No announcement yet.

Any revit experts

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Any revit experts

    hopefully i am in the right place, i am a very light user of revit my bread and butter is tekla, the problem i have is when a structural revit ifc file (by others) is imported and converted into native elements in tekla, if there are service holes in floor beams it is always hit and miss as to whether these will come through in the conversion.
    My question then is are there different ways to model a service hole? (which would explain the randomness) some models seem to have the hole as an integral part of the beam, others i can hover over and select the individual hole.
    If i can get to the bottom of this then i can approach the main contractors.

    thanks for any advice.

    "Holes" in floors (structural or otherwise) can be made a number of ways - and they all behave differently during export.

    1. Shafts (the lazy way)
    2. Sketch (the usual way)
    3. Loaded (cutting) component (the involved way)
    4. In-place (cutting) component (the fussy way)

    Shafts are not "phase aware" (even in Revit) so as an 'element-other-than-the-floor', it's cutting-interaction may be disregarded by the export.

    Sketching a floor defines it's boundaries, so there should be no automatic clean up/simplification by the export -and is the soundest route to start your tests

    Placed components (that can cut floors) will, like a shaft, interact with said floor, cutting it - but should behave better than the (system family) shaft on export

    In-Place components (that can cut floors) act somewhere in-between a shaft and a loaded component. I would expect these to introduce errors on export.


    Bottom-line; testing all four methods would take less time than me writing this response - so test, test away!

    Don't forget to check/experiment with your export settings

    Also, it might be worth considering .ifc as a translation format (instead of expecting a direct 1:1 translation from Revit to Tekla)


      thanks for the answer,
      another parameter that i may have over looked is the parent section, in my first test a sketched hole converts correctly when its in a hot rolled UB library section, the same hole does not work when the parent member is a parametric plate girder. any thoughts on the reason for this?



        Are they modelled both the same? As in, are both using Sweeps - and if so, do both employ a loaded profile or a sketched one? Alternatively, might one be modelled as a sweep (in which ever way) and the other as an Extrusion?

        Consistency is key (in all things) but doubly-so when faced with crunchy geometry conversions when converting formats.


          Shafts are great for elevator shafts or any openings that will span multiple levels. As you can add in lines with it to use as an opening symbol and it will also cut multiple floors. That way the opening is always in the correct place and not offset level to level (not a lazy method)
          Michael "MP" Patrick (Deceased - R.I.P)


            Originally posted by MPwuzhere View Post
            Shafts are great
            Their lack of respect for phasing means they are useless (to me).

            All of the things you mention can be done with an in-place model, (that do respect phasing) - not that I would recommend that either.

            Originally posted by MPwuzhere View Post
            (not a lazy method)
            Whilst I admire the engineering sensibilities of working efficiently - for me, and in our work, shafts remain an undercooked tool, even after so many years of Revit being around (Hi Jeff! ) - and so yes, I see their use as short-cutting. Pun intended.


            Related Topics