Folks:
I have created several inlet nodes by which the flowline of the Top Node minus the flowline of the Bottom Node= 2'-8" (standard depth for the type of inlet I am using). When I place the nodes by themselves, they display with this correct dimension. However, when I run a conduit between them, this minimum depth elevation automatically changes by adding the width of the wall plus the diameter of the pipe (with the case of this particular inlet with an 18" pipe, SUDA adds 1.5' + 2.5"= 1.7083' for an invert elevation of 4.375' (where the Top of Grate elevation is assumed as 0')). As well, I do have my feature definition for this node set at a default height= 0.
I can- of course- subtract the pipe width and diameter from the invert elevation and arrive at the default minimum depth and the node displays correctly, but such is quite cumbersome. I would like for the default flowline for the pipes to be set at the minimum depth of my SUDA inlet cells; at least for an initial layout.
Certainly such is possible? Is there a configuration variable for this matter, possibly?
Mark
Hey Mark:
I'll try to carve out some time here to retest this workflow on my side, but I am hoping you are on an older release.
The issue you describe was indeed a problem on 2018 R4, but appeared fixed in 2019 R1 (or was it R2?)
In addition to the specific issue you describe, I also would experience some nodes which would suddenly go VERY deep when connecting a pipe. Similar to what you describe except instead of the pipe diameter and thickness being added it would always force the node to 8.71 feet height. Again, my testing of some months ago indicated that these were fixed.
I did find a workaround while having the problem. If I used the feature definition pipe tables instead of conduit catalog then the problem was not seen. This is controlled by config variable SUDA_USE_HAESTAD_CONDUIT
Robert Garrett Senior Consultant
www.envisioncad.com
Answer Verified By: Mark Plum
Robert:
As usual, you are the master of all things SUDA. I changed the configuration variable value, and it seems to now work across all inlets. My questions are now: why does the default value not work, and does the change of this value alter any other things which may be unforeseen? I am using 2019 R2, BTW (10.07.01.32).
Thanks so much!
Phooey, I am on the same version, but thought i had successfully tested that this was fixed. Think I better test again.
What are the other side effects? Well first a bit of history: SUDA is a combo of OpenRoads technology and StormCAD technology as you know. ORD has conduit feature definitions while StormCAD has Catalogs. Back in SS4, the FD and catalog worked in tandem. You first lay out the drainage network using the sizes in the FD but after a calculation run the catalog drove the pipe size. This was a temporary expediency on the path of merging the two technologies. You can still work this way in ORD by setting the config variable to zero as discussed. The down side is that you must maintain two separate conduit size tables, plus some oddities in the Element Information display of pipe size after a hydraulic calculation.
In ORD, Bentley started closing the gap between the two technologies by adding this config variable with a default of 1. Thus, my drainage and sanitary conduits do not need any size table at all. The StormCAD catalog is always used. Systems which are not gravity fed still use the size table on the feature definition. This is a better system except for the bug you report and has me worried all over again.
By the way, I recently ran into a workspace challenge with this variable because it an all or nothing proposition. IN my world I need hydraulic calcs on drainage but not on sanitary. Add to this the fact that my client wants separate libraries for drainage and sanitary left me with a big challenge, which I have not fully formulated a solution. I have asked and Bentley has filed an enhancement such that each feature definition can be defined individually to use conduit catalog or not, rather than the all or nothing approach of the variable.
What concerns me about MY models is that there is a chance my nodes may not be defined correctly (those pesky construction objects). Given the fact that they seem to work well when placing them individually and now with connecting pipes (I have additionally tested them by changing all manner of elevation for the tops, connecting pipes, inverts, etc.), I believe that they are fine, yet still... Furthermore, if they are not defined correctly, all of them will suffer the same fate as those connecting points have been copied from model to model to...
I have been using the conduit catalog- so far- to define my pipe sizes. How now do I access the second conduit size table as you have mentioned?
Any testing that you could do on your end and the results therein would certainly be appreciated!
Thanks so much for your help!