Wall assembly with slope at bottom (if necessary)?

[BMcAnney]

Hello all,

I am trying to create an assembly with the following parameters:
- Creates a wall with a maximum height of 10'. Ties in to the existing ground surface if it meets within that 10'.
- If it doesn't meet the existing ground within that 10', places a 10' vertical wall and then at the bottom of the wall, grades a 3:1 slope down to meet the existing ground surface.

I think I should be able to accomplish this with some combination of the daylight assemblies, but I'm not too experienced with them at this point. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!
Brent McAnney

[cadtown]

Why don't you post your wall X-Section.
The feedback will be only as good as your input.

[BMcAnney]

Since we are in prelmiinary design right now, I do not have a firm wall cross-section. I don't necessarily need the cross section of the wall to show in my section views anyways, as long as I can simulate it by showing the face of the wall.

If only the "link to surface" subassemblies had a maximum distance option, I could put a "link slope to surface" at a really high slope but with a maximum height of 10' to simulate my wall condition. And then I could put a 3:1 "link slope to surface" at the bottom, which would only appear if the wall did not meet the existing ground in the 10' max. But if something like this is possible, I haven't figured out how to do it yet.

Brent McAnney

[cadtown]

Is this what you are trying to do ?...
The wall height varies within 10' from the EG...

Peter,

[jdavis417]

Can we assume the top of wall is at a constant, set elevation (in which case you might consider creating grading criteria) OR controled by an alignment and profile and NOT based on EG? Also that 10'max section is "poured in place" and will not simply be buried if required? (Perhaps you'd consider burying just for the modeling here at first? Surfaces could be cut/combined etc.)

A method I'm considering (if all else fails) is to create a FG surface representing the top of wall then copying that surface down 10' and sampling both into the profile layout to graphiclly determine intersection of EG with limits of bottom of 10'max wall... see where I'm going??? Both FG profiles could then be targeted by an assembly that uses LinkOffsetAndElevation (for top and bottom, since it can target a profile), LinkVertical (for wall faces) and flanked by your 3:1 grading (I'm using BasicSideSlopeCutDitch with all ditch parameters set to 0...) ***the ditch trick for simple slope grading seems silly, even to me, but it works and is less confusing at this point... I'm open to a better way***

Getting Warmer?

John

[BMcAnney]

Peter,

That looks like exactly what I am looking for. I'm very curious how you achieved this - maybe a custom subassembly?

[BMcAnney]

John,

The top of wall is not constant. It is based on the finish grade of a parking lot at the top of the wall, which is not yet firmly established (which is why I would prefer to do this with a corridor rather than a grading, to keep it dynamic. Also, I've been getting repeated crashes when trying to do this as a grading object).

Ideally, the wall would not just be buried, since I want it to show up correctly in my section views. I have to admit that I'm still trying to get my head around the final part of your post.

Brent McAnney

[BMcAnney]

Actually, this is close but a bit different than what I am looking for - I am starting at a high proposed grade, then I want a wall to go down until it meets existing ground, unless the ground is further than 10' (in which case the wall would be 10' high and then it would daylight to the existing ground at -3:1).

[jdavis417]

LOL, I should have been in bed, asleep... (counting SuperBowl running backs jumping over defensive linemen). I'll splash some water on my face and try again for you...

Forget the surfaces, FG proflies would be all that is required for targeting of wall top and bottom. Where the offset (10' lower) FG profile intersects with EG determines the stationing for the regions of the corridor. Depending on what daylighting subassemblies we can find (to fill at 3:1 only) the assembly I suggested (still wondering about it, though) would change to targeting EG at afore mentioned regions (with no grading). It's not elegant, sorry.

What subassembly are you using for the simple 3:1 grading? DaylightStandard? Can you post the dwg? Too big??? jdavis417@yahoo.com gets it to me!

[cadtown]

That's why you have to post your typical section if you want a clear direction - A picture is worth a thousand words.
Anyways, your dynamic wall corridor will take literally 10 minutes to complete from scratch without any custom subassembly.

Peter,

[BMcAnney]

You're right, I think I misunderstood what you were asking for earlier - attached is a typical cross-section. This is a bit more than I was describing above, since I was just asking for the part that I didn't know how to achieve.

The top wall is a fixed height. The bottom wall in this case meets existing ground, but if necessary it would be 10' high and then proceed to grade down to existing at 3:1.

[cadtown]

Brent,

You may find my previous posting on Ret Wall interesting:

http://discussion.autodesk.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5808230

Pretty simple stuff... But it can be very painful if you take a wrong approach...

Peter,

[jdavis417]

Just to point out my own guffaw... the correct, easy and OBVIOUS way to do simple grading to a surface is with the generic link LinkSlopeToSurface! Don't I feel silly. I knew there had to be a better way that to trick the basic ditch sub to 0 bottom and sides, I just kept using the tool I created from this workaround on the first day I ever created an assembly. Guess I'm just a creature of habit. It was Peter Funk's webcast of Sept. 16, 2005 (yes, 2005) that finally idiot-proofed it for me. Sorry for the stupid question earlier. It's so simple and obvious I'll bet no one ever knew what I was babbeling on about (as usual?).

Brent, did you ever get your task completed? I finally got the "smart wall" I thought you were asking for to work and Peter of Cadtown was right, it was quite simple once you draw the links in order (duh again). Well, I suppose most mistakes are stupid ones when looking at them in the rearview mirror... Like so many things in life, I had to learn the hard way (but I'm not bitter against the ex... or maybe I am). At least I shouldn't do it again!

Shout out if you need to,

John

[cadtown]

John,

"To learn the hard way" is often the best to learn in order to have the depth of understanding...

Peter,