2019 Structural Connection Column Base Plate Discussion

[Anonymous]

This post is for steel column base plates only:

If anyone can comment on their experience with the new base plates vs. using extrusions nested in the families, I would appreciate any insight.  Please feel free to comment on any of my issues below.

I am testing the new connection tools to be used for standard column base plate modeling.  Right now, it appears the connection families are not fully parametric, and seem to break rather easily.

I will not get into too much detail yet, but I made several column BP types by modifying the OOTB connection, then changed the column sizes and switched the newly made types a few times, and the base plates appeared to break (the previously made type did not properly insert when applied again to a new column, as if parameters that should be parametric did not change/update properly)

Is anyone else having difficulties with connection types resetting values when being re-applied, or not updating to the different column sizes?

Here is my list of issues for column base plates right now:

1. Not fully parametric to the column size.  There are still parameters that are not parametric to the column size.  This means I still have to make a new connection type for every size.
2. Newly created types do not seem to be parametric when re-using on new columns.  This is mentioned above.  Made several types, and could not successfully re-apply them.
3. No grout, only an offset.  I can offset the connection for grout, but tapered grout itself cannot be part of the connection. 
4. As far as I know, base plate connections cannot be nested into column families, even though a column base plate does not need primary and secondary part, just the column (right?)

Thanks

[catalin_lang · Accepted solution]

Connection parameters are instance parameters. Changes must be made for each instance.

If a new connection is created, it will always use the default parameters. A previews instance modifications are specific to that particular instance and cannot be used in a further instance creation. In order to create the same connection configuration, the connection instance must be copied. 

How would you see the workflow? Can you post an idea on Revit Ideas about it?

Structural steel connections can not be added into a nested families.

Why do you want to add it into a nested family?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply,

From an EOR standpoint, inserting baseplates into our model is strictly for coordination purposes (90% of the time), and not detailing.  For this reason, inserting individual baseplates can become a financial loss when each instance must be touched and modified.  

For the majority of certain structures, there are a small handful of base plate types that can be standardized and dimensioned relative to the column's outer dimensions.  The most fluid workflow is for us to model all of our columns, then select all or certain instances and simply check a box (instance parameter yes/no) for which standard BP we'd like to use.  This is why I suggested usefulness in nesting the connection in the family.

To close this out, can I ask why the connections allow you to create new "types" if all of the parameters are instance parameters?  This may have added to my surprise when re-use of a created Type did not hold its values.

Thanks 🙂

[catalin_lang]

Hi,

This is a current limitation that will be addressed  in the future versions.

[ezweber]

I wish they'd make the extents of the base plate connections based of the centerpoint of the column. They are unusable when using a Wide Flange Column that has 256th of an inch from out to out of column.