I am having problems with the new spec editor, why don´t they include correct metric information for thicknesses in CW2013. I use the metric system in all my models.

It is absolutely useless for me to use the metric specifications if ALL the thicknesses are derived from inches.

Did you change theunits in the catalogue to Metric/Metric?

Yes, everything is in Metric/Metric.

I just created a Metric/Metric catalogue and it all came in metric. You will need your catalogue to be Metric/Metric.





Hope this helps.

Yes, you can make a Metric/Metric catalogue and it has metric units alright but the information in there is wrong! The thicknesses are not correct.

I see what you are saying. Yes, it appears that some of the information is wrong. You can overwrite the values that need correcting. From what I saw, there are not that many.


Out of curiousity Jon, what standard do you use there in Iceland? British, NPS, JIS, DIN?

I really don't understand the issue. We never had a thickness table before and the out of the box specs in 2013 are the same as in 2012 or earlier.

I am limited to SA, but I have never come across anyone that outputs the thickness of a pipe to a BOM. The schedule in the description is more than enough. The schedule/thickness tables are required if you want to make use of the enhanced drawing mode to show hollow pipes, however you can model piping quite comfortably without the thickness table.

Not many? Every thickness is wrong in all schedules, from what I can see.
The schedules are also based on imperial not metric so I actually need to make ALL the schedules and ALL the thicknesses from scratch. At least that looks that way to me.

Van,

You probably already know this, but, 2013 allows the weight to be calculated automatically based on the schedule.

It also helps with the enhanced modelling (and looks cool).

Vanman, in 2012 there was a column in the text file for thickness and now all that information is not there.

At my office we need to specify the thickness of the pipe, according to EN/DIN.

And also when I export the model into CAESAR II the thicknesses are not correct. I need the thicknesses.

Rod, we use EN (European Standards) here.

This might be an issue. We use CSA standards for a number of clients, who both indicate/dictate the use of wall thickness in millimeters rather than enumerated schedule. With old specs we would use a thickness keyword to fill this in the long description; I imagine we'll set up the new specs in the same way.

Can you post an example of the "bad" wall thickness values, so others can confirm? Are they way out of line, or is this just a imperial/metric conversion-rounding issue of a couple of tenths of millimeters?

Basically ALL the thicknesses in DIN/EN are wrong!
As for the standard EN 10253, the current European standard for Butt-welding pipe fittings, it is not included at all.

Jon,

I am not familiar with the two standards that you are using. Unfortunately, I suspect that you may have to correct them. You may also want to give ICAS a heads-up so they can correct it in a later release.

Sorry I can't be much help on this one.

It looks like it is just easier to go back to CW 2012.

I would strongly consider going with Rod's suggestion. Updating the schedule/Thickness table is going to take you a couple of hours of data capturing at most.

Once you have gotten used to routing pipe on 2013, going back to 2012 is like pulling teeth. You also forego some very nifty productivity features like, changesize / changespec.

The upfront effort is definitely worth the gravy further down the line.

Vanman
This is not only couple of hours. I have to go through the standard and find the thicknesses for all the pipes and fittings and input them. Since the schedules/thicknesses used in 2012 where then already outdated (but usable) from what is used in EN standards, I do not want to input this by hand just because the update from 2013 to 2012 was a downgrade in this sense.
It is a shame since this was information is available in my CADWorx 2012, and now it has been simplified.

You can always import the sizes into the new editor.

I found that the Metric NPS Data (as mentioned previous) had errors, so I fixed my metric catalogue. I now have a metric catalogue with the correct dimensions.

Here is a short-cut for you.

1. Take your 2012 pipe data (this should have your nom, OD, and THK) and change the extension to *.prn.

2. Next, import the pipe file into Excel (it should open fairly easily).

3. Create (or open) a catalogue with your DIN (or other standard) and make sure that your SIZE table has the same number of LINES as your PIPE file.

4. Copy and Paste from the Excel file over the SIZE file (Excel NOM copies over SIZE NOM and Excel OD over SIZE OD).

5. Once you save the SIZE file, the THK file will take on the sizes from the SIZE table. Copy the Excel THK column over the appropriate column in your THK table.


This will give you a complete rework of the standard you are using and it will be less than 2 hours.

Good Luck.

What I have done to adjust to the lack of DIN/EN thickness information:

Made 9 new schedules:
PN16 - Pipe / PN25 - Pipe / PN16 - Fittings /PN25 - Fittings
DIN - Row 1/Row 2/Row 3/Row 4/Row 5

Filled in thicknesses for each schedule.

Changed the Schedule for all the different pipes and fittings I use for DIN/EN in the project, set the Main/(Reduction) Schedule for pipes and fittings.

Works for now, but it would be great to have all this included (correctly) by default on install.

I too have noticed errors in the Thickness Table in the Metric_Inch_CS_2013_Catalog.cat file. I'm reading from ASME B36.10M and ASME B36.19M versions 2004.

I'm on 0.2500 nominal and have already found 2 missing schedules and 2 errors!!!!

NOT GOOD AT ALL........ I'm going to have to go through ALL Sizes, Materials, Schedules, Thicknesses, End Types and Data Tables....because I now don't trust the information that is provided to be correct.

It ticks me off when I have to go and fix other people's errors, especially when we've paid for them to do their job right.

Again, could you be specific about where the errors are?

Nope, but you can find attached my copy that I corrected all the errors that I found, and added all the missing information. You can check it against your original copy to find where the errors and missing information exists.

Like I said, I took my information from ASME B36.10M and ASME B36.19M versions 2004.

It's for Metric/Inch.

A simple example would have saved some work. For the benefit of others:

OOTB thickness table has no thickness values for sizes over NPS 24. To be expected.

OOTB table has no thickness for SCH 30 under NPS 6. Other tables I have agree with this, along the same lines as no SCH 120 under NPS 4.

Most of the sizes differ on the order of *hundredths* of a millimeter. Mill tolerance is higher. The four decimal place values are likely from a hard, automated conversion of the imperial data file and I'm good with that.

ZIP table is missing wall thickness for NPS 3 1/2 under XXS wall. Its in the OOTB table. Not a common size, so it rates a "meh".

OOTB table is missing some NPS 22 thicknesses, but only significant in SCH 40. Overall its hardly used so it also rates a "meh".

ZIP table is missing SCH 80S NPS 22 thickness. Also a "meh".


Overall I don't see any problems. See attached comparison of ZIP minus OOTB.

The errors I found were also minimal, at best. That being said, I believe that CADWorx has always said that they are not responsible for being 100% accurate on the data. Their main focus is the software.

Regardless of how correct the software (any software) we use is or not, we are still expected to verify the accuracy.

Lucky for me, I still have all of my spreadsheets from the old system to copy and paste verified data.