Best method for integrating stacked wall types with floors ?

[Anonymous]

Hi,

apologies again for more questions.

I've finished going through Revit Essentials for 2013, and am working through a sample project based more on the typical details that I work with to try and develop my skills further.

One item that I am particularly confused about is the 'best practice' approach to building a wall and linking it - particularly where it integrates with the floor. Thanks to some great advice on here (thanks Constantin) I now know how to have a wall project partly into the wall construction, but I'm stuck when the build-up gets more complicated.

I've attached a sample CAD drawing for a typical foundation / external wall / ground floor detail (wall type 1).

There are essentially 4 wall types in the build up, and 1 floor type that integrates with it.

What is the best practice approach to building this detail in Revit ? is it better to use a stacked wall type ? or keep them as separate (but attached) walls ?

Also - I can get the floor structure to 'dovetail' with one wall type, but in my example, the floor steps in/out across multiple wall types, and I cannot get that to work.

Another query thrown in - I would like to add perimeter insulation to the top layer in the floor build up (screed). I can add this as a drawn element in the detail section call out, but is there a way of adding this as a model element so that it can be quantified ?

Many thanks,

Martin

[constantin.stroescu · Accepted solution]

I use two methods:

• a 3d method
• a 2d method

1. 3d method -using  Parts

• select the floor > Modify/Floors > Create>Parts ...hide floor and activate from Properties >Visibility/Graphics Overrides >Parts (it is hide by default)
• now you can select every layer independently...select the layer you want to cut and aply from Parts > Divide Parts > Edit Sketch..trace a line to split the layer ( use the Viewer window to be more preciss)...trace a longer line to be sure...
• Now ,the selected layer is splited in two...Hide the part that you don't want to appear
• All theese changes do not affect the initial floor...but that is hidden
• To make Parts from the Stacked Wall you must,first select it> RC > Break Up....the wall now is a sum of basic walls and accepts Parts

2. 2 d method - only for 2 d sections

• in section view apply : View > Cut Profile...select the layer you want to cut , it will turn orange, draw the separation line...a small arrow will appear beside it click on it to choose the part that will be seen ...the other part will be hidden

for basic walls , in 3d you can , also use a layer editor....select a basic wall > Edit Assembly> in Preview activate Section View...> Modify Vertical Structure...you have a lot of fuction there that allow changes in wall layers....conected to your question ...you can use MODIFY  ...you can there unlock the layer you want not to be align vertically with the whole wall......

[Anonymous]

Thanks again Constantin,

I can't try that out until this evening, but it looks as though it will really help.

One thing that struck me, in hiding parts etc. how does that reflect on quantities ? I'm feeling my way into this level of detail with Revit, and I'm not sure at this stage how pedantic to get about accurately modelling the 3d elements to ensure that quantities are spot on. I realise that the 2d detailing is a lot more flexible to provide construction drawings - but for the moment I'm fixated on making the 3d truly reflective of the construction.

Without a real life project to develop a workflow it is difficult to know where to draw the line. I'm ahead of the game compared to the other consultants with whom we work, so I can't draw on experience of other members of the design team at present.

Many thanks

Martin

[constantin.stroescu]

what I know is that Scheduling Parts seems to work fine....I made some tests on the subject and it was ok....sure you have to test it more...

[Anonymous]

Thanks again Constantin.

I've been playing around with 'parts' this evening. One thing I did notice is that having broken up the floor into parts (via select floor, Modify_Create Parts) and selecting an individual layer, in the properties panel you can tick 'Show Shape Handles' - this allows the perimeter of individual layers to be dragged so that they can adjust individually (and done so by entering exact values).

It doesn't seem to interact with the adjacent wall element though (ie it doesn't cut out or hide the wall sections where the floor part is adjusted to project into the wall).

I've been trying the technique that you suggested, but I'm having trouble getting to the point where I am able to draw a line to divide the part, and I must admit to being a bit confused on how the technique works.

I think I'm missing something pretty fundamental here on the modelling techniques required, sorry if I'm being a bit slow on the uptake, when I try to Divide Part on a floor layer (in section view) it prompts:

Current Work Plane:

Name - None

Specify a New Work Plane:

-Name

-Pick a Plane

-Pick a Line and use the work plane it was sketched on

whatever I try it seems to want to force me to a plan view.

Thanks,

Martin

[constantin.stroescu]

show shape handle !  good to know....divide parts needs a little exercise but it,s good tool for presentation in axonmetry...

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to find a clarification on this, and have appended it here as it follows on from the above.

If I have a Layered Floor - as in the example above - and "Create Parts" so that I can adjust the boundary, split it up, hide invidividual parts etc. My understanding is that the original parent layered floor element is retained in the project, but is hidden to be replaced by the new divided parts.

In quantifying - does Revit use the orginal parent floor - or the new divided parts ?

From reading tutorials on line, it seems that 'Parts' are intended for communication / construction programming, ie to reflect the size of plasterboard - or to 'phase' the construction of a larger layer - ie floor screed divided in bays to represent individual pours - and that quantities will still be based on the original parent floor.

I was after a way of dovetailing floor construction layers with wall construction layers with more control. My worry is that spending time setting up parts (hiding the original floor element) may provide me with a model view that 'looks' correct, but that quantities etc. are still based on the unaltered parent element - and will therefore not be accurate. If that is the case, it is probably easier simply to work in 2d on a detail call-out to show a contractor how the interface is constructed - and leave the model as a more simplistic view.

Thanks again - this is a real head scratcher for me.

I have detailed experience of AutoCAD and 3ds Max - but Revit is such a totally new way of working that I am getting frustrated at my inability to pick up what seem to be straightforward concepts.

Martin

[constantin.stroescu]

You are right about the Parts...they are an alternative of the layered elelements , they can be shown in presentation sheets. I made schedules on this and this is a sort of material takeof  a little more accurate...but I think it will be an major error to apply this overall.....it has no sense and the file will became extra large ....

So, my opinion is to work in a simple 3d not overmodeled,

In addition make 2 d details for sections and details (think as being in Autocad ), so the file will  keep in a reasonable size

As for the list of quantites I don't think that they worth an overmodeling ... 

Perhaps for small projects it can be done....but for big ones it will be a real  suiciide

I have, too ,a long experience in Autocad <> 3d Studio (Max) , but I feel that  Revit is just what I was looking for ...the "awaited one" software

[Anonymous]

I agree re. Revit looking like the ideal package to replace Autocad+Max in a productive sense.

It's just that for the moment I'm still at the - 'I could do this quicker and easier in CAD/Max' stage when it comes to the nuts and bolts end.

I know what I am trying to do in Revit - just not whether it is either good practice to do it that way, or indeed how to do it.

Thanks again for your help - hoping to do a mammoth weekend in Revit, so I'm sure there will be more questions coming.

Martin