Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

best practices for setting up constructions in RAC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    best practices for setting up constructions in RAC

    So, we don't have and use Revit Structure, but since columns, beams and girders are quite important in our design process I'm looking for some workflow methods and best practices for inserting those. As seen in the picture below, we're using this specific kind of structure in almost all of our designs:
    - H-shaped columns in or near the facades;
    - circular columns inside;
    - sloped roofs, differs between 14 to 25 degrees;
    - wooden purlins or steel multibeams (tried both inserting beams on a workplane as well as a roof by footprint > sloped glazing).

    Initial inserting the different objects might not be the main problem, altering these during the modeling is. From what I know now is that starting from scratch again is just as fast as changing and (re)-checking every element. Not what we intended when we made the switch to Revit as our main design program.

    So maybe I'm doing things completely wrong, maybe with some minor modifications things can be much easier, or maybe the bottomline is that we need RST. I don't know, but maybe some of you could point me in the right direction.
    Attached Files
    Arjan Ikink, BIM-engineer at PHB Deventer
    LinkedIn

    #2
    PIG FARM LOL!! ;D friday joke mate ;]
    If i am not wrong u are using steel frames to support roof, are they covered with plaster or are they squared?

    Comment


      #3
      What are you changing exactly? Are you using grids? I do all of my structural stuff in RAC, and it's not really a problem. Of course, I'm not doing all the calcs and such that you would need RST for, but for a "simple" framing plan RAC works well for me.
      Attached Files
      Last edited by dzatto; May 13, 2011, 06:04 PM.
      Dan

      Comment


        #4
        I'm not exactly sure what the question is...however...in a perfect world one would have a structural engineer on board who is using Revit and we would be able to link their model into ours. When we do not have a structural engineer using Revit, we do model the structural ourselves. I don't really see any way around it. We want and need to see the structural elements so we model it. When things change, we make the changes. Again, I don't see anyway around this. There really isn't any "best practice" that I can think of in this situation.

        Comment


          #5
          What are the problems you're experiencing? I have some frequently returning things
          - Attachment of beams and columns seems to be totally random. Each new connection needs a manual setting of the Start and End Extension. Changing to a new beamtype means setting this up all over again.
          - Attaching of columns to beams can be a pain for the same reasons.

          To solve this I created a new set of beams, without the Extension possibilities. This solves a LOT of :banghead: but can only be used if you don't want to use the model for calculation purposes since these options were left out too.
          Martijn de Riet
          Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
          MdR Advies
          Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by bangobeat View Post
            PIG FARM LOL!! ;D friday joke mate ;]
            Cow farm, in fact.

            If i am not wrong u are using steel frames to support roof, are they covered with plaster or are they squared?
            The roofing we most commonly use are called sandwichpanels: thin metal sheeting on both sides (the upper side also being corrugated), and a PU of PIR insulation foam between them. Not for keeping the heat inside during winters, but for keeping it cooler on summer days. Something like this:


            Originally posted by dzatto View Post
            What are you changing exactly? Are you using grids? I do all of my structural stuff in RAC, and it's not really a problem. Of course, I'm not doing all the calcs and such that you would need RST for, but for a "simple" framing plan RAC works well for me.
            In worst case, every dimension of a column or beam can alter. In those good ol' CAD years (say, up until 3 weeks ago ) we didn't change dimensions, but with new programs come new opportunities, so the boss and I decided to get it right from the beginning. And yes, we're using grids. Heck, without grids we can't live. :crazy:

            Originally posted by renogreen View Post
            I'm not exactly sure what the question is...however...in a perfect world one would have a structural engineer on board who is using Revit and we would be able to link their model into ours. When we do not have a structural engineer using Revit, we do model the structural ourselves. I don't really see any way around it. We want and need to see the structural elements so we model it. When things change, we make the changes. Again, I don't see anyway around this. There really isn't any "best practice" that I can think of in this situation.
            About 80% of our work goes to a single structural engineering firm. They do use Revit (since 2003 if I'm correct) so they sure do know how to implement stuff. However, our clients don't feel the need to pay for engineers if the outcome of the whole project is still uncertain (e.g. when the local government doesn't cooperate). I even know customers who built things without making calculations. Their statements: 'we've always done things this way, so why change?' or 'the Egyptians built pyramids without those expensive engineers, so I don't need them either'.

            These people are diminishing, but the need to pay in advance is not. So, our typical workflow between us and the engineer: we model the complete building, send the files over to the engineer, he calculates what's needed, sends the preliminary results back to us, we check and compare, mail our findings, and the engineer makes up his final report.

            Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
            What are the problems you're experiencing? I have some frequently returning things
            - Attachment of beams and columns seems to be totally random. Each new connection needs a manual setting of the Start and End Extension. Changing to a new beamtype means setting this up all over again.
            - Attaching of columns to beams can be a pain for the same reasons.
            Exactly this is what we're running in to. Not funny when you state that the essence of Revit is to alter things (fast), but that you've got to create the framing from scratch, over and over again.

            To solve this I created a new set of beams, without the Extension possibilities. This solves a LOT of :banghead: but can only be used if you don't want to use the model for calculation purposes since these options were left out too.
            I don't see the use of all the structural options, but the engineer does for sure.

            So, bottomline: we've come from far, but still have a long way to go.

            BTW: has anyone already had a hands-on with the frame generator extension (RAC 2011 subscription advantage pack)?
            Arjan Ikink, BIM-engineer at PHB Deventer
            LinkedIn

            Comment


              #7
              First of all, this in an architect speaking, and the following may not be suitable if the engineers use your model to calculate loads etc. in RST...

              But, if all you need the the geometry, and being able to quickly update the dimensions, you could create a family like the attached - It would be very easy to also include the circular columns, with parameters for placement, dimensions, etc...
              Attached Files
              Klaus Munkholm
              "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

              Comment


                #8
                Well, the Frame Generator isn't much help in this. It does build the elements somewhat quicker but doesn't solve the problems you face with the connections.
                From the description of your workflow I'd advice to go with Munkholm's solution (which is what I was getting at). Create complete trusses and frames as a family. Let the engineers do their work in their own way. I know in a perfect world you would like to share the model and have them use that but it's just not going to cut it right now. Maybe in a few releases it will work (since I am seeing improvement), but for now: invest time in your own library.

                Same goes for the roof and wall panels. If you want them to show as in the picture, create them yourself using a Generic Model Family. If you need any help, PM me. I've done similar things for a firm in the south (although they built stables for chickens...)
                Martijn de Riet
                Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
                MdR Advies
                Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

                Comment

                Related Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X