Placing beams - best practice

[DD1]

When placing a beam which needs to be above / below the reference level being used, there are a couple of options.
1. Start / End Level Offset,
2. Set z-Direction Justification to other and supply an Offset Value.

Is there a preferred practice? And are there any consequences of doing it a particular way?

Half of the office does it one way and half the other, and no one really knows why.

Thanks

[Alfredo Medina]

If I had to choose a method and make it a standard I would pick the second method (Set z-Direction Justification to other and supply an Offset Value), because this needs just one value, which is entered before placing the beam. The first method (Start / End Level Offset) is more intended to create sloped beams, and you need to enter 2 values after the beam has been placed, to lower or raise evenly the level of the beam. If one of the values is different by mistake, now you have a sloped beam. So the second method, in my opinion, is faster, and safer.

[Ben-May]

The key difference between the two are that one maintains the analytical model at the workplane/level which results in symbolic cutback correctly

1. Start / End Level Offset
Adjusts the anlytical model to offsets

2. Set z-Direction Justification to other and supply an Offset Value.
Keeps the analytical model at the reference level

I would generally go for option 2 for this reason

[jh75]

Hi

Worth noting is if a framing member is associated to a work plane and you change the end offset values the member will be de-associated from the work plane - while only changing the Z-value it will still be associated to the work plane.

Cheers,
J

[mdradvies]

my 2ct: always use the z-direction + offset. why? because the start and end level offset, once changed, often goes bonkers and randomly changes height if you change something in the model.

[DD1]

Thank you all for responding.

So it seems setting z-Direction Justification to other and supplying an Offset Value is the way to go.
Question for Ben: If using the model for analysis, wouldn't it be better to have the analytical model at the proper location of the beam?

Cheers,

[Ben-May]

Thank you all for responding.

So it seems setting z-Direction Justification to other and supplying an Offset Value is the way to go.
Question for Ben: If using the model for analysis, wouldn't it be better to have the analytical model at the proper location of the beam?

Cheers,

No, analysis software requires analytical lines to meet at end points

[BecFra]

The key difference between the two are that one maintains the analytical model at the workplane/level which results in symbolic cutback correctly

1. Start / End Level Offset
Adjusts the anlytical model to offsets

2. Set z-Direction Justification to other and supply an Offset Value.
Keeps the analytical model at the reference level

I would generally go for option 2 for this reason

The start and end level offsets does NOT dictate the analytical model offsets, however it relates more to the symbolic cutback on the stick symbol. When you have the analytical set to "location line" it IS in the same plane as the start and end level offsets but the analytical line can be moved to nearly any location you need (especially in 2012), and does not depend upon your start/end level offsets.

I would say.. yes default to using the z-direction justification when you can and do not intend to slope anything into that beam, and it will work most the time. If you pay attention to the dots on the end of the beam in section, those relate directly to your start and end level offsets, so if you leave start and end level offset at 0'-0" and change the z-direction to -2'-0" and your top of columns that the beam is connecting into is also at -2'-0".. the beam is NOT going to be shown cut back from the columns on plan because those little dots for start and end level offsets are not connecting into the column. (The dots need to be at the same elevation of whatever they are framing into.. if into another beam those dots need to match that other beams dots to cutback from eachother in plan.. haha.. I like saying dots) So in that case you'd want to use the start and end level offsets to move your beam down the 2'-0" instead of z-direction even though the beam is flat. And yes, once you change the start and end level offsets the beam goes into "3d snapping" mode even if you didn’t choose that option upon first creation.

It’ll be different for every situation and project, you just need to understand the little quirks that go with each method. I’ve attached a few pages from an AUv class I did on sloping but it explains beam offsets because it is so important. The entire class and handout is here: http://au.autodesk.com/?nd=class&session_id=6730

[Ben-May]

I would agree the terminology using the analytical line is technically wrong, I agree its actually the location line that dictates the cutback

But if you are NOT messing around with the analytical line, its an easier workflow to understand IMO thinking of the location line and the analytical line as one in the same. I have found its an easy way to explain to users to check why a beam isnt cutting back symbolically

snipSo in that case you'd want to use the start and end level offsets to move your beam down the 2'-0" instead of z-direction even though the beam is flat. And yes, once you change the start and end level offsets the beam goes into "3d snapping" mode even if you didn’t choose that option upon first creation. snip

But then once you do this for a column cutback, are you not then trapped in having to use start end offsets for all beams framing into this beam to have the symbolic cutback? Or is there some workflow I am missing here?

I would prefer the beam to just not have the cutback at that particular column, and have it stop flush at the face, having beam to beam automatic symbolic cutback would be the first priority for me

[BecFra]

But then once you do this for a column cutback, are you not then trapped in having to use start end offsets for all beams framing into this beam to have the symbolic cutback? Or is there some workflow I am missing here?

I would prefer the beam to just not have the cutback at that particular column, and have it stop flush at the face, having beam to beam automatic symbolic cutback would be the first priority for me

Yeah if you change your start and end level offsets to get the beam to cutback from the columns you would also have to use start and end level offsets for any other beams framing into it, that way there little dots can be BFF's.

Just got to figure out what works for you, your company standards, your project and understand all the quirks with both ways. I want all my cutbacks to be consistent at beams and columns so i just copy and paste my offsets from the z-direction to the start and end when needed. No biggie.