Hello everyone,
is there any advantage of using structure walls instead of architectural walls as an architect?
we dont use any calculation software and informations such as structural usage and rebar cover are irrelevant for us. We also normally dont share our models with structural engineers (we end up using their models only as a reference because we need the walls to host doors etc).
It feels wrong to use the architectural tool to build a structural wall, but checking the box "Structural" only seems to add parameters that we dont need... How do you guys deal with this?
Cheers!
Gelöst! Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von Karol_Piroska. Gehe zur Lösung
Gelöst von loboarch. Gehe zur Lösung
The only real difference is the added parameters and the fact the will will show up and be represented in the structural analytical model created from the physical model. If you are not using this information or not sharing your model with structural engineers who are using the model, then it really does not matter if a wall is structural or architectural.
If you dont share model with others, then apart from the visual differences mention above, there are few other ones (that I know):
For instance structural wall by default cuts structural framing and columns, architectural walls do not (as it should be really). So if you use structural columns/framing and dont want them to be cut by walls, using architectural walls will save you hours of work.
Another difference would be the length of members extended to face of a wall. If you extended a beam to face of a structural wall, the beam length will stretch to the wall centreline. If you extend it to face of an architectural wall, the beam will extend just to its face. This could create issues when scheduling. Obviously you can use cut length instead of length.
Sie finden nicht, was Sie suchen? Fragen Sie die Community oder teilen Sie Ihr Wissen mit anderen.