Conduits and getting the right angles

[BradM-PTS]

After figuring out Autodesk programs for over 23 years, in learning Revit, it's finally stumped me. I'm hoping one of you could help me.  I work in a bit of a niche industry that isn't covered by Revit but find that conduit simulates the 6" tubing with 48" sweeping bends and offsets that we use close enough. The problem I'm having in working with this is I've tried multiple solutions to the same problem but they've both come up with their own questions. 

As you can see in the picture below, for simplicity the top port of the equipment on the left connects to the top of the equipment of the right and so on.

Modeling in 3D I was able to do this with no issue for the first couple, but as I got farther down, I needed sharper angles to complete this in the distance.  I have the conduit angle setting selected for 'use all the available angles' to make a bend, but when I model it in, it'll only slope at 45°.  This, of course, won't work with the space available.  Also, in throwing it into AutoCAD just to make sure, there is plenty of room if it would just use some sharper angles.

So, I tried using a section view to get the angles I needed. Except, as you can see in the picture, when I attach a conduit onto the end of a 90° bend in the section view it would then turn it into a 45°.  I tried using a work plane to see if this would fix the problem but that had no effect. I can't find any reason for why it would do this and therefore can't think of how to remedy the situation. 

If anyone has a solution to both or either of these questions i'd truly appreciate it as i've banged my head against the wall long enough on this one. 

Brad

[iainsavage]

This is likely to be an issue with the bend family that you are using causing it to only allow 45 degrees.

Could you upload the family?

[BradM-PTS]

Sure.  Attached is what's used for everything in the screenshot.  It's a modified version of a standard EMT bend. 

[iainsavage]

I've tried it in a sample project and it seems to work okay:

I'm not familiar with electrical settings but could the minimum bend radius setting be affecting this behaviour?

[Washingtonn]

What are the dimensions both horizontally and vertically at both pieces of equipment?

[Washingtonn]

The following was modeled using AutoCAD with 6.125" outside diameter and 48" sweep radius.  The key was making sure there was sufficient room into and out of each bend with the offset length needed for the required radius. Connections points were assumed.  The 3D model could be imported into Revit at the desired locations.

[craigjonnson]

Have you changed anything in the MEP Settings. Electrical limiting the angles to 45. I would check here.

[BradM-PTS]

The radius settings are set correctly to a 48" radius as that's what's needed for this project. 

Manually drawing it, as you did in your example, it works all day long and it's why i tried to work with it in a section view rather than in the 3D view.  Though, as I showed in that above example, when i connect the conduit onto the existing 90° it then turns the 90 into a 45 and moves it to the right along the X-axis instead of just keeping it flat against the view.   No clue as to why. If i don't connect it to the 90 it goes in fine and i can make my offset but then it's positioned somewhere else in space instead of connected to the end of the 90.

Now, in the 3D view, I'd just been connecting the conduit to the existing 90s at their elevation, extending the line halfway across the gap before entering the destination elevation and connecting it to the other piece of equipment.  At which point, it creates the offset. Sorry if I didn't really explain that out, earlier.  That method was working fine until the bends I needed had to be angled more than 45°.  Except no matter what I try it doesn't seem to offset with anything sharper.  It'll just prevent the offset from going in until I extend the conduit out far enough where it can make the offset with 2) 45s.  Which, by that time, it's past the connection point. 

Honestly, if a solution could be figured out to just one of those two issues, I'd be ecstatic as I can't find a setting or reason behind either, anywhere.

[BradM-PTS]

Hey Washintonn.   Looking at your example it's the same question that I'm inquiring about.  In Revit, while drawing in the 3D view, it doesn't appear to want to make an offset with an angle greater than 45° until it hits 90°

Here's an example below from AutoCAD that I put together of what I'm trying to recreate in Revit. Even if I had to nudge things a little one way or another in Revit to add a little more slack to get it to work within its 'rules' that wouldn't be a problem. There are workarounds, but if it mathematically works in AutoCAD, I would hope that it could be recreated in Revit. It just seems like there has to be something keeping it from not using anything greater than a 45° angle.  

Also, like I mentioned above, that's why I tried to get around it by just manually making the offset in a section view except then I got whatever that was in my original example when i tried to make the offset off the existing 90.

[BradM-PTS]

That was the first thing I checked, but it's setup just as yours is. 

[iainsavage]

What about these snaps - could it be these settings?

[Washingtonn]

Could a possible reason be the need to have a straight segment between your curved segments.  In the picture below, the red arrows point to straight segments - two of the arrows at the bottom of the picture have very short straight segments (0.01" long) but they are there.

I am curious as to why you elected to create the upper option rather than the lower option - which would be much easier to fabricate and has less overall curved length (lower friction loss).

Both runs were created with by populating an Solid Pipe Designer Route Line within AutoCAD 2023

[BradM-PTS]

I was really hoping it was something simple like that.  I did check that...or in this instance, unchecked it.  Unfortunately, neither that or adding multiple angles between 45 and 90 degrees ended up making any difference. 

[BradM-PTS]

Yeah, i thought about that straight piece for a minute as well, but there's still quite a selection of angles it could choose from that would make the span by the software simply adding in a piece of straight.  Although, it seems to not want to make an offset until the line has enough room to specifically allow for a 45° offset. 

This is also for a pneumatic tube system which carriers travel through.  The equipment on the right takes incoming traffic through the top and reroutes it to different system through the bottom, outbound traffic.  Many of these can connect in the software without a problem or be adjusted to, but i'd like to figure out why the few stubborn ones are being that way as it'll likely come up over and over again. 

[iainsavage]

I think the only way to get further help with this would be to upload your model since it seems that there might be something quirky going on, rather than it being a problem with the bend family.

[Washingtonn]

What happens if you eliminate the 45 degree elbow option and add an angle pair like 60/30 or 70/20.

[Washingtonn]

...and/or eliminate the sweep radius to the right side incoming traffic equipment? that might produce some different results. Temporary level setup?

[BradM-PTS]

Definitely something quirky.  I swung back around and messed with it a little more, at least finding a work around.  In a section view, i was able to manually create an offset off the vertical 90 on the right without the 90 turning into a 45 like the horizontal 90s do on the left.

Also, in taking one of the suggestions that was posted, I eliminated the 45° snap off the list of available angles.  Which, on the bright side, led it to finally make an offset in 3d view with something other than a 45.  Oddly though, it wouldn't make the offset until I extended the distance out far enough so that there'd be a couple feet of a straight onto either end of the offset.  I tried playing around with the snap lengths to see if that was part of that issue, but that didn't have any effect.   I could just resize the straight on both sides and readjust the offset back into place where it should, but it just seems like extra steps that shouldn't be there if done correctly.    

[BradM-PTS]

I took 45° off the list which did lead to it using a 60° angle, but unfortunately and for some reason, it wouldn't make the offset without extending out the distance far enough for it put a couple feet of straight on either end.  Like i mentioned to Ian, I could resize the straight on either end and reposition the offset back to where it should be, it just seems like it's a lot of extra steps and maybe that's not the right way. 

On the other side, I was able to manually make an offset in the section view by connecting the line first to the vertical 90 on the right instead of the horizontal one of the left.  No good idea why it liked changing the horizontal 90s to 45s but not the verticals, but I was able to manually create offsets all the way down the line. 

Maybe being in a niche industry that wasn't considered when they were programming the software, having to find workarounds for a number of things is just going to be norm for a while.   I did attach the rvt file in another post if you wanted to take a crack at it and see if i'm glaringly missing something obvious. 

[iainsavage]

One thing I pick up from that last post is that you are modelling elements in the 3D view - that can be pretty hard to control angles accurately and really the only control that you can apply is to hold shift to draw orthogonally in the x-y plane. Even drawing vertically is tricky.

Personally I would use plans and sections to model elements and use the 3D view to visualise the results.