ADT 2006 - Concrete Ramp

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to model a u-shaped concrete ramp with a height of 2' and a
1/12 slope. This should result in a 12' long flight, a landing, and
another 12' long flight. I can not get this to model correctly.
Additional unnecessary landings show up, landing extensions get added
on, etc. If you even look in the stair style content file, the OOTB
ramps exhibit the same behavior.

Another thing with ramps, if I create a ramp, terminating with a tread,
the overall height is always 21/256ths short of the height specified.

Has anybody gotten it to work well, or does everyone just live with
being off?

James

[Anonymous]

James Upton wrote:
> I'm trying to model a u-shaped concrete ramp with a height of 2' and a
> 1/12 slope. This should result in a 12' long flight, a landing, and
> another 12' long flight. I can not get this to model correctly.
> Additional unnecessary landings show up, landing extensions get added
> on, etc. If you even look in the stair style content file, the OOTB
> ramps exhibit the same behavior.
>
> Another thing with ramps, if I create a ramp, terminating with a tread,
> the overall height is always 21/256ths short of the height specified.
>
> Has anybody gotten it to work well, or does everyone just live with
> being off?
>
> James

I find the multi-landing creation to be infinitely more useful and
controllable than the "u-shaped" setting. You can still create a
u-shaped ramp--just don't use the u-shaped setting.

I don't remember the process as it was a while ago, but I *did* get it
to work (maybe not *well*), by changing the settings for "terminate
with..." to "landing", and Landing Extensions of 0 (A-Distance...DOWN)
and 1'-0" (B-...UP). I am noticing that, for some reason, my style has
the Landing Length set to 2'-9" in the style... Couldn't tell you why.

--
Brian Winterscheidt
LWPB Architecture
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[Anonymous]

Another thing to watch out for when attaching railings to "ramps"--there
is no way to make the railings "break" at the appropriate location.

See thread:
http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5178945

*My* solution has been to *create* the railing (with proper extension
settings in the railing style) anchored to the ramp. Then detach the
rails and move them in plan. I have had to then create a block of them
to prevent them from "flattening" out since they are no longer attached
to the ramp. So far that seems to work.

No official solution yet, but here's what Support sent me...

It seems we are somewhat limited in our ability to control the point the
railing transitions because the ramp is based on a stair style so the
rules the railings want to follow are based on that. I had David Kurtz
work on this but I am sending the response for him. David notes are below.

...


Regarding the railing extensions for ramps:

This issue is a bit more complex as the “ramp” object still thinks of
it’s self as a stair with treads. What works and looks good in plan,
removes the correctness in elevation.

I am still looking into massaging the stair settings on the ramp to see
if we can get it to behave correctly.

--------------------------


--
Brian Winterscheidt
LWPB Architecture
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[Anonymous]

The stair style I use for ramp has 1" riser and 12" tread. I always add 1"
to the overall height to make it correct lenght and height. That's because
ADT only draws the ramp to the top step, not the top of the ramp (see
attached).

--

Toan

[Anonymous]

I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
It looks like it just isn't possible.

Brian Winterscheidt wrote:
> James Upton wrote:
>> I'm trying to model a u-shaped concrete ramp with a height of 2' and a
>> 1/12 slope. This should result in a 12' long flight, a landing, and
>> another 12' long flight. I can not get this to model correctly.
>> Additional unnecessary landings show up, landing extensions get added
>> on, etc. If you even look in the stair style content file, the OOTB
>> ramps exhibit the same behavior.
>>
>> Another thing with ramps, if I create a ramp, terminating with a tread,
>
>> the overall height is always 21/256ths short of the height specified.
>>
>> Has anybody gotten it to work well, or does everyone just live with
>> being off?
>>
>> James
>
> I find the multi-landing creation to be infinitely more useful and
> controllable than the "u-shaped" setting. You can still create a
> u-shaped ramp--just don't use the u-shaped setting.
>
> I don't remember the process as it was a while ago, but I *did* get it
> to work (maybe not *well*), by changing the sett
> ings for "terminate
> with..." to "landing", and Landing Extensions of 0 (A-Distance...DOWN)
> and 1'-0" (B-...UP). I am noticing that, for some reason, my style has
> the Landing Length set to 2'-9" in the style... Couldn't tell you why.
>

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify any confusion, I've attached the ramp as it models in
ADT, and how it should appear drafted.

James Upton wrote:
> I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
> I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
> It looks like it just isn't possible.
>
> Brian Winterscheidt wrote:
>> James Upton wrote:
>>> I'm trying to model a u-shaped concrete ramp with a height of 2' and a
>>> 1/12 slope. This should result in a 12' long flight, a landing, and
>>> another 12' long flight. I can not get this to model correctly.
>>> Additional unnecessary landings show up, landing extensions get added
>>> on, etc. If you even look in the stair style content file, the OOTB
>>> ramps exhibit the same behavior.
>>>
>>> Another thing with ramps, if I create a ramp, terminating with a tread,
>>
>>> the overall height is always 21/256ths short of the height specified.
>>>
>>> Has anybody gotten it to work well, or does everyone just live with
>>> being off?
>>>
>>> James
>> I find the multi-landing creation to be infinitely more useful and
>> controllable than the "u-shaped" setting. You can still create a
>> u-shaped ramp--just don't use the u-shaped setting.
>>
>> I don't remember the process as it was a while ago, but I *did* get it
>> to work (maybe not *well*), by changing the sett
>> ings for "terminate
>> with..." to "landing", and Landing Extensions of 0 (A-Distance...DOWN)
>> and 1'-0" (B-...UP). I am noticing that, for some reason, my style has
>> the Landing Length set to 2'-9" in the style... Couldn't tell you why.
>>

[bt-arch]

I've been watching this thread, and I've had a lot of trouble trying to make the landing extensions go away, like you.

Is there a cure out there? I've always resorted to drawing 2 individual ramp segments and building a separate landing object.

[Anonymous]

James Upton wrote:
> I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
> I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
> It looks like it just isn't possible.


I see what you are getting at--we caught this during construction also.
We discussed this with the contractor and it actually isn't built with
the extension, but I never went back and changed the drawing. The
overall ramp size didn't change, just eliminated the curb extension at
the landing (note that ADA requires 60" min. landing where ramps change
direction--as yours is "drafted", it isn't compliant...)


--
Brian Winterscheidt
LWPB Architecture
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

[Bubbaloo]

Wouldn't it be faster to just model the ramp using a mass element? Then create a MVB for the railing. Just a suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Until something changes about the ramp.

Bubbaloo wrote:
> Wouldn't it be faster to just model the ramp using a mass element? Then create a MVB for the railing. Just a suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Good catch. I was paying too much attention to dims, I am actually
trying to see if it's possible first. 2 straight ramps with slab
landings looks like the way to go. Oh well.

Brian Winterscheidt wrote:
> James Upton wrote:
>> I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
>> I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
>> It looks like it just isn't possible.
>
>
> I see what you are getting at--we caught this during construction also.
> We discussed this with the contractor and it actually isn't built with
> the extension, but I never went back and changed the drawing. The
> overall ramp size didn't change, just eliminated the curb extension at
> the landing (note that ADA requires 60" min. landing where ramps change
> direction--as yours is "drafted", it isn't compliant...)
>
>

[Anonymous]

I really liked how it seemed to be able to place a landing every 12' of
run, as required, but then I noticed it screws that up too. A straight
ramp 4' high, with a flight height limit of 1' puts the first landing at
12'1.

bt-arch wrote:
> I've been watching this thread, and I've had a lot of trouble trying to make the landing extensions go away, like you.
>
> Is there a cure out there? I've always resorted to drawing 2 individual ramp segments and building a separate landing object.

[bt-arch]

You have it exactly right.

The actual height of the ramp is 1" less than actual. I was doing a set of ramps the other day and I was banging my head for a long time until I realized that the height shown for the ramp is "wrong"!

[Anonymous]

I've adjusted the ramp and added railing, is this what you were
looking for?


On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:21:52 +0000, James Upton
wrote:

>Good catch. I was paying too much attention to dims, I am actually
>trying to see if it's possible first. 2 straight ramps with slab
>landings looks like the way to go. Oh well.
>
>Brian Winterscheidt wrote:
>> James Upton wrote:
>>> I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
>>> I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
>>> It looks like it just isn't possible.
>>
>>
>> I see what you are getting at--we caught this during construction also.
>> We discussed this with the contractor and it actually isn't built with
>> the extension, but I never went back and changed the drawing. The
>> overall ramp size didn't change, just eliminated the curb extension at
>> the landing (note that ADA requires 60" min. landing where ramps change
>> direction--as yours is "drafted", it isn't compliant...)
>>
>>

[Anonymous]

That is close to perfect. There's still a 53/256 landing extension to
the down flight, but I can ignore that.

So, what's the secret?

Jim Watt wrote:
> I've adjusted the ramp and added railing, is this what you were
> looking for?
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:21:52 +0000, James Upton
> wrote:
>
>> Good catch. I was paying too much attention to dims, I am actually
>> trying to see if it's possible first. 2 straight ramps with slab
>> landings looks like the way to go. Oh well.
>>
>> Brian Winterscheidt wrote:
>>> James Upton wrote:
>>>> I've tried to use both, with no success. Your example isn't quite what
>>>> I need either, you have landing extensions and I need it to have none.
>>>> It looks like it just isn't possible.
>>>
>>> I see what you are getting at--we caught this during construction also.
>>> We discussed this with the contractor and it actually isn't built with
>>> the extension, but I never went back and changed the drawing. The
>>> overall ramp size didn't change, just eliminated the curb extension at
>>> the landing (note that ADA requires 60" min. landing where ramps change
>>> direction--as yours is "drafted", it isn't compliant...)
>>>
>>>

[bt-arch]

The secret is you have to draw it and then fiddle with the ramp length a lot until it almost works.

Wish it would just work.