Transfer from Robot to Revit does not capture beam splits (2022 ver.)

Transfer from Robot to Revit does not capture beam splits (2022 ver.)

gary.iwansantoso6FRXD
Contributor Contributor
219 Views
0 Replies
Message 1 of 1

Transfer from Robot to Revit does not capture beam splits (2022 ver.)

gary.iwansantoso6FRXD
Contributor
Contributor

Hi,

 

I'm having an issue with transferring a Robot model back to Revit where beams don't split when being brought back to Revit. Said beams were originally a single section, to be split in robot according to best splice locations and optimised bending moment distribution.

 

I have a simple warehouse model in Revit, where I've successfully transferred it to Robot without issue and used API/macros to apply the wind loads (as UDLs in a typical portal frame). I needed to have the rafters as a single element for my macro to apply the loads and I would then divide the beams as needed where I need splices and different section sizes. Photo below is an example of what I'm trying to achieve and pull back into Revit

 

When transferring the model back to Revit, the model doesn't capture the beam splits I made in Robot but kept it as a single section in Revit. I've read some posts that it may have to do with using a company-specific/custom library of steel sections instead of the default (Australian)? I thought it may have something to do with the fact I had my frames set up in model groups, but doesn't seem to be it.

 

Any ideas on what's wrong? I feel this should be possible otherwise this interoperability thing only seems to be applicable to very specific cases.

 

I seem to have issues attaching the models but have uploaded them to Google Drive in the link below if anyone can lend their wisdom! The Robot model is fully completed, just need to press the integration button to send it over to Revit. 

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16SJfDm3UAIw_Nqdb-tExq-HJtxkz1kyN?usp=share_link

 

Thanks in advance - Gary

garyiwansantoso6FRXD_0-1681033725767.png

 

 

0 Likes
220 Views
0 Replies
Replies (0)