Foundation Options: How to Handle?

[pashley]

Having never started a thread here before, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but here goes ...

I work for a company that designs prototype buildings and is just starting to implement Revit. Since our buildings are situated in many geographic locations, each site may require one of four differenct foundation systems. From the foundation up, however, the structure doesn't vary except in minor details.

For several reasons, one being the fact that our building is small, we've decided to combine architecture and structure into a single model. Our initial thought was to have multiple foundation options in the combined A/S prototype model from among which the applicable foundation would be selected. However, since it often happens that the fastest way to create a new project is to use an existing one rather than start over again with the base prototype (we rarely build the prototype exactly as is), the four options would no longer be available in hta scenario. Another solution considered was to have the foundation system as a separate model that could either be linked to or inserted as a group inot the main A/S model.

Has anyone had a situation like this and if so, what solution was used? I'm concerned about both ease of editing the models and ramifications for evaluating structural systems when that system is split between models. I will note that at present, structural analysis in Revit is low on our priority list.

[jsteinhauer]

Not a structural engineer/designer, and I don't do Revit Structure. You might be able to pre-load a template with 'Options' for your foundations, most typical set as primary. Second thought is to have a separate project file with your four foundations in there as groups, then copy & paste into your current project. What makes the foundations different, the depth of the footing to deal with frost lines?

Best of luck,
Jeff S.

[david_peterson]

Personally if you have 4 different types of foundations, I'd look at 2 methods.
My personal opinion would be to have 4 separate model templates to start with. Finish one model template and save it. Complete as much work as you possible can. Have it look like a finished project. Then save as and do the other foundation options so you have 4 base models to start with.
I wouldn't use design options since it's almost more work than creating separate models.
Option 2 would be to create 4 separate foundation models and link in the one you need, but again, you'll have to modify 2 models in the end for any tweaks that you may have.
Although depending on what type of building you are doing, and what type of foundation system you're using, you may run into issues with steel column to footing or pier elevations, what your slab edge condition looks like, not to mention all the details.
So again personally I'd create one model to start, complete it, save as, and go on to the next option.
When you have all 4 models done, now you should only have to worry about final bay dimensions or foot depth or face of wall to the CL of column tweaks. Besides at some point you're going to end up with 4 models, one with each type of foundation in it anyway, after you've completed one project with each type of foundation.
Make sense?

[mthurnauer]

Why not use design options for the foundation system? If your building is pretty small as you say, I don;t see this as being very cumbersome. You have the four versions within a design option in your template and you 'accept' the version that applies to your particular store.

[david_peterson]

I say away from them because they don't seem to be very user friendly. You'll have to model everything that relates to each option 4 times. I'm also not sure how that model will react to your column conditions since the footings want to attach to the column or pier. Design options just aren't as clean of a solution if your going to crank out 30 models in 4 different versions, why not have 4 templates, one for each.