Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By snowyweston
  • 2 Post By Twiceroadsfool
  • 1 Post By renogreen

Thread: Structural/Architectural walls, who owns them?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Charles Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 6, 2011
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    972
    Current Local Time
    01:39 AM

    Structural/Architectural walls, who owns them?

    Can anyone from the structural or arch side describe what works best when deciding the visibility of the structural wall in the arch model, or the visibility of an arch modeled structural wall linked in the structural model. If elements within walls could have separate VG control, we would not have an issue,...meaning, it would be great that arch/structural could have control over parts of a wall in a linked model.

    I just answered my own question. On the arch side, I will coordinate a wall structural space wide enough for a linked structural wall to fit,...done. I could even name the material, 'coordinate with structural model'
    Last edited by Charles Karl; December 27th, 2014 at 11:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    4,343
    Current Local Time
    09:39 AM
    Since we use the 3=1 / separate-wall method - with type names & marks categorised accordingly (+ assembly codes set to respective hierarchies) we have no issue VG-filtering what is/isn't architectural/structural when working with others (or on our own for that matter)

    Bear in mind; we don't model structural elements (as part of our work) but in the absence/before-the-appointment of a S.Eng. team we will model "structure" with our "structural-placeholder" walls/columns/slabs/etc (more often than not on a non-primary design option) to identify locations for "their stuff" (as we see/need it).

    Likewise, we model "structural fill" in the locations of penetrations/openings - rather than leave them as voids - purely for the (subsequent) hosting of doors/windows/vents/sleeves/etc - which in themselves (as walls/floors/whatever) identify/locate positions the structure needs to respect.
    Ning Zhou likes this.

  3. #3
    Moderator cellophane's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 9, 2011
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    6,051
    Current Local Time
    05:39 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by snowyweston View Post
    Likewise, we model "structural fill" in the locations of penetrations/openings - rather than leave them as voids - purely for the (subsequent) hosting of doors/windows/vents/sleeves/etc - which in themselves (as walls/floors/whatever) identify/locate positions the structure needs to respect.
    Is the structural fill wall a separate type that can be filtered out to avoid scheduling or are they the same as surrounding walls?

  4. #4
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    4,343
    Current Local Time
    09:39 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by cellophane View Post
    Is the structural fill wall a separate type that can be filtered out to avoid scheduling or are they the same as surrounding walls?
    Separate. With a number of approaches...*

    The "method" came about from working with a contractor who wanted to see the extent of firestopping/penetration protection in a building. Until then we had nothing "to show" (per say) and so developed floor, wall & roof types to act as the "fill".

    *...After that project we found them to be immensely useful for our own purposes, especially for hosting, as we could then indicate the "packing" required for openings - so yes, the types (floor/wall/roof) do, in a way, imitate the adjacent elements (in terms of depth/thicknesses - applicable to each application) but have their own properties, and assigned materials.

    NB: I know we could just use "packer" solids in our penetrating/opening families, but that then requires a fair amount of retrograde work on content - and requires a whole host of instance-parameters for dimensional control, sub-categories & viz. switches for (effectively) all families & all categories (to differentiate/isolate visually and in Navis). With our chosen/preferred way we effectively "cut, plug, then punch" the sequence of (model) build-order - even if that's not technically how it'd be done in the real world (which would be more, "Cut, pack, fit, then pack a bit a more") but the result is the same in the end.

  5. #5
    Member BD Mackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 1, 2013
    Posts
    466
    Current Local Time
    02:39 AM
    The hard part about letting an engineer model walls etc. is when it comes time to tag. Yes we can tag through the link but if the architect needs to label the wall as fire rated, smoke barrier etc. you need to have the engineer fill out these values and they could be shared parameters so they are then asked to use those as well.

  6. #6
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,895
    Current Local Time
    04:39 AM
    Both parties own the wall, for a number of reasons. The structural engineer has them in their file, but they might not show the same information: They view the material as different strengths of concrete, different mixtures, and whatever else they need. The architects will tag or keynote the materials in wall sections, but not with the same level of information that the structural engineer is tagging. In addition, as Brian mentioned, the architect needs other information in the wall: Fire Ratings, Head conditions, and so on.

    Also, structural engineers graphical standards are very different from an architects. IMVHO its silly to try to force architects and structural engineers to *use* each others stuff. I have project managers that always ask me "Isnt it twice as much work if we both have to model it and coordinate it?" And i tell them "Its not twice as much work when you factor in all the hoops youre going to jump through trying to make one another use the other parties stuff."

    So, we have walls in the arch model. They have walls in the structural model. Filters to turn off one anothers overlapping stuff in the views, and Coordination views for reviewing and coordinating the walls and their openings.
    Charles Karl and GMcDowellJr like this.

  7. #7
    Member renogreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 27, 2011
    Location
    Reno, Nv. USA
    Posts
    335
    Current Local Time
    02:39 AM
    We model all walls. We ask the Structural engineer to have their walls on it's own workset and we use that to filter out their walls. It is easy and it woks.
    d.stairmand likes this.

Similar Threads

  1. Separate Architectural and Structural?
    By cbaze in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 28th, 2018, 01:29 PM
  2. structural model misplaced from architectural model in Revit Architectural 2014
    By rayanjreije in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 13th, 2014, 08:51 PM
  3. Collaboration between Architectural and Structural firms.
    By Scott Deslippe in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 19th, 2013, 08:04 PM
  4. Combined Structural/Architectural Model
    By RsqPrincess in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 26th, 2012, 04:55 PM
  5. Shading bearing/structural walls on an Architectural floor plan?
    By birdnehru in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2011, 02:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •