Why don't structural columns show up in architectural plans? (Revit 2013)

[dbroad]

1) Anyone know why structural columns don't show up in architectural plans.  The only way I can see to coordinate the structure with the architectural elements is to use structural plans.

2) Anyone know how to make structural columns visible in architectural plans? I've tried the visibility graphics but everything seems to be turned on by default.

[dbroad]

1) Anyone know why structural columns don't show up in architectural plans.  The only way I can see to coordinate the structure with the architectural elements is to use structural plans.

2) Anyone know how to make structural columns visible in architectural plans? I've tried the visibility graphics but everything seems to be turned on by default.

[Alfredo_Medina]

Structural columns do show in architectural floor plans, by default, even if the discipline of the view is set to architectural. It must be something specific in your template or visibility settings, that is turning them off.

[Alfredo_Medina]

Structural columns do show in architectural floor plans, by default, even if the discipline of the view is set to architectural. It must be something specific in your template or visibility settings, that is turning them off.

[loboarch · Accepted solution]

I suspect you are seeing a message like this when placing the structural column?

Then you can't see the column you just placed.  Structural columns are positioned in a negative direction from the level.  The view range of an "architectural" plan has the bottom of it set to the height of the level itself.  So the structural column is being placed below the view range of the view and you can't see it.  Visibility and graphics is NOT goin to affect this.  To see the structural colums you either need to change the negative offset of the column to move it where it will be visible in the view range, or change the view range of the view so it "sees" a bit below the current level so the column can be seen.

As I understand it, the negative offset placement of structural columns is related to the typical workflow of a structural engineer.  They think of plans from the level looking down (floor framing and below is what is critical to them) where architects think of the level as the 4' or so above level of the floor.

[loboarch · Accepted solution]

I suspect you are seeing a message like this when placing the structural column?

Then you can't see the column you just placed.  Structural columns are positioned in a negative direction from the level.  The view range of an "architectural" plan has the bottom of it set to the height of the level itself.  So the structural column is being placed below the view range of the view and you can't see it.  Visibility and graphics is NOT goin to affect this.  To see the structural colums you either need to change the negative offset of the column to move it where it will be visible in the view range, or change the view range of the view so it "sees" a bit below the current level so the column can be seen.

As I understand it, the negative offset placement of structural columns is related to the typical workflow of a structural engineer.  They think of plans from the level looking down (floor framing and below is what is critical to them) where architects think of the level as the 4' or so above level of the floor.

[dbroad]

Thanks Jeff.  

Glad I asked.  May I suggest that the visibility message might be considered for improvement.  Perhaps a specific message could be triggered for structural columns reminding users that they really belong to the level below.

The workflow seems reasonable (if that is what engineers want) but none of the textbooks I have read have mentioned it.  (odd)

[dbroad]

Thanks Jeff.  

Glad I asked.  May I suggest that the visibility message might be considered for improvement.  Perhaps a specific message could be triggered for structural columns reminding users that they really belong to the level below.

The workflow seems reasonable (if that is what engineers want) but none of the textbooks I have read have mentioned it.  (odd)

[Alfredo_Medina]

You should have mentioned that you were receiving an error message at the moment of creating structural columns. It was understood as if you could not see any structural columns in architectural plans at all.

[Alfredo_Medina]

You should have mentioned that you were receiving an error message at the moment of creating structural columns. It was understood as if you could not see any structural columns in architectural plans at all.

[dbroad]

I guess that might have made the post better but even if when we created the columns in the structural views, they didn't show up in the architectural views.  I didn't think about the structural columns being drawn downward instead of upward.  The warning did show up when we attempted to draw structural columns in architectural views but now I understand why they are related.

Thanks for your responses.

[dbroad]

I guess that might have made the post better but even if when we created the columns in the structural views, they didn't show up in the architectural views.  I didn't think about the structural columns being drawn downward instead of upward.  The warning did show up when we attempted to draw structural columns in architectural views but now I understand why they are related.

Thanks for your responses.

[Anonymous]

"The workflow seems reasonable (if that is what engineers want) but none of the textbooks I have read have mentioned it.  (odd)"

Not "want", but "need".

If you read a typical set of multi-level structural drawings, the fact that engineers usually draw what's holding up the floor instead of drawing what the floor holds up, must become apparent.

[Anonymous]

"The workflow seems reasonable (if that is what engineers want) but none of the textbooks I have read have mentioned it.  (odd)"

Not "want", but "need".

If you read a typical set of multi-level structural drawings, the fact that engineers usually draw what's holding up the floor instead of drawing what the floor holds up, must become apparent.

[dbroad]

I understand and agree with your point.  But it flys in the face of what would be expected IMO per orthographic viewing.  Since most plan views are sections, they are expected to illustrate the things that the cut plane intersects.  If I was reading a structural plan for a particular level, I would have expected that the columns labelled would exist at the ordinary cut plane of that level.

AutoCAD Architecture does it the opposite way BTW.  Placement of columns is at their bottom, not their top.  Since standards vary, there should be some documentation of it in the standard training manuals.  I haven't found any yet.  I will continue looking.

[dbroad]

I understand and agree with your point.  But it flys in the face of what would be expected IMO per orthographic viewing.  Since most plan views are sections, they are expected to illustrate the things that the cut plane intersects.  If I was reading a structural plan for a particular level, I would have expected that the columns labelled would exist at the ordinary cut plane of that level.

AutoCAD Architecture does it the opposite way BTW.  Placement of columns is at their bottom, not their top.  Since standards vary, there should be some documentation of it in the standard training manuals.  I haven't found any yet.  I will continue looking.

[Anonymous]

I am having the same issue with structural columns and beams not showing up in architectural plan and section views. I checked the visibility settings, but I don't see any of the structural elements unchecked, so I don't understand why they're not showing up. 

[Anonymous]

I am having the same issue with structural columns and beams not showing up in architectural plan and section views. I checked the visibility settings, but I don't see any of the structural elements unchecked, so I don't understand why they're not showing up. 

[Anonymous]

All the structural elements show up in structural plan views as they should, but not in any of the architectural views. Do you have any idea as to why they don't show up in the architectural views?

[Anonymous]

All the structural elements show up in structural plan views as they should, but not in any of the architectural views. Do you have any idea as to why they don't show up in the architectural views?

[loboarch]

It could be the detail level of the view. at coarse detail level structural elements will be shown as "sticks".

[loboarch]

It could be the detail level of the view. at coarse detail level structural elements will be shown as "sticks".

[octavio2]

After you select the column that you want to add, before you add it to the plan, go to the Options Bar (below the Ribbon) and there choose Height and then level 2 or the hiehgt you want.  If you do not choose Height it would not show on plan.

[octavio2]

After you select the column that you want to add, before you add it to the plan, go to the Options Bar (below the Ribbon) and there choose Height and then level 2 or the hiehgt you want.  If you do not choose Height it would not show on plan.

[Anonymous]

I did specify the height for the columns. All structural items were drawn on the structural plans, but for some reason they don't show up on the architectural plans.

[Anonymous]

I did specify the height for the columns. All structural items were drawn on the structural plans, but for some reason they don't show up on the architectural plans.

[Anonymous]

A quick way is to change the default "depth" option to "height" in the option bar while placing the structural column. Hope it helps!

[Anonymous]

A quick way is to change the default "depth" option to "height" in the option bar while placing the structural column. Hope it helps!

[Anonymous]

Select height unconnected.

[Anonymous]

Select height unconnected.

[Anonymous]

I never understood the logic here. Though not an engineer, I have drawn / drafted engineering draiwngs, and while "sticks" is a good and proper way to show beams and such, I would expect the columns both in plan and elevations/ sections to be shown as cylinders or elongated... boxes if you will representing the general column footprint. Quite frequently I showed centerline for beams and a square for the column resting on it (empty) or supporting it (filled). If you're working with a dot in plan or a line in elevation it gets pretty easy to loose it and/or missread it. So while working in Revit I had to resort to regions. Please tell me it's just a setting that I missed...

[Anonymous]

I never understood the logic here. Though not an engineer, I have drawn / drafted engineering draiwngs, and while "sticks" is a good and proper way to show beams and such, I would expect the columns both in plan and elevations/ sections to be shown as cylinders or elongated... boxes if you will representing the general column footprint. Quite frequently I showed centerline for beams and a square for the column resting on it (empty) or supporting it (filled). If you're working with a dot in plan or a line in elevation it gets pretty easy to loose it and/or missread it. So while working in Revit I had to resort to regions. Please tell me it's just a setting that I missed...

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous ; perfect solution , simple clean and targetted, thnxs

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous ; perfect solution , simple clean and targetted, thnxs

Edited by
Discussion_Admin

[Anonymous]

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Thank you

[rickybZ9FS8]

I see this thread is super old but I just ran into this problem and this was the top result for my search.  What I did to fix the appearance of the structural column was to double-click on it to get into the family editor, click on the column to see its properties, click on the Edit button next to Visibility/Graphics, and check the Detail Levels box for Coarse.  Keep in mind I'm at a small firm and am one of a small handful working in this file so I know I'm not messing up settings for other people's work in the office.

[rickybZ9FS8]

I see this thread is super old but I just ran into this problem and this was the top result for my search.  What I did to fix the appearance of the structural column was to double-click on it to get into the family editor, click on the column to see its properties, click on the Edit button next to Visibility/Graphics, and check the Detail Levels box for Coarse.  Keep in mind I'm at a small firm and am one of a small handful working in this file so I know I'm not messing up settings for other people's work in the office.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the concise to-the-point answer. 

No thanks to Autodesk for failing to make this more intuitive in the  9 years this thread has been active. No thanks to the usual "experts" for gas-lighting us into believing that it's the users who are wrong for not getting it.  

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the concise to-the-point answer. 

No thanks to Autodesk for failing to make this more intuitive in the  9 years this thread has been active. No thanks to the usual "experts" for gas-lighting us into believing that it's the users who are wrong for not getting it.