In the image below the Red dots represent the pipe invert elevation locations and also the flared end section invert elevation based on the node insertion point. However, the elevation at the yellow dot is the actual flowline elevation which is not represented in any properties of the flared end section node. As a result, the slope within the apron is 0% which would create an undesirable break point between the pipe and apron section. Is there a method for applying slope within the apron to display correct invert elevations?
Have you tried setting the value of "Match Slope of Conduit" to TRUE? It is found in the Properties (not Utility Properties) of the end section node, under the Utility tab. This will force the end section slope to match the conduit slope.
Karl Dauber, PEAdvance ConsultingLaurens County, SCkarldauber@advconsult.netwww.advconsult.netwww.linkedin.com/in/karldauber
This is with ORD Version 2022 R1
The end section will match the conduit slope in that case but then it doesn't connect to the conduit correctly. This is with the placement point at the outlet end of the end section as it needs to be for proper exit flowline elevation when using a model or terrain for an elevation reference. This is an exaggerated example to show what happens.
If I move the connection point of the conduit to the outlet end of the end section it would kind of work if the end section could trim the conduit. It would have to subtract the trimmed amount from the length of conduit for quantities to be correct though. Unfortunately it doesn't trim correctly and I don't think it would calc the conduit length correctly either.
The next option is to move the placement point of the end section to the inlet side. That almost works but still doesn't trim correctly, but at least the conduit quantity length would be correct. The problem with this is if you are using a model or terrain for an elevation reference now it's tied to the inlet of the end section and not the outlet, so the flowline won't be correct without some manual adjustment.
I use placement point at the inlet end of the end section. Yes, you are correct that you'll need to iterate a bit to get the flow line at the correct elevation. Otherwise, it works pretty well. I don't know why your extrusion trim is not correct on the downstream side. What are you using for a connection region? From what others have posted, the connection region needs at least some minor amount of width in order to trim correctly.
Karl/ Ryan:
This is an interesting discussion.
One of the issues I ran into with 2022 R1 was that (with manholes) connecting the pipes to the center of the manhole does trim correctly and looks GREAT, but the construction length of the pipe then equals the unified length of the pipe. If I connect the pipe to the edge of the manhole (ring), then I get the construction length which I use for quantities (Item Types). In our office, we have always used the construction length for our quantities (not the center of node to center of node). Beebe Ray has been informed of this issue and an SR has been made.
Such might also affect the placement point being at the entrance/ exist end of an FES. I will have to do some testing, but I do suspect that the length of the pipe might calculate as a unified length to that point rather than to the back of the FES. Please let me know if such is the case or not! As well, Karl, is the placement point and the rotation line at the same place, or is the placement point at the entrance/ exit, and the rotation line still at the back of the FES?
As regards our connection regions, we use a rectangle which is very narrow (around 0.01) in order to place the structures at as close to center to center as possible. I have noticed that others use a connection region which is based upon the centerline of the node and then is much wider. So, when the conduit is placed, they just move it into position by sliding it to the center.
Ryan:
Let me know what you would like for me to do here. Changing the placement point to the entrance/ exit end of the FES might be a solution here.
Best Regards,
Mark
What I'm using currently is placement point, alignment point (and line for rotation), and connection region all located at the "back" of the FES, not at the actual "end" or discharge point. As Ryan noted, not a perfect solution since you have to "fiddle" with it to get the entrance/exit at the correct elevation.
Mark, Even though it's not ideal, I think it will be better if we have the placement point a the entrance end of the FES. I'd also prefer the rotation line to be 180° from what we have, but I can deal with that as it is. I tend to have a better reference for rotation with a line between where the 2 end sections are going then out in front of them. I don't know what's going on with the trimming of the conduit. I tried some wider connection regions just to see and it still doesn't trim right for me.
I even tried using the new trim option for manholes on end sections and sadly it doesn't work on them. Even if it did, like you found, the pipe length would be reported incorrectly.
Hopefully it's something Bentley will look at and can fix the operation so it works like it should. Then the outlets can be tied to the design surface properly and not have to be adjusted to be correct.
I cannot even begin to tell you the number of SR's I have made as regards Drainage and Utilities :-)
I will look further into the issue, of course. Would you mind sending me a sample 2D/ 3D cell for what your ideal (for now) design would be here? I believe that I understand what you are desiring to do, but I would rather have a sample to make sure such that I can test a few things out for myself. You know where I live, LOL.
Karl:
As always, thanks you for your insights here!