Interesting question, since "architectural colum" is not a category that can be scheduled. One solution is to open the architectural column family and change its category. For example if you change it to "casework", then, in the project, you could create a schedule of casewor elements, filtered, to show only your architectural columns. The schedule will give you the quantity. In regards to the volume, you need to create a calculated value in the schedule: "volume", to multiply width * depth * height.
you can calculate quantity of Architectual column by multi category schedule.
For Material take off you can use multi category material take off.
You may require to do some sorting/filtering to reach desired result (to remove all other elements and to keep only architectural column) in those schedule and material take off.
That's true. It can be scheduled by multi-category schedule. The good news is that the category can remain the same, to obtain the quantity of columns. The bad news is that the width, depth, and height parameters will not be listed in that kind of schedule, to obtain the volume, and those parameters will need to be created. Therefore, there are 2 choices of solution. It depends on the circumstances, which method suits the needs better.
This may be a daft question, but why would you model with architectural columns if they can't be used beyond architectural documentation?
Isn't it better to use columns which can then be sent onwards to the engineer or used in quantity-takeoff? Or isn't it better to wait for the engineer to finish their model then import that information (which is accurate ) into your model?
I realise that architectural models have special material properties but I just wonder if that's a high price to pay for not allowing information to flow between consultants (unless I'm mistaken!)
different project, different offices works differently. some has everything under one roof, others may have scattered designers in different offices.
so it all depends on the way the project is being designed.
..sorry - I'm also lashmail but I just found my 'old' Autodesk login.
I suspect that Revits intention or product development direction is that architectural column should be regarded as 'non-structural' in which case it wouldn't feature in an information exchange with the structural engineer and would only be counted per unit.
The OP asked a good question, in that it highlights perhaps, what would be better practice - ie an object that can't be quantified but needs to be, is just maybe, the wrong object to use. Better to use a standard column (?) which has a much wider life beyond the immediate use (ie the information can then be passed on) - and then use work-arounds to make it work in your immediate documentation (ie achieving material matching with the wall that it connects too etc)