Automate Tapered mass floors to match angle of Conceptual Mass Object

[brobes05]

Here is the link to the Revit File

Hello, 

I have searched and not found a solution for this. 

Have got a simple massing and then create mass floors. I want to taper the borders of these floors to match the angle / slope of the mass object as seen in the image. 

I feel that this is possible quite easily, but I am overlooking something. I wish to do this in an automated fashion rather than manually... is there a dynamo solution as well as a native Revit one?

Thank you.

[ToanDN]

Create a profile of the angle and use it for a slab edge type or fascia type and apply it around the edges of the floors.

[brobes05]

Thanks Toan this works well if you have a consistent angle; however, if you have a variable angle and many floors, it will be a taxing manual process. 

Is there anyway to automate this and create a parametric relationship between the tapered slab edge and the shape of the mass?

Thank you again. 

[ToanDN]

You can create walls by faces and use voids to cut it the the same height as the floor thickness.  Then join the walls to the floor. 

[brobes05]

This second option seems like a better solution for me, but I don't completely understand. 

I take a mass floor, create a horizontal wall by face from it, then create a floor by face in the same position and join them? Where do the voids fit in?

[ToanDN · Accepted solution]

Hope this clears things up.

[brobes05]

Thanks. 

This is very helpful. I figured out how to cut the walls with the generic void set to the wall cagegory; however, after the cuts are done, I can't seem to join the wall to the floor. Is this a category issue?

[ToanDN · Accepted solution]

I draw the voids as an in place generic model and cut the walls while inside the editing mode. The walls then join with the floor just fine.

[brobes05]

Thanks again Toan, 

Got it working. I was trying to join a wall with angled on two sides with one that is angled on one side. 

I think that they both must have the same angles on all edges in order to join properly. 

It is strange that it looks like there is two surfaces overlaid on top of one another in both of our 'joined results'. 

Thanks again. 

brobes05