I am wondering what is the best practice for creating interior wall types and tagging interior wall partitions. I may have answered my own question in the one of the two titles of methods below but I would like others opinion.
What I call the "Fake Method" (this is actually what I am doing currently)
- Create wall type (e.g. 5/8" gyp. bd each side with 3 5/8" metal stud). This wall can have essentially (3) or more different wall tags (e.g. half wall, partition 6" min. above ceiling, and partition to deck) but as a wall type, it is only one. I would tag the walls as needed and change the tag to match the correct partition type detail.
"Best Practice Method" (or intended method from Autodesk/Revit perspective)
- Create (3) or more different wall types of a 5/8" gyp. bd each side with 3 5/8" metal stud for each type of wall (e.g. half wall, partition 6" min. above ceiling, and partition to deck)
- Edit wall type under "Type Mark" and enter "P1" or similar
- When drawing a half wall, I would use the half wall wall type so when it is tagged, it has the correct type mark. The only downside I see of this this is the number of wall types can get overwhelming on large projects.
I'm debating to move to the "Best Practice Method" because I believe this may be how Revit was intended to be used.
Maybe both above are not the correct way and there is another method? What is everyone's thoughts?
Not sure is the second method you defined can be called best practice!!! I think it has more to do with the size and type of project and what will be the purpose of those tags! It would be ridiculous to create 20 types of a wall (same construction/compound layers) just because I have variable heights! If that's the best practice then one could easily end up with some 500 wall types.
I don't get it why you called the first method fake either! You are tagging the type mark … what do you want that type mark to define? what is more important to those reading your drawings? the wall structure/type of construction? OR if it is half wall, full height or 6" above FC partition? Who is going to read and make use of the tagging?
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
Best practice method is best in my opinion. And indeed you may end up with a lot of wall types but in reality, you have a lot of wall types so this is just as it is. Additionally you can do material counts, product counts, tag everything properly and all your team (500 different wall type size project would take a team of people) would TRUST all items in the model are correct and this would save time overall. Prevent second guessing and additional unnecessary checks. Creating a true representative model is best practice.
I create wall types based on their assembly properties. For the 3 walls of your example, the pony wall and the wall with finish layers up to 6" above ceiling would be the same type, the wall with finish layers up to deck (usually for fire/smoke protection) would be another type. The height of the pony wall would be called out specifically on plan or elevation.
By the way, who labeled the second method "Best Practice Method"? Did you get it from a training document/blog/article or something?
@twebb4CYQY wrote:Best practice method is best in my opinion. And indeed you may end up with a lot of wall types but in reality, you have a lot of wall types so this is just as it is. Additionally you can do material counts, product counts, tag everything properly and all your team (500 different wall type size project would take a team of people) would TRUST all items in the model are correct and this would save time overall. Prevent second guessing and additional unnecessary checks. Creating a true representative model is best practice.
With all due respect to whoever called that method a best practice, any practice which encourage cluttering a model with useless information or unnecessary elements is not a best practice (at least not in my dictionary). Variant Wall Heights (subject of the OP) which are usually called out on the relevant sections/elevations are not a good enough reason to duplicate several wall type just for the purpose of Tagging...Our teams are usually deployed on 3-4 project, what is being called best practice here will only lead to confusion, higher chances of error and unnecessary maintenance. I can't take that as a best practice even if it came from an Expert Elite, Andrew Anagnost and Carl Bass together lol...
Wall types are defined more by the type of assembly/construction or if they are fit-to-purpose (fire/smoke/radiation/explosion) which calls for a special assembly. Moreover, using Dynamo I can extract all the information I need from a wall and tag it all in one tag without creating 500 types...
YOUTUBE | BIM | COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN | PARAMETRIC DESIGN | GENERATIVE DESIGN | VISUAL PROGRAMMING
If you find this reply helpful kindly hit the LIKE BUTTON and if applicable please ACCEPT AS SOLUTION
First, Happy New Year!
I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond. Maybe I should have called them out as two different methods in lieu of "fake" and "best practice" but I do currently tag my walls using one wall type.
What I gather from everyone's response and what I believe is coordination must be sought for partition types whether it is in the beginning with hundreds of wall types with automated type mark tagging, a single wall type with modifying tags to each individual wall, using schedules, using dynamo, or whatever you prefer. What is most important is you are conveying to the GC how the building is to come together. It seems to each his/her own on how you use Revit for partition types. Best practice in this instance seems to be more individual to a firm than something that may be considered as global.
I do something similar, and believe this to be the "best practice". Wall type tags should only ever call out the construction of a wall. Anything else such as where to stop finishes, how it's attached to the deck (or not) should be noted in plan, section, or typical details, as Toan already said.
Take a look at the images. The Gen-legend goes on your general page with all your other legends for line types, abbreviations, ect. The section and key go on your assembly schedule. Like you mentioned, I have a file with every assembly (wall, floor, roof, and ceiling) with all the different variations. I name the wall assembly to correspond with the type mark which I have pre-set for each assembly. Just a tip though, build all your assembly variations in a secondary project file and not directly into your template (transfer them into future projects via cntl+C/V). In any given project you may only use 10 different assemblies, there is no point in making yourself scroll through every single assembly, every single time, in all of your projects!
@ToanDN Would you have a tag family of this that you would be willing to share? Would the specialty construction field have a visibility parameter associated with it so that if there is no specialty construction, does that label boundary turn on and off? Personally, I am not a big fan of creating new wall types just to represent special wall instance parameter characteristics (such as top of wall conditions, sound batt insulation, etc) and I think that this could be helpful.
There is nothing special about that wall tag. It is just a regular wall tag with a type mark label inside a box. It is how you organize and name your wall types that matters.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.