Floor slabs

[Valkin]

Question about floor slab?

In Revit Architecture there are 2 differnt floors,
Floors (architectural)
Structural Slab (Structural)

In Revit Architecture what is the difference between these 2 floor types?
From what I see the two slabs are identical, I know the slabs that are created in Revit Structural are differnt then the architecural ones, For one thing they can show the floor deck that the architectural ones can not (I wish the Architecural floors could do this)

Mathew

[iankids]

Hi Mam,

I am not certain about the usage terminology in USA, however, I would often use an "infill" slab (Architectural??) in instances where I would want the slab to form an attractive finished surface, but not be part of the structural element. Most commonly in a garage situation where the structural footing might be a strip footing and the infill slab is the finished surface which is able to go neatly up to the internal face of the brickwork.

Hope it makes sense

Cheers,


Ian

[m20roxxers]

You can add a decking but it only shows as another layer not the extra information.

I'm not sure what the point of creating this limited functionality is.
As for why both are in Revit Architecture it seems a glitch more then anything else, as it doesn't seem to add any additional functionality.

[Valkin]

My question is more of a Revit usage question

In Revit Architecture 2010 when you select floors you have the option to insert a Floor or a Structural Floor

In Revit Architecture 2009 and before you insert a Floor (under the modeling Design Bar) or Slab (under the Structural Desig Bar)

So my question is In Revit Architectre what is the difference. These floors apear to be using the same floor types, So why would you use over another. Over the last five or so years I have only used the Floor type not the Structural Floor (Slab).

Mathew

[m20roxxers]

If your setting up a model that will be used in conjunction with structural engineers then you can create structural floors and Architectural coverings over the top allowing easier use when starting to use tools like copy/monitor and it gives engineers access (or control in certain cases) over the slab or floor without affecting the Architects coverings. This however can be done using just floors overlaid on top of each other.

I think in terms of architectural use there is no difference.

[twaldock]

Matthew,
This looks like a design issue with the ribbon. I think that with v2009 we had a structural menu which had columns, walls and slabs which were also available in the basic or modelling menu as architectural columns, walls and slabs.
- In the case of columns there is a dramatic difference between structural and architectural (and never interchangeable);
- with the walls the only difference is that the structural wall command flags the wall as "Bearing" under its structural usage, while architectural walls are flagged as "Non-bearing" - these settings can be changed after the event to make them architectural or structural (however, there is no subtlety in being able to separate non-structural wall plies from a structural wall).
- Floors appear to be identical whichever command is used. However, it would be really useful if we could flag floors by their structural usage in exactly the same way as walls are done. Then it would be easy to separate the architectural finish floors (we currently filter by name).

My guess is that the designers of the ribbon decided to keep the two floor commands in case someone complained about losing a tool from v2009. or else they are planning to add a difference later? We need Autodesk to enlighten us on this one.

[tomnewsom]

We seperated structural and architectural floors in a recent project - Structural slabs span the whole floor and stopped (in this case) 100mm below FFL. Architectural floors were then added in the various areas of the building to show the different floor finishes. This approach worked well - especially when it came to construction drawings. Very easy to show the concrete only.

[Valkin]

This is something I've been contenplating since Revit 9.1 when i fist saw Slab in the structural design bar. I know in 2010 they just renamed Slab's to structural floors.

What tomnewsom said hit on the nature on my question.

We seperated structural and architectural floors in a recent project - Structural slabs span the whole floor and stopped (in this case) 100mm below FFL. Architectural floors were then added in the various areas of the building to show the different floor finishes. This approach worked well - especially when it came to construction drawings. Very easy to show the concrete only.

I had been contemplating on weither or not to create 2 floors one that is strictly the strucurual floor and one that is the (for better term) Finish floor. Just not sure at this time is there any added perameters to a Structural Slab, vs a Floor.

Thanks for the input Guys

[Derek_SE]

Here's my $0.02

By default an architectural floor is a simple object with no structural analytical properties.

Be default a Structural floor/slab has structural analysis properties. (i.e. structural slabs can be linked to structural analysis and design programs to determine stress and deflections etc) Also, rebar cover settings and a span direction symbol will be added by default to it.

On an Integrated project generally, architectural floor would be used to reflect finishes and non-structural items. Structural Slab would just be concrete and steel deck, or wood sheathing and joist, or metal deck and bar joist...the "structure" if you will.

[jspartz]

Derek is correct. The difference is in the analysis and how it can display too. If a structural floor is done in Revit Structure it has more data and parameters to it. You can't modify these extra fields in Revit Architecture, so within Revit Architecture if you draw one or the other you don't get added functionality. The added functionality is in Revit Structure. I would guess that it is there so you can add a Structural one for your structural team to modify later.