Hello,
In structural drafting it is pretty much the industry standard to cut above the floor line but show all the elements (beams, headers, load bearing walls, etc.) below the floor line that support the level above. How can I show in plan view these elements (that are not a part of the floor system) dashed, hidden, or whatever line style I want to give them?
I have done extensive research and it appears that some say use a plan region (I will have to laugh at that because that is ton of work over a multilevel building with repetitive unit types, that would be hundreds of headers...) Others say put a hidden line in the door or window family but that doesn't solve the issue because you still have to set special cut plane parameters to get it looking just right and make sure all your cut planes line up perfectly to show that hidden line and you still often seen a half tone line under the hidden line due to the wall above the header below the line showing in between say the dashes in the line. When you plot this it doesn’t look like a nice dashed line.
How would you show these type conditions or if you have experience with these what did you do to tackle such a project?
Thank You
Object styles and visibility and graphics just let me show how things are displayed not how things are shown when they are at different levels, at least that is all I can find from using them.
To clear up any missunderstandings:
Can visibility and graphics somehow show a header (which is shown as a hidden line when plotted or in plan view) that supports a dashed lines trusses, all at the same time, while in level 2 plan view?
Thanks
The thing that you're trying to do is utilize 3-D geometry and represent it in a 2D environment to accomplish a methodology that was created for a puerly 2-D workflow. If you want to accomplish drawings that did exactly what the old 2-D drafting methods did then I suggest yiou draft a line on the plan and call it a header. This is a reasonable workflow.
Are you modeling the stud framing or are you generically representing the wall? If you are modeling the studs, then it makes sense to model the header. Creating elevations might be another methodolgy of tagging headers when modeling.
If you are not modeling the framing, then I recommend either drawing the old fashioned line with a header size on the floor framing plan or making up a generic annotation family that has some smart parameters in it for things like size and length. You could also take it a step further and use invisible 3D geometry in a structural framing family with symbolic lines in plan and use tags to label (not very intuitive though).
For design documents, I do not recommend modeling headers.
It would be nice if Revit could model it by stud, header, beam, and etc. that way when you cut a section through a wall it would automatically create all the elements in a detail leaving it up to the user to add annotations. Revit does this for steel beams and wood subfloors well but for walls and floor systems it seems to leave me the user wanting.
The software is 3D but when we plot it, it will strictly be 2D with annotations. BIM software should automatically create these things.
But to work with what we have, I don't mind drawing old fashioned lines on the plan, that is basically what I did with the symbolic projection lines that are cyan hidden lines in the pic I previously attached, I just did that in the door family to automate the process. Otherwise I think it would be more industrious to use AutoCAD since you could manipulate the lines with many layers and xrefs to automate the process.
Attached shows where I have got so far: since the door is below the wall the cut pattern for the wall still shows but I was able to white out the previous walls lines. I believe this is the end of the road with what is capable with Revit though when it comes to Multi-Family residential framing.
I don't think we should settle for that though, this is Revit, this is BIM, it should make great looking 2D construction documents from the 3D models plan view right out of the box for structural engineers of all disciplines.
Thanks
There are certainly other ways to skin this cat. Some have used ceiling plan views, others have used underlays to show the floor below, while others may reference the architectural model and use the "by linked view." Each of these should be able to "blank" the opening.
But the main point is that we need to come up with new documentation methods to display the model using the tools we have. Don't spin wheels too much trying to make Revit represent practices that were created for a 2D workflow. Rather, spend the time finding the best way to communicate the design intent. Isometrics have become a great way of doing this for many trades.
If you're interested in the wood framing, you should check out the Apps Exchange site or the Revit Extensions. It actually does a pretty good job of developing framing based upon defined rule sets. There are other add-ons for metal stud framing that work pretty well too.
Coming up with new documentation with the tools we have is intriguing. I like the idea but that seems like a monumental task because it seems like it would require changing how the whole industry reads construction documents. Would all documents hence forth be 3D?, isometric?, digital? (with the building contractor bringing his tablet to the framer digitally showing the person how to layout the studs)... I mean that seems like a question for an international building conference to decide so that the industry can keep standards.
There certainly are many ways to skin a cat lol, I will look into the underlay option; I have that setup for the Architectural .dwg link currently, but have it hidden for clarity in previous attachment. I have decided not to work with links when it comes to structural elemenets and go all groups. Computers are getting better in processing power so I believe the groups making file to big issues is fading.
I am using Revit LT so third party apps are not available. Although, I still believe this should be able to be done right out of the box.
Thanks