Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concrete Beam surface Area Schedule - Problem

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

    Concrete Beam surface Area Schedule - Problem

    This is a post I have been meaning to put up since the back end of last year, for some reason I put it on the back burner and then never came round to writing it up.

    I was asked if Revit can schedule the surface area of beams for the purpose of calculating how much paint would be required to cover the beams.

    My simple response was of course Revit can do that....

    So I quickly got to work and soon realised something wasn't quite right, when doing a test manually to calculate the surface area of the beams in a small portion of this model, the answer I was getting contradicted the schedule within Revit.

    Back to the drawing board.

    I soon worked out that the problem is when a beam was joining a wall or column. The 'surface' that joins that wall or column, in theory should not show up in the surface area schedule, because that face will not be painted.

    Revit however doesn't recognise that.

    There are images relating to this and a little more information on my blog post

    http://revitst.blogspot.com/2011/02/...face-area.html
    Last edited by G Jowett; February 15, 2011, 01:07 PM.
    Regards

    Glenn

    Check out my Revit blog - http://revitst.blogspot.com

    #2
    hmmm, are you saying here that Revit should recognize the consequense of joining a beam with a wall in relation to the painted area? You are asking for the surface area aren't you? Joining with a wall doesn't change this.
    Try to remember that Revit isn't capable of reading your mind. Ask for the surface area and you will get the surface area
    Martijn de Riet
    Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
    MdR Advies
    Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

    Comment


      #3
      I am saying that people should not expect accurate results when scheduling the surface area of objects within a Revit project.

      Revit schedules the surface area of an object(s) assuming that object is floating in space, it does not take into account that there maybe other objects connecting or butting up against that object.

      In other words, what use is a surface area schedule that does not provide the 'visible' surface area?

      Can you tell me when you would find that information useful within a project... Scheduling the surface area of objects that are assumed to be floating? Rather than the actual visible surface area?

      Considering this is a material take off schedule, surely the 'visible' surface area is what should be scheduled??
      Last edited by G Jowett; February 15, 2011, 01:08 PM.
      Regards

      Glenn

      Check out my Revit blog - http://revitst.blogspot.com

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
        Ask for the surface area and you will get the surface area
        I am asking for the surface area, of that beam in that situation.

        Not the surface area of that beam, floating in space.
        Regards

        Glenn

        Check out my Revit blog - http://revitst.blogspot.com

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by G Jowett View Post
          I am saying that people should not expect accurate results when scheduling the surface area of objects within a Revit project.

          Revit schedules the surface area of an object(s) assuming that object is floating in space, it does not take into account that there maybe other objects connecting or butting up against that object.

          In other words, what use is a surface area schedule that does not provide the 'visible' surface area?

          Can you tell me when you would find that information useful within a project... Scheduling the surface area of objects that are assumed to be floating? Rather than the actual visible surface area?

          Considering this is a material take off schedule, surely the 'visible' surface area is what should be scheduled??
          No, you are asking for the surface area, and that is what you're getting. You DIDN'T ask for "the surface area minus all parts covered by other materials" or "only the surface area I can see". You are saying that a dumb collection of 0's and 1's should recognise the intend behind a question. That's not possible.

          For instance:
          let's say you have a steel construction. A beam and 2 columns. Halfway down that beam crosses a wall. So, part of it is covered by that wall. You want the surface area WITHOUT that wall for the paint, right?
          But what if that paint is fire proof and the wall isn't? In this case you DON't want that wall to be accounted for because it will cause the building to collapse in case of fire. What if you want the building layout to be flexible? You might want to choose to paint first, before you put in the walls. So your tenants can relocate them whenever they like. What if this is the case, but you also have bearing walls that can't be moved, in which case Revit should decide to actually count the surface depending on whether the wall in question is a. fireproof, b. bearing, c. flexible.

          Or what if your steel construction is outside, and the paint is needed to be anti-corrosive. In this case you will need to paint the whole beam and columns, including the parts where they join together.

          Do I need to go on? You are asking an incomplete question, so you get an incomplete answer. Frankly, I don't know if what you're asking for is even possible.
          Martijn de Riet
          Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
          MdR Advies
          Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

          Comment


            #6
            It is a simple enough post.

            I am showing a CONCRETE BEAM which in construction will be tied directly to the concrete wall shown in the images.

            The surface area Revit is showing in the schedule will never be visible, in theory the surface area of a concrete beam tied / cast against a concrete wall does not even exist, it may even be cast with the top of the wall depending on the construction of the structure.
            Last edited by G Jowett; February 15, 2011, 01:46 PM.
            Regards

            Glenn

            Check out my Revit blog - http://revitst.blogspot.com

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by mdradvies View Post
              let's say you have a steel construction.
              The title of the post is Concrete Beam surface Area Material Take Off Schedule - Problem.

              Not steel frame material take off problem.
              Regards

              Glenn

              Check out my Revit blog - http://revitst.blogspot.com

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by G Jowett View Post
                I am asking for the surface area, of that beam in that situation.

                Not the surface area of that beam, floating in space.
                Originally posted by G Jowett View Post
                I am saying that people should not expect accurate results when scheduling the surface area of objects within a Revit project.

                Revit schedules the surface area of an object(s) assuming that object is floating in space, it does not take into account that there maybe other objects connecting or butting up against that object.

                In other words, what use is a surface area schedule that does not provide the 'visible' surface area?

                Can you tell me when you would find that information useful within a project... Scheduling the surface area of objects that are assumed to be floating? Rather than the actual visible surface area?

                Considering this is a material take off schedule, surely the 'visible' surface area is what should be scheduled??
                Originally posted by G Jowett View Post
                The title of the post is Concrete Beam surface Area Material Take Off Schedule - Problem.

                Not steel frame material take off problem.
                This is going nowhere. Either you are missing the whole point I am trying to make, or you simply don't want to understand it. Read my posts, I said for example. This is exactly what I mean: you ARE okay with the way things work if it were steel, but NOT if it is concrete. So on top of my previous post, you ALSO want Revit to look at the material in question and define it's calculations based on that material? Or on the way the structure is created? It doesn't work that way. Revit has generic ways to calculate certain things, like material surfaces, and thereby completely ignores the material in question or the real world situation. Simply because it doesn't have the references you have which allows it to know how to react / handle the given situation. It is a stupid database! It is NOT a building ingeneer. Interpreting the given answers is your job to do.

                I will repeat myself: the answer provided in the schedule is the only correct answer given the question you provided: what is the material surface of this beam. Period. Again: you did not ask for the visible surface area, nor for the remaining area when substracting all area's joined with other materials.
                Martijn de Riet
                Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
                MdR Advies
                Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

                Comment


                  #9
                  Try looking at it like this:

                  If you give a 4-year old child two bricks, one floating in space, one lying on the floor. Ask if they are the same size, the chlid will probably say yes. Ask them if you would need the same amount of paint to paint them, he/she will say yes. Why? Because a 4-year old child will not understand that you don't need to paint the whole brick when it's lying on the floor. It doesn't have the intelligence nor the references to make that string of deductions yet. Revit isn't remotely as intelligent as a little child. Don't expect too much.
                  Martijn de Riet
                  Professional Revit Consultant | Revit API Developer
                  MdR Advies
                  Planta1 Revit Online Consulting

                  Comment


                    #10
                    You are correct that the take-off comes out incorrectly. To correct this in material take-off schedules I have always had to create a dummy column from a calculated value that took the volume and broke it down to surface area using 'Surface = 2LW + 2LH'. L being cut length, H being height and W being width. This could then provide a correct material take-off for concrete beams. If you do not need a specific side calculated you can always modify the formula slightly, for instance, if all beams do not need to be coated on the top. This does make it a pain to work with as multiple schedules may need to be created and compiled on a sheet for final numbers.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X