Solidworks Routing - Anything from database building to workflows

[JuTu]

I guess I'll start with a very short introduction of myself. My name is Juha, I am from Finland and I'm working to learn about SW Routing for time being.

I started this topic to collect knowledge about Routing.

I'm in a point to create a component library but I've been considering and investigating possibilities how to include all this in our PDM system.

One thing on the top of my mind right now is that do I need to store copies of components in the ...\SOLIDWORKS xxxx\design library\routing\ to be able to work with the components in Routing? Of course after telling the database what components I do have. Does versions or service packs work differently on the matter? I use SW 2018 SP5.0.

[jayar]

Are you talking about routing for wiring or routing for plumbing?
I have looked at the plumbing parts available and they are pretty paltry. So, I went to McMaster-Carr and downloaded their parts then put together my own plumbing - not precise locations but the detail is nice. Of course it isn't in any sort of PDM nor the SWX parts library.

[Roasted By John]

I would create my own parts library before I use the SW stuff

[JuTu]

Are you talking about routing for wiring or routing for plumbing?

Machine hydraulics and lubrication systems. Bent tubes with variety of fittings.

I've found Parker Hannifin to have this great online model database to be highly customizable and wide variety: https://parker.partcommunity.com/

I would create my own parts library before I use the SW stuff

Yep! It's staight outta the question. One of the first things was to delete almost everything there to start building new.

I'd consider atleast twice whether to use models published by private ppl instead of company entities.

[Tadas]

I'm designing various tanks, platforms (also for beer, and for Finland Breweries ).

As long as assemblies gets larger, I defeature all components (no funssy fillets, chamfers). I would create my own database of components.

[Tom G]

One thing on the top of my mind right now is that do I need to store copies of components in the ...\SOLIDWORKS xxxx\design library\routing\ to be able to work with the components in Routing? Of course after telling the database what components I do have. Does versions or service packs work differently on the matter? I use SW 2018 SP5.0.

Running the Routing Library Manager (i.e., "telling the database what components I do have") does also store it into the routing library because RLM when set up is told where that should be. Versions, possibly slightly different, but SP's handle this process exactly the same.

I make pump skids with piping and tubing. I also do not think highly of Routing add-on. I developed my workflow to produce stable large assemblies and avoid using Routing entirely.

Parker and Swagelok have led that industry segment in 3d part accessibility, so all the less expensive ones like DK Lok have the same accessibility.
OTOH, forged valve manufacturers do share with me a single scanned drawing which was drafted by hand 30+ years ago, to represent an entire model series of different sizes.

[JuTu]

I make pump skids with piping and tubing. I also do not think highly of Routing add-on. I developed my workflow to produce stable large assemblies and avoid using Routing entirely.

I would guess then that you use Global variables for bend radii, straight distance between bend-to-bend and etc? I'm kinda in a situation to create a workflow so I'm keen to hear more I did my first tubing project with 3D sketches and Sweep-Thin-feature. But could Routing provide some ease or even a little automation for design process?

As piping and tubing is rather new subject to me especially on designing point of view I've found a lot of new or not so familiar words. Could someone define me a "tube spool" or "pipe spool"? What it means in Dassault Systemes/Solidworks lingua? No comprende. My guess is something like a defined(/named/tagged) section of tubing in a system. Eg. a tube in a product family which always runs from filter outlet to cooler inlet? Could I create a naming convetion for series of tubes in a subsystem or...? I dunno. So much to learn. I guess some of this is also semantics. Defining common definitions between me/ rest of the team and Solidworks. "How I wish to understand this word?"

[Tom G]

Could someone define me a "tube spool" or "pipe spool"?

I find Spool used as, a finished piece from end to end. I have a vertical cylindrical tank, with flanged nozzles. One spool could be the joined overflow and drain, which attaches at those flanges of the tank, includes a drain valve, and leads to a customer connection flange. Another spool could be just a short one of flange, pipe, valve, pipe, flange, used to connect the level gauge to the tank.

If I have a pump skid, one spool will be the suction and the other a discharge. In this case, it is not a separate piece, but will be fabricated whole in place, and so the fact that it is a spool is not going to be carried forward into a fabrication document as the ones to a tank above would be useful. Spools are not necessary, but rather there to be useful if you find it so.

For my workflow, I'm not going to derail your Routing topic with an explainer how to pipe without Routing. I will write up another thread, and notify you once it's initially completed. Although I find it unusable for professional work, I do not wish to detract from those who'd like to use it well.

[JuTu]

I find Spool used as, a finished piece from end to end. I have a vertical cylindrical tank, with flanged nozzles. One spool could be the joined overflow and drain, which attaches at those flanges of the tank, includes a drain valve, and leads to a customer connection flange. Another spool could be just a short one of flange, pipe, valve, pipe, flange, used to connect the level gauge to the tank.

If I have a pump skid, one spool will be the suction and the other a discharge. In this case, it is not a separate piece, but will be fabricated whole in place, and so the fact that it is a spool is not going to be carried forward into a fabrication document as the ones to a tank above would be useful. Spools are not necessary, but rather there to be useful if you find it so.

But if there is a tee junction and the pipe run splits to two, is it still considered as one spool then? For example one outlet line from pump connected to two tanks.

For my workflow, I'm not going to derail your Routing topic with an explainer how to pipe without Routing. I will write up another thread, and notify you once it's initially completed. Although I find it unusable for professional work, I do not wish to detract from those who'd like to use it well.

Actually, I came to think that this topic could be even more useful as a general topic for tubing and piping from the Solidworks POV. So we could gather all kind of knowledge and coversation on working and designing piping and tubing systems in one big topic? Or create one topic for General discussion on tubing and piping and keep this one dedicated for Routing.

What I love in my work is to feel useful and be able to develop and learn. Like a 5 year old unboxing my first Lego Technic set It's so rewarding to find some new trick or workaround to achieve a goal or finish a task.

Oh! And thank you for replies

[edit] More thoughts added [/edit]

[JuTu]

I was just meddling with Routing and had this issue of new route to not Sweeping after creating the sketch. Like, just connecting two CPoints with lines and hit OK. error. Uhm... wait, what? Why error?
Figured out it involves Stub Length given when creating a CPoint on fitting. The measure matched anyways. So. When RMB->Start Route on a fitting in assembly, enter info, hit OK, Sketch, GO! No. SWR wants me to continue sketching from the given Stub which start from the RPoint instead of CPoint.

Funny how search engines still point to forum.solidworks.com with even a thread about the issue but it's pulled from the web already and SWymp won't help. There is like nine topics of Routing, but mostly some tech demos on Electrical... Gah... I'm so frustrated with DS right now. This is sad.

I think I'll just zero all the stub lengths and ... I dunno. F***! I get frustrated too easily.

Edit:

Maybe I should rename this topic as a "Personal diar(rhea)y of working with SWR"

Edit: typo

[Tom G]

I find Spool used as, a finished piece from end to end. I have a vertical cylindrical tank, with flanged nozzles. One spool could be the joined overflow and drain, which attaches at those flanges of the tank, includes a drain valve, and leads to a customer connection flange. Another spool could be just a short one of flange, pipe, valve, pipe, flange, used to connect the level gauge to the tank.

If I have a pump skid, one spool will be the suction and the other a discharge. In this case, it is not a separate piece, but will be fabricated whole in place, and so the fact that it is a spool is not going to be carried forward into a fabrication document as the ones to a tank above would be useful. Spools are not necessary, but rather there to be useful if you find it so.

But if there is a tee junction and the pipe run splits to two, is it still considered as one spool then? For example one outlet line from pump connected to two tanks.

I consider spools to be one manufactured piece. Normally, I just have a standalone system with no effective use of spools. My tank example, and your extension of it, would use spools well to document this continuous segment of pipe, fittings, valves, instruments, etc. so that it may be fabricated to ship loose and install on site. That is, I have used Spools to order my documentation for spool fabrication drawings. In my mind, it is less about the details within the digital design and more about expressing it effectively in the real process of production.

If your two tanks were far apart, you may need a flange pair somewhere in there to break it up into smaller pieces easier to fab, handle, ship, an install. If you were producing all of this in place then shipping the completed result, it may not be necessary at all to order your spools.

[JuTu]

Why - oh why?

I just can get my head around this. What am I doing wrong? I have had this issue adding component Routing Lib.

I have created a sketch "RoutingPoints" on this parts' Top plane with 3 points of which the one in the origin is for RPoint and two other are for CPoints each. Save to DB -> Open an assembly with the part -> Start Route -> Select CPoint2 aaaaannnddd....
*drum roll*

omfg.

Routing (or DS:SW) decides to start the route from RPoint - not the chosen CPoint. That dimension "RD1" is derived from parameter Stub Length.

I can't figure out what is the matter. I have couple of size 8 fittings which work as expected. Route starting from CPoint and tube ending 2,5mm "inside" the fitting.

These size 24 tube fittings are giving me headache. All that I have tried so far. I have tried various different ways or options for adding the Routing and Connection Points, or for fitting type - tee, other fitting, end flange... I just... f***. I'm SO FRUSTRATED.

Most of the models are downloaded in STEP214-format from manufacturers cad model library and then pushed to our PDM with few tweaks or adjustments.

Routing is optimized for piping and electrical. Tubing is forgotten and/or neglected. All the documentation, glossary, samples... vittusaatanasatelliittipillupuupallopukinpääperkelehelvetti

EDIT: After reading some SPR's I tried suppressing the RPoint -> I WORKS! for now... Could it have something to do with multiple CPoints and single RPoint? I dunno, but will continue tomorrow.

[Peter De Vlieger]

Seeing that you are brand new to it all you might do well to take the time and read

https://cadbooster.com/how-to-create-a- ... m-scratch/
https://cadbooster.com/how-to-create-ro ... omponents/

By the way, when you wrote :
"Routing is optimized for piping and electrical. Tubing is forgotten and/or neglected. All the documentation, glossary, samples... "
You are almost correct. Routing was developed specifically for piping. HOWEVER, the vast majority of improvements that have happened to Routing the last 10+ years have been for the electrical side of things. There for both piping and tubing are in need of lots of love and attention.
It's nice when it all works fine but it asks for a big commitment of the user to get it to that stage.

Also helps if you actually got any schooling/training into piping instead of being expected to just learn it by osmosis.

Goodluck.

Peter
(been using SW Routing (piping) since 2009)

[Tapani Sjöman]

I have done SolidWork Web Training for Routing, but must say it did not really help me very much. I did build up a system with a PDM with templates for hoses and tubes we normally use. Also a lot of joint components with CPoints and size definitions. So got everything ready and started to make pipings and hoses. It was terrible! I could built lines and drawings, but got many difficulties. If I edited a pipe, it lost all references (measures, center lines, connections in the drawing) and I had to make these all again. All this took much more time than just simply using a 3D-sketch as path and a Sweep for tubes and hoses. So today I make my pipes with a Sweep and it is a very fast and good way to make it.

[JuTu]

Seeing that you are brand new to it all you might do well to take the time and read

https://cadbooster.com/how-to-create-a- ... m-scratch/
https://cadbooster.com/how-to-create-ro ... omponents/

I found these about a month ago via a search engine. They have been propably the best resource so far. And in general cadbooster.com homes many other great in-detail articles about Solidworks.

Great resource! Thank you

Also helps if you actually got any schooling/training into piping instead of being expected to just learn it by osmosis.

I have about ... none Though I have been fiddling with pipes and tubes in my life before, as a maintenance technician, but specific training from the desgning point of view so far is none. But the thing on the other hand is that I don't need to make decisions about tube sizes or calculate flows or anything. Just, for now, figure out a way for modeling workflows. With or without Routing

I have done SolidWork Web Training for Routing, but must say it did not really help me very much. I did build up a system with a PDM with templates for hoses and tubes we normally use. Also a lot of joint components with CPoints and size definitions. So got everything ready and started to make pipings and hoses. It was terrible!

That's what I'm kinda afraid of. How well designs handle revisions...? Though... if a tube run is revised and the run is split at some point I think one should create new tubes for each legs and not try to change the old. But if you need just to reroute the line... I hope the references don't go haywire.

I could built lines and drawings, but got many difficulties. If I edited a pipe, it lost all references (measures, center lines, connections in the drawing) and I had to make these all again. All this took much more time than just simply using a 3D-sketch as path and a Sweep for tubes and hoses. So today I make my pipes with a Sweep and it is a very fast and good way to make it.

I did a complete system of tubing with Solidworks' "au naturel tools". 3D sketch, ThinSweep, no tube specific drawings. But the decision not to prefab these tubes was made before I started the project.

Now I think I could cook'n'boil a system to somehow automate some notes for specific tubes in the drawings. I have learned a lot during last couple of weeks... and months

I fell in love with Custom Properties

[Peter De Vlieger]

I have about ... none Though I have been fiddling with pipes and tubes in my life before, as a maintenance technician, but specific training from the desgning point of view so far is none. But the thing on the other hand is that I don't need to make decisions about tube sizes or calculate flows or anything. Just, for now, figure out a way for modeling workflows. With or without Routing

That is a popular misconception. In general a piping designer doesn't do the calculations concerning flow or diameters or anything of the like. Those things are above my pay grade.

Setting up the library of parts that you need and figuring out what and how to get the design tables to do what it can do and what you are able to let it do is an adventure because SW itself doesn't really help for a big part because most of the people at SW don't have a clue. Lots of VAR's will be able to run the 'demo' versions of something but have no background in piping, tubing or even electrical.

There's lots of places that the functionality of something in the code is put together with the proverbial rubber band, piece of chewing gum and a rusty bit of wiring. And seeing that the original programmer(s) has moved on, the current ones are hard pressed to even understand any question you might have about it.

PDM and routing ?
No thank you, I'm not into masochism. It took us years, and several redesigns of design tables, to get to a situation that it mostly does what we want and how we need it. The entire Piping and tubing database is a bad joke. It demands you to read in your entire library but the only things that are of any concern are Elbows/Knees and piping/tubing.

Look, when it works, it's a dream. It really nice and offers lots of flexibility when all is set up right and everything goes smooth and one can make the ISO's with the BOM's that roll out at a touch of a button. But don't be mistaken. If your boss thinks you can get it up and running within six months, he's in for a rude surprise. And if you aren't using the functionality of Routing then you have to ask yourself is there any reason that the company has to buy Premium instead of just vanilla Solidworks?

[Tom G]

Lots of VAR's will be able to run the 'demo' versions of something but have no background in piping, tubing or even electrical.

...

Look, when it works, it's a dream. It really nice and offers lots of flexibility when all is set up right and everything goes smooth and one can make the ISO's with the BOM's that roll out at a touch of a button. But don't be mistaken. If your boss thinks you can get it up and running within six months, he's in for a rude surprise. And if you aren't using the functionality of Routing then you have to ask yourself is there any reason that the company has to buy Premium instead of just vanilla Solidworks?

Excellent summary, Peter. I'm glad to see you have joined us here.

Also spot on with the training, as it is purely a canned example in every class. Start asking applicable questions that fall outside the Routing script, and most instructors will say something like, "I'll find out and get back to you."

Edit: For example, all the Routing course material deals with buttweld fittings which are neither male nor female like NPT / Socketweld. Try asking how a socketweld reducer insert works and they won't know that the trick is to place it in line and then Remove Pipe between the component and its reducer.

[Merovingien]

i tried the "sw piping" feature in the past...
if you really "know and understand" how SW works,
If you master the BOM, config, child-conifg, advanced and special BOM setting, etc...

There is no need of that piping extention, creating your own system can be more powerful, faster,
and you can more easily get what you want in DRW or BOM, in the end...

i already elaborate a "specific and very efficient" workflow,
and my workflow is more efficient that "sw piping",
because i make it smarter for the use of "Ext-Ref" (one of the famous heavy-feature that make SW slowly)

really understanding what's behind the Ext-Ref is important, to find a good way of using SW.

i also combine it with an advanced-custom-smart auto-mating, with sub-categories,
that can also work with the Female-Male when needed,
or that can work with 3 parts for some fitting who required that.

and added two level of simplification for big big asm
(without using speedpack, and a long time before Defeature exist)

the workflow was robust, efficient.

And having-maintening an efficient Library, is another key to the success.

i'm not talking about baby assembly, with few parts, yes in that case the abuse of Ext-Ref will not be seen.

[Merovingien]

when i took a look "inside" sw piping,
i noticed it possible to redefine (customize) the "internal pipe identifier" to make it work with multiple pipe-norm.
to expand the possiblities of "sw pipiing", but that needs some "logical thinking", and some anticipation.

it's a way to make "sw piping" smarter (for people who use it).

[JuTu]

This is quite an interestin claim, but I admit I can believe it. As long as the workflow is defined and structured properly from start to finish. There are some caveat in Routing like... building the component library in the first place. Support material is rather limited.

After a weeks discussion with our VAR's support I think I found a bug in Routing. That thing with Start Route command creating a dimensioned line starting from RPoint. In System Options > Routing there's a checkbox for "Automatically add dimensions to route stubs". That is atleast one part of the problem. after unchecking the option the first line created automatically is no more dimensioned and the length matches Stub Length value from CPoint parameters MEASURED FROM THE CPOINT. I mean that the line starts from RPoint, yes, but the free end comes [Stub Length value] past the CPoint. Which seems decent enough for me. I'll try to live without that auto-dimension

And one other thing that I may have interpreted Solidworks incorrectly and stuck in the thought that Tubing means hoses (splines) and bent, relatively small, rigid, fixed, .... pipes. Like hydraulic lines versus process piping.... Doh!

[JuTu]

Hello again, folks!

Does anyone know a way to set a default bend radius for Piping? Or with what parameter or property? I.e. the parameter in Route Properties > Bend - Elbows > Always form bends > center line > Bend radius. In Tubing said parameter is read from tube's Design Table but I cannot find a parameter for Piping.

[Tom G]

In my Routing experience, tube gets bends and pipe gets elbows. If you want bends, make a tube with pipe-like properties. A difficulty there is you likely have no appropriate table, as you are asking for.

When we bend pipe, I use a weldment in the design. We have a bender that is gradual and adjustable so that there is not a clean single tool measurement. We use the same tool for an angle bent into a ring. OTOH, a tube bending tool has observable dimensions upon which the tube will be bent. I believe this is a practical (reality-based) reason for no defaults values in pipe bends. Maybe I'm wrong and there's another pipe bending tool with relatively fixed radii; I don't pretend to know everything everywhere.

[JuTu]

Long time no see...

I just wanted to give some follow-up on my projects.

We decided not to implement SW Routing to our workflows.
I think the major contributor for the decision was Routing's integrability with our current PDM (Aton & SolidPDM). Simply not feasible. Not worth the effort. Routing didnt give us any benefit compared to SW-au-naturel workflows with 3D sketches and so on.

But more and more tubes are ordered as ready-to-install packages and experience has been mostly positive to my knowledge. But one thing for the future will be to implement the predetermined routes to our legacy designs and also there needs to be a huge work to redesign some of the smaller size units in a manner that enables the use of prebents. I mean, to reconsider our existing DFMA solutions so that tubing would fit without modifications on the workshop.

And one thing I did establish in my thesis was
(as Tom put it

In my Routing experience, tube gets bends and pipe gets elbows.

)
that tube and pipe are different things even though Finnish language has only one word for it: putki

I want to thank everyone for your thoughts, especially Tom G

[mp3-250]

we tried routing internally for a real project and it is another incomplete package nobody knows the detail about. expect little to no support and a ton of workarounds... we abandoned the idea quickly.