Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prefabricated parts in project

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

    Prefabricated parts in project

    3 Storey building will be built with prefabricated walls and floors.
    I can model floors (Hollow core) or download them( or suggest other way if you have one plaese) . What about walls?
    Should i model them as a generic model?
    or maybe i can make it with face based wall family, creating voids and connections and placing them on a wall?
    Or maybe as a curtain panel and apply later to curtain wall?
    As well i would like to make quantity takeoff later on..
    cheers
    Last edited by bangobeat; August 9, 2011, 01:10 PM.

    #2
    Hi,
    can you have RST 2012? If so, parts can help you; depending on the detail level you need to reach on your project.
    according to your profile, you have RST 2011 (and no parts feature). I personally would do a parametric family for precast walls (generic model, set as structural column), and use hollow core beams for the floors (OOTB family is not that bad). My 2 cts..
    Julien
    "Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont mal vus!"
    P. DAC
    Follow me on Twitter @Jbenoit44 - Blog: http://aecuandme.wordpress.com/

    Comment


      #3
      Thanks Julien for response. Soon i will install 2012, then i will definitely look into parts option and i will discuss further with you. Rep for you!

      Comment


        #4
        I would use Generic Models for both. I am actually working with the Technical University in Delft on project which should end up with prefabricated timber frame appartment buildings with 0 energy output: Concept House. After some extensive research we went with Generic Models. Why? Well, a number of reasons:

        1. The most likely to be able to create all forms you need without abandoning your work method. Particularly with floors you might need pieces with odd shapes (due to shafts, stair openings, and so on). GM let you simply save as and remodel. Might be less of a problem with concrete parts but on the other hand: better safe then sorry. It would be a terrible shame that you get into trouble cause you cannot make the desired form.
        2. It allows you to go into specific manufacturing details. GM give you the possibility to nest in mechanical and electrical components (not sure you can actually use "real" mep stuff, but you can at least model the ducts as another GM, nest it and see if it all fits.
        3. No hassling with connections. I did look at beams, beam systems and other structural stuff. All failed on the account of the lousy and unwanted behaviour when it comes to joining elements. They shift, extend, and do all kinds of weird things which break your model easily.
        Martijn de Riet
        Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
        MdR Advies
        Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

        Comment


          #5
          Im not saying i WOULDNT use GM families, but make sure you have enough content to get by. That will mean:

          1. Having Doors that are non-wall-hosted. or...
          2. Having little slivers of walls to mount doors in (and subsequently having doors that dont tie to the walls for throat depth) or...
          3. Having walls that are hidden, or something else.

          Sometimes the answer is much simpler than it seems. You would be amazed what you can do with "regular" System Family walls. I dont have much API experience, but what the API is aware of it staggering: Walls can report conflicts with elements from linked files (RMEP models, Imported DWG models, Structural, etc), walls can get broken up and elevated, etc. So can Parts and assemblies, i suppose.

          Having looked pretty seriously at Prefabricating and fabricating from Revit, i wouldnt be dismissing regular wall tools. Its going to take a decent amount of legwork embedding the critical data in to the content regardless, and Walls have plenty of the provisions for that. All they are lacking is the "defeat of instant sizes," which is only necessary if you are deciding everything has to be modular. If it has to be modular, a few minutes setting up some groups, with embedded point data (use Excitech if you want a freebee), and youre well on your way.

          I dont see a real downside to using Generic model families, as long as you dont have to do any typical documentation with Wall Tags, Wall Filters, Wall Types, Wall Hosts, or any such thing. Also remember that if you use families, youll have to embed in the geometrical formulas to get things that are radiused and parametric.
          Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
          @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

          Comment


            #6
            Aaron, you're off course right.
            My project is maybe somewhat different: ALL items (up to the floor skirting) is going to be newly modelled. So I can create it any way I like.
            Besides that, there will be limited amount of types so that's no problem either.
            Structural analysis is not an option right now. And is not going to be needed.

            You can use Wall tools but need API experience (I think).
            btw: excitech doesn't work directly on the walls or any other system family. So you would be manually updating the groups if they need to change for height, width, or anything. But it DOES work with GM's.

            Bangobeat: it will be a hell of a job, any way you go. Good luck. Looking forward to some nice challenging questions...
            Martijn de Riet
            Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
            MdR Advies
            Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

            Comment


              #7
              With excitech, yes... You would have to have a slightly more manual process of moving the points and adjusting them. I havent looked at Excitech since i moved to GTP, but i seem to recall Excitech was only placing the one point at the origin automatically... Of course, being components and nested components, you can (of course) constrain them places, which is definetely a plus to doing it that way.

              I always go back to: Does automated fabrication mean designing with modular pieces, or designing, then fabricating whatever the pieces are. If its the former, i would probably go the route of the GM's as well (assuming you can get by on documentation or lack of traditional documentation/door content, because thats a deal breaker), and if i still wanted designers to do their thing, THEN fab it, i would let them run with regular walls. Really, with Mark values, scheduling, and a few non-API tricks, i would be comfortable doing it. Sure, there will be some manual legwork, but there will be in custom content creation as well.

              A lot would depend on what was getting fabricated, i guess, and in what methods. Were doing a lot with partitions and fabricating, and were using several add ons for it in our testing, but even with that, the design teams are still working fairly traditionally, albeit in a model and handing around DWF's. But, once you HAVE dug in to the API a little (not that i have, but the people were working with have), it shows that reinventing the wall (wheel), may be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

              But its certainly too early to tell, while everyone is still defining their favorite workflows.
              Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
              @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

              Comment

              Related Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X