Announcements
Welcome to the Revit Ideas Board! Before posting, please read the helpful tips here. Thank you for your Ideas!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Additional Start/End Join Cutback Considerations for Circular Columns

Additional Start/End Join Cutback Considerations for Circular Columns

When Structural Framing is connecting to columns it calculates where the cutback is taken based on the Bounding Box. Rough plan view sketch of this behavior below.

ewano_1-1702001543090.png

 

The bounding box being rectangular is causing this headache. While this allows for better and faster interference checking in the API, the join calculation for a circular column really needs to treated as a circle. 

Perhaps if the high level assessment of the axis aligned bounding boxes for elements is supplemented with a geometric offset based on a family parameter trigger? This would save quite a bit of time when editing beam ends.

 

( And yes, a supplemental Dynamo Graph 😅 could rectify the issue, but not having it in the issue in the first instance would be better. )

4 Comments
ewano
Enthusiast

I had a thought on this last night.

Perhaps the check could be that, if there are joined members for a column, their BoundingBox coordinate system is used to rotate the aligned BoundingBox of the column to then extrapolate the offset required for an orthogonal intersection. The column BoundingBox recalculation in the new coordinate system would be reasonably straightforward.

piotr_pysz
Autodesk

Hi @ewano , thanks for your comment.

Can you provide more insight into this - why this is a problem for you?  I am trying to understand better the use-case here as we are working on the adjacent project to enable the precise modeling without the automatic cuts - please check the Revit Structures roadmap :

piotr_pysz_0-1712343091931.png

 

ewano
Enthusiast

Hi @piotr_pysz 

The requirement for consistent face offsets from "joined" (analytically snapped) Column and Framing members is for better graphic fidelity, when not using Connection elements. If we use Connections the offsets become consistent, but due to some of our connection geometry (mainly for Seismic requirements) standardized connections aren't used often by our Drafters. Bespoke connections and families are being used but rely quite a lot on intervention from the Drafter to set the correct offset length for Structural framing from the point of connection.

 

Having the ends of Framing offset the same, regardless of the orientation to the Circular Column. The offset length being considered in this way would help for material quantity accuracy as well, which is something we do look for.

 

The above image displays Elements all intersecting geometrically at the same node point, which does work for the use case described in your Strategic Context, but will result increased modeller input to get graghically correct, for printing or model federations, if not using Connections at all instances of the connection type.

 

Does that make sense?

 

piotr_pysz
Autodesk

Hi @ewano thanks for the reply.

 

So as I understand it: you are using family face-based connections, not build-in connections from the steel tab?
And your bespoke family connections rely on the end points offset which vary as you described above.

Do I get this right?

 

Can you provide an example of your deliverable? Like a connection detail on the sheet? 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report