workplanes etc.

For the pipes Tube and pipe will perform just like Frame generator where you can either choose to have them all under one part number and have them rolled up or have unique part numbers to be able to seperate out in a cutlist later. There is no reuse  fuctionality but you can simply copy a run(sub assembly)  for example for a left and right and make it adaptive again constraint with insert constraint and alter the fitting orientation.

If your assembly is a full mirror 

then you can derive it out to a part perform the mirror to make the geometry and then insert a copy of the assembly for Bill of materials. The only down side is the in ability to annotate the mirrorred assembly as it is just a part.

For the most part authoring new parts is a little time consuming and getting iparts published into CC. Also you can't use ipart member directly but instead need to use the ipart factory in order to pick up the authoring and use the connection tool. A work around for this is to use joints/constraints but that can be slow and error prone.

[CGBenner]

@emanuel.c 

Since I'm late to the party (as usual), and you've already gotten some good advice, I will just offer some resources that I always offer in these situations for someone looking to learn T&P.  There is a learning curve, and yes... there are only very basic fittings in the Content Center.  There's just too many varieties around the world to include them all, so instead they made it easier to add our own.  SO... check out these AU classes for some tips on getting started and then adding some more advanced techniques.

Going With the Flow with Inventor Tube & Pipe

Increasing the Volume with Inventor Tube & Pipe

A Little less Talk - Inventor Professional Tube & Pipe Demo

Good luck in whichever direction you choose!

[emanuel.c]

@A.Acheson  Thank you for the input.

---

@A.Acheson wrote:

Any fitting to fitting would be best connected together rather than built into the route which is the harder method as each node needs to be spaced exactly per fitting engagement. Use routes for the threaded pipe and just ensure you constrain the routes to included geometry like parallel to workplanes etc.

---

Do you mean, route pipes then insert fitting and connect to the pipe just created then start off again with another route from the fitting just inserted?

[emanuel.c]

@CGBenner  Thank you, I'll look into this. I love the titles and I'm sure they would help me a lot.

[A.Acheson]

What you mentioned is the easiest method. There is a method to place route and insert a node and then place the fitting at the node. Adrian has a great video of this method shown here some nice tricks in there too. It isn't for every piping material but probably works well for pvc. The issue with this method is that everything has to be constrained just so otherwise those little routes will just pull if you update the routes and the constraints aren't perfectly set. 

[emanuel.c]

Thank you for your input and the link to the video!