Revit 2023 Analytical model

[alexpapado1821]

Is there a way to produce the physical model from the analytical model? The analytical model was inserted from Robot.

Regards.

[pawelpiechnik · Accepted solution]

It is on the Roadmap: https://trello.com/b/ldRXK9Gw/revit-public-roadmap

[RPTHOMAS108]

I'll put this observation here, maybe I'll create an idea also:

Wouldn't it be better if you could associate multiple analytical elements to a single physical element, I am thinking:

• Multi-layered wall with two or more analytical surfaces.
• Out of plane curved element approximated with multiple analytical line segments
• Shaped floor with multiple analytical surfaces

I think there is a related issue when running the Dynamo script to create an analytical model from a floor that has it's shape edited:

When you run the Dynamo script it tends to find just one top face and generate an analytical surface for that face. Perhaps one flat analytical surface should just follow the overall floor outline or perhaps multiple surfaces should be able to be associated with one floor element. I can't say what would be better depends on meshing complexity on the analytical side i.e. you may want to mesh a single rectangular outline rather than many joined triangle surfaces. I think in most cases you may just want a single flat analytical surface following the outline depends how significant you think the effect of the falls are vs awkward meshing. Being pedantic you can always change the loading direction on a flat surface to approximate the effect of the falls but true deflection would be harder to assess I suppose.

I think generally:

A physical element should be able to be associated with multiple analytical elements

An analytical element should only be able to be associated with a single physical element

Regarding the section rotation and size. It could get a bit tedious setting this for both the associated physical and analytical part of an element. Would be better if there were parameters on the analytical that by default linked these aspects to what has been used in the associated physical element i.e. for 'Section Type' and 'Structural material' parameter add the value:

<As Physical>

Then additionally have Yes/No parameter 'As Physical Cross-Section Rotation' to grey out the 'Cross-Section Rotation' parameter.

If the Analytical element has been associated with a Wall/Door anything that doesn't have a section size or rotation etc. then <As Physical> will just be like setting it to <None>

Perhaps it was expected that we would run the Dynamo script to sync these things but it would be better if after only changing the section sizes of the physical model we didn't have to i.e. for the vast majority of cases the two things are the same with respect to section size and rotation, structural material etc. 

[catalin_lang]

Hi @RPTHOMAS108 ,

A physical element should be able to be associated with multiple analytical elements

• on the list
• You said that "An analytical element should only be able to be associated with a single physical element" - we identified few cases where an analytical element should be associated also with more than one element - eg. analytical sloped panel for stairs, one analytical member for a truss, etc.Do you have similar cases in your projects? 

section rotation and size

• on the list
• Do you have cases where between the physical and the analytical parameter is a parametric relationship? eg. the analytical member cross section is 85% of physical member cross section

Perhaps it was expected that we would run the Dynamo script to sync these things but it would be better if after only changing the section sizes of the physical model we didn't have to i.e. for the vast majority of cases the two things are the same with respect to section size and rotation, structural material etc. 

• I totally agree. As I mention, it's in our plans... and for 2023 release, this is the reasoning behind allowing the Dynamo package to be run also on selection (not only for the entire model)
• Do you have cases where only the parameters should be updated, without adjusting also the position?

Thank you!

[RPTHOMAS108]

Hello @catalin_lang, sorry for long answer but here are my thoughts:

 Q)...we identified few cases where an analytical element should be associated also with more than one element - eg. analytical sloped panel for stairs, one analytical member for a truss, etc. Do you have similar cases in your projects? 

I think we are both thinking along the same lines but just in case: I was saying that no single analytical member should be associated with more than one physical member but a single physical member could have multiple analytical members associated with it. The most obvious case being a shaped floor needing many triangulated analytical panels but each of those panels only referring to the shaped floor and nothing else.

Regarding trusses

They themselves contain multiple physical structural framing elements so I see each member of the truss having it's own analytical member (maintaining the one to one relationship in that respect). I don't understand using just one analytical member to represent a truss i.e. you could for the overall frame behaviour decide to use a single equivalent member but ultimately you would have to get values per truss member to allow the design of them and their connections.

Regarding stairs

I don't understand the motivation there for a single analytical member. I would have thought stairs (including multi-storey ones) are made up of separate elevated panels for flights and flat panels for landings (if landings and flights are separate sub-elements then they can each have one panel).  If the stair assembly is considered one element then it is just another case of one physical element having multiple analytical members. Probably most designers would question why they are connecting together separate panels for stairs when Revit could automatically generate that itself based on the direction changes of the stairs. For stairs and similar it is more about ensuring little needs to be done to produce a set of connected panels. The waist of flight and thickness of landing are not always the same.

Q)Do you have cases where between the physical and the analytical parameter is a parametric relationship? eg. the

analytical member cross section is 85% of physical member cross section

I've personally not come across a situation that required reducing the section by a percentage in the analytical compared to physical. Some may be thinking in terms of the residual section after cracking or EC8 perhaps but I believe you are kind of going into the realms of what the analysis program should offer rather than what Revit should include for export to such. So I can't see how changing the member sizes from what they are just for analysis would fit the general principles of limit state design? However perhaps someone has such a workflow, I can't say.

Q) Do you have cases where only the parameters should be updated, without adjusting also the position?

The workflow for most designers in Revit I imagine follows the below pattern:
1) Build analytical in Revit
2) Export analytical out
3) Cary out analysis
4) Design and size members
5) Transfer sizes and member forces back to Revit

So in that workflow number (5) means that the sizes will change in Revit but the positions shouldn't. It also means you want to update the analytical sizes in Revit at the same time as the physical ones (or have them linked by default) to keep them in sync with what was returned from the design. Plus also as noted the returned member forces would be updated for documentation and visualisation in Revit.

A few years back everyone was focused on the two way link but I think most realise a project isn't that linear. An analytical model may be exported multiple times for different purposes. Things may change in Revit where no analysis is required e.g. choosing a more robust section than required for design to meet a geometric criteria. So it is important the analytical information in Revit is not left behind after export. Also in general the analytical is never an exact match to the physical so changes to physical geometry will be introduced that designers never expect to be reflected in the analytical.

Other comments

I noticed going a couple of version back there were cylindrical analytical surfaces, so perhaps some other non planar analytical surface types could be introduced as previously existed (I assume surface type largely has no real bearing on FE meshing). Nobody really wants to triangulate such a surface into faceted panels and then consider which triangles to put the openings in. 

[jhazrat]

Hi All,

I have issues with Revit all version of Revit including 2023 Energy Analysis. When I create energy analysis "A Simple Model" Revit doesn't generate HVAC load and Sizing report and I get this msg: EnergyPlus simulation did not generate a report for systems analysis. However, when I take the same model to my other laptop Revit generate report. I'm using windows 10x64, Revit 2023. Invidia GTX-1660 Ti. Laptop: Surface Pro Book. FYI: there is no EnergyPlus error file get generated. I am 100% sure that the energy model setup is correct. I appreciate if anyone has any idea how to fix this. The following has been tried:

1-Windows 10 Complete factory reset,

2-Fresh installation of Revit 2023 and all contents

3-Allowed Revit to use GTX graphic card