copy reinforcement error

[Anonymous]

Hello,

1) I have create some foundation beams and I also create the reinforcement for these beams. When I copy these beams even the elements the reinforcement is changing automatic (some bars became shorter or longer then original). This is wrong because the beams are identically.

I hope is about some settings, because if is really that you can't copy an element with reinforcement in safe conditions (without the program change the length of bars) , the program isn't reliable. I have to mention that the reinforcement exceed the concrete. 

2) Also if I define an element with reinforcement and that reinforcement exceed the concrete (It will be anchored in other element), the program automatic change the host of stirrups that are outside the concrete. This isn’t what I want ( for example the reinforcement cage of columns –part anchored in  foundation must belongs to foundation not to columns)

Thanks

[peticid]

Hi Cristian,

Can you please share your file with us, so we can have a look and understand what is causing this behavior of the reinforcement?

Kind regards,

[Anonymous]

Hello,
of course but the file is large 70 mb so how can I send it ?

Thanks

[peticid]

Hi Cristian,

Please check your private message inbox, where I have shared with you the details on how to share the file.

Kind regards,

[peticid]

Hi Cristian,

Thank you for sharing the model with us. Can you please tell me the elements from where to where you wanted to copy the reinforcement and it changed? Pictures or element IDs would be very helpful.

Regarding point 2, before I give you an answer, let me see if I understood correctly the problem. In a column, you have the longitudinal and the transversal reinforcement modeled and hosted by it, but you need the stirrups which are actually placed inside the foundation to belong to that host?

Kind regards,

[Anonymous]

Hi Dan,

My foundation has 2 steps with different type of concrete (bloc si cuzinet). I didn't know how to define a family for this type so I use 2 simple  isolated foundation place one above other. I defined the reinforcement in the smaller (cuzinet) because I can have different types of foundation ( meaning different sizes of "bloc")  with the same dimensions of "cuzinet" . since the reinforcement is only in "cuzinet" (even I have some stirrups place outside ), it seems natural to define the reinforcement in cuzinet. 

For example

• I defined the foundation in the left. I assigned all the rebar constrained to cuzinet

[even so

-the rebar number 9 was created as a mirror of 6 (45 degree mirror) but at one moment it change number and shape- I understand that It can be modified from schedule, and I hope so

-the stirrups 8 copied outside section changes to 4 without any reason]

• I copy the cuzinet and bloc to right- I change the dimension of bloc and the rebar shape changes even the rebar was defined as cuzinet rebar. Anyway if you delete bloc the rebar remain
• I copy only the cuzinet and some rebar chand dimensions rebar 7 change to 24 and became shorter

I want to learn how to use this program correctly, I don’t understand what I did wrong. It is natural as designer to put the rebar in elements and then copy as a precast element. It is impossible for me to explain to my clients why identical elements have different types of rebar

Another problem and a big error in my opinion is that I have rebar number 5 in GF3 and cuzinet 1 different bars with different shape with the same number

Before Revit I use my own dynamic blocks in Acad and for more then 10 years I never make any mistake with schedule and marks. It was more reliable then structural detailing (ASD). I’m very scared that in Revit I can’t control  these things. It is true that my blocks don’t look so nice as structural detailing reinforcement, and the drawings made with Revit look great, but the reality is that for the reinforcement of these foundation I needed one day with  my blocks, 2 with ASD and 6 with Revit 😛

I hope that only the learning process is so painful, and Revit can be a fast and reliable software.

[RobohoboRabbit]

on copying rebar I have had the same issue with constraints changing the bar dimensions when I copy , the only thing I have found to help is Group all the rebar before you copy and it should stay the same they just ungroup.

[peticid]

Hi Cristian,

I investigated your model and let me answer all the issues you reported:

1. "Stirrups number 8 copied outside section changes to 4 without any reason."
   • "I copy the cuzinet and bloc to right- I change the dimension of bloc and the rebar shape changes even the rebar was defined as cuzinet rebar. " - I reproduced the issue and our team is investigating the causes and how this behavior can be improved. 
   • The stirrups behave as expected, meaning a perfect of copy is being made, when copied from the upper foundation block (cuzinet) to the lower one (bloc), while they keep the original host (cuzinet).
2. "The rebar number 9 was created as a mirror of 6 (45 degree mirror) but at one moment it change number and shape"
   • I could not reproduce this behavior. If I mirror the bars number 6 at 45 degrees inside the host (cuzinet), a new set of bars, also number 6, is created. If you could send me a video showing the steps you follow to copy the reinforcement, it would help us identify why you experience a different result.
3. "I have rebar number 5 in GF3 and cuzinet 1 different bars with different shape with the same number"
   • The rebar number 5 in GF 3 belong to no partition, while the rebar number 5 in "cuzinet 1" belong to rebar partition "ARMF1". The numbering is dependent of the partition, therefore the same number can exist in different partitions.

 Kind regards,

[peticid]

Hi James,

Could you please give me more details about the issue you are facing while copying rebar? If you could share your model with us and some steps to reproduce the issue, it would be really helpful. I have shared with you via a private message my coordinates, so you can share your files with us confidentially.

Kind regards,

[RobohoboRabbit]

Thanks Dan , myself and Aiden have been sending our models over to Autodesk with 2 months on this Rebar issues and so far all we have is its being looked into. Thats why im trying the forums as the '' development team'' is of no use

[peticid]

Hi James,

I apologize for the delayed reaction of our support team. To accelerate the investigation process of your issue, I would really appreciate if you could send me directly the model, using the coordinates I have share with you in the private message. 

In the meantime, I will also speak to our support team to find out the details you have shared with them.

Kind regards,

[RobohoboRabbit]

Unfortunately I have sent the models with errors and fixed them in mine to move on im weeks behind because of this , I will send over errors as we come across them , but id really like a response to whats happening with the support case , that has all the details .

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Dan

The length of bar 9 maybe was change by accident when I I try to put it above 9, I didn't see exactly the moment when it change from 6. 

In some video I saw mentioned that bars can be change from schedule ( but I didn't find any tutorial where this issue is explained) I try to do it but it didn't work. If it is really possible to change the length of segments from schedule it is great, but can you show me how to do it?

Hanleyj suggested to group rebars before copy. This is similar to a block? 

If I do so, the rebar will change if I modify the dimensions of elements? The rebar will be associated with the initial host, or will be associated to actual host in terms of constraints? This will affect the schedule? When do I have to ungroup the rebars?

I have a difficult project and I want to be sure that the solution is safe because I'm in a big delay and I can't afford other experiment . 

I want to learn how to modeling identical object with identical reinforcement 

If I create an object with reinforcement, how can I multiply it and remain identical?  

[RobohoboRabbit]

I have been working on a model today, and tried grouping links so I could copy them , it works ok and the links wont change as long as they are grouped , but as soon as you ungroup the rebar it changes the constraints again. so unfortunately that isn't going to work.

[ovidiu_paunescu]

If you reference the A, B, C... parameters in the schedule, you can simply click the cell and change the value.

If a schedule is not set to itemize every instance, one line could refer to multiple identical sets (if sorted by Rebar Number for example). This means that changing the segment length will do this for multiple sets.

To get more control you can also change the segment lengths from the Properties Palette or have the schedule and a 3D view open side by side, so you can see exactly which sets are being modified.

The way rebar in Revit currently works, is that it is trying to constrain to the faces of the host element, so that the bar can react to changes in the host.

When you copy a bar, it will try to find the best possible constraints and may adjust (sometimes in an unwanted way).

Grouping the bar prevents it from adjusting or looking for constraints. When un-grouped, it will resume searching for constraints and may adjust (sometimes in an unwanted manner).

[RobohoboRabbit]

thank you for the reply , the problem I found is its a lot more than 'sometimes' and you cant fix it in the BBS,  Revit is changing all the constrains of the bars so even if the bar is .1m different its getting new barmarks.

you cant get it to change unless you find that bar edit its constraints manually back to were they should be and then it will change. its a nightmare trying to do a Bim project with things changing that shouldn't and for no reason , no one can explain why my links change when copied . only why it happens in a shape 41 and 51 used together but not a 41 on its own.

im having costumers reject work from revit over these issues

see the pic attached , my links sets are in 3 but for some reason Revit is spacing some of them differently in 4s.

we are all the time having to look for these types of changes.

[Anonymous]

So, what can we do to use Revit in safe condition ?

Bars in groups are visible in schedule?

Where can I find a tutorial to show me how to model multiple identical elements and how these elements have the same reinforcement ?

It is an elementary problem, I can't believe Revit can't do that.

All the project have identical elements ...

[RobohoboRabbit]

Attached is a picture of a copied section , they should be the same but as you can see some of the main bars have moved out of position. just look at the two bars in green at the bottom. but not only has it moved them it changes its dimensions to fit the new constraint

[RobohoboRabbit]

another call from the help desk ,

the help desk seem to be no help and I am getting tired of you guys guessing the solution and not even looking at what we sent you.

iv just been told if you edit the constraints of one link it will change them all .... really?

so I have been doing every link for the fun of it .

please some one show me this as I don't believe you are correct

they know noting about the models and errors that have been sent and say they cant do anymore unless I upload videos of the issues we are having ..

[ovidiu_paunescu]

Hello Cristian,

For the rebar in the isolated foundations i have a solution that i hope will be useful to you.I've looked at your model and found that the vertical bars are constrained to the side faces of the bottom part of the foundation.

This means that if those faces move, the bars will react. This is why the bars end up outside the top part of the foundation (cuzinet).

The same logic is, for example, what makes stirrups in a beam adjust to changing the beam size.

• The simplest workaround is to use Cut (Ctrl+X) on a foundation base and Paste Aligned in the same place. This will make the bars search for new constraints and choose the "cuzinet" faces.
• In this example, you can copy the rebar and cuzinet in the same selection (without foundation base), over the various size foundations.
• Another thing you can do, is to change the constraints of the vertical bars to the cuzinet faces and then copy the whole item in the same selection. This operations assumes that you will replace all the foundations. 

If you do this, changing the size of the bottom part will not affect the bars adversely.

Bars in groups show up in schedules.

Let me know if this works for you or if you need more details.