Topic: Civil 3D | Criteria-Based Design Checks

[BlackBox]

I've been able to cull most of what I needed from The Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (aka "Greenbook") via the FDOT Civil 3D 2015 State Kit's ..\corridor design standards\ folder (available  here).

What's missing - and this may be a lack of functionality on the part of Civil 3D? - is the ability to check for maximum change in grade between two Profile tangents (i.e., +2.0% --> -0.50%, etc.)?

All of the K value tables are there to check Vertical Curves already added to a given Profile, but seemingly no means by which to identify (using Design Checks) when a Vertical Curve is required at a given PVI.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

you are correct C3D is deficient in that one can NOT specified max grade change to trigger automatic vertical curve and or warning flag.

[BlackBox]

you are correct C3D is deficient in that one can NOT specified max grade change to trigger automatic vertical curve and or warning flag.

Thanks for the confirmation, MJF - somehow 'incomplete' just doesn't seem to be sufficient, given the topic.

Methinks this should be as simple as Autodesk adding a new 'PVI Grade In', and 'PVI Grade Out' Expression (or a [this] Tangent Grade, Next/Previous Tangent Grade, etc.)... For notifications, that is... Obviously, auto-Vertical Curves given a violation would be an ideal end-result.

Cheers

[mjfarrell]

you are correct C3D is deficient in that one can NOT specified max grade change to trigger automatic vertical curve and or warning flag.

Thanks for the confirmation, MJF - somehow 'incomplete' just doesn't seem to be sufficient, given the topic.

Methinks this should be as simple as Autodesk adding a new 'PVI Grade In', and 'PVI Grade Out' Expression (or a [this] Tangent Grade, Next/Previous Tangent Grade, etc.)... For notifications, that is... Obviously, auto-Vertical Curves given a violation would be an ideal end-result.

Cheers

YEAH,

But they can't get so much of C3D 'right' meanwhile trying to ADD all sorts of functionality to INFRA-FREAKING-WORKS  that should already be in and WORKING inside C3D.  I think they are taking care of the wrong side of the development horse on this.