Structural Usage

[codya]

I hope someone knows of a add-on or some other way to ADD types to the structural usage types! I need to break out the building in more ways then girders, purlins, joist, other, and hor bracing...

Thanks

[G_J]

We have the same problem over here. The Structural Usage is "hard wired" into the system, and as far as I am aware there is no way to add more option.

Try submitting this request on the wish list.....?


Regards

[fernando]

"break out the building in more ways then girders, purlins, joist, other, and hor bracing... "
What you mean with that?
Why more categories?

[matt.stahr]

"break out the building in more ways then girders, purlins, joist, other, and hor bracing... "
What you mean with that?
Why more categories?

Why not have more categories? I for one would like to see more options, "girt" is the first one that comes to mind. IMO by having an "other" catagory in the first place they are clearly admitting that their list is not all encompassing and more options are needed. If they had a comprehensive list of options there would be no need for an "other" catagory.

[AdamCP]

I've added a shared parameter available to columns and framing (and a bunch of other stuff, actually). Just a simple text parameter called Member Usage (type, not instance). Amongst other things, I use this to get around the limited amount of framing categories.

For example, I have it set to STRUT in my CHS framing families, as that's mostly what I use them for (of course it can be changed as needed). I also have a filter that is basically Framing->Member Usage=STRUT. I can add that filter to my framing layouts to change the way the struts are displayed, regardless of what structural usage category they are (I just set them to girder), or turn them off using the same filter for things like purlin layouts.

That parameter can also be used in schedules to sort, group and filter whatever members I want, how I want them.

The only thing it doesn't really replicate is the fact the built-in categories have a default material associated with it, but I haven't found that to be a limitation, given the multitude of ways to set materials on objects.

[m20roxxers]

FOUNDATION!!!!

The amount of times my raft beams come up as "issues" in Revit when checking members for analytical consistency.

[djn]

We have done something similar, we added a shared parameter called "function as". Where we can seperate lateral braces from truss braces, and truss chords from framing members. We also stared added a parameter called "design by" were the user input the initial of the person that is designing that member. This way we set up filter and quickly see what members were designed by who. It also helped when linking with ram steel, to ensure that ram didn't overwrite something that was being designed by someone else.

[Dave F.]

Hi
This shared parameter/filter sounds interesting.

Could this technique be used to change the way vertical bracing is displayed in plan?

I want to display the main framing in fine detail but still have the bracing show as it would be in course ie a single line.
With them both shown in full the detail looks very cluttered.

I hope this is the case

[AdamCP]

Detail level can only be set by view or category, not by subcategory or filters. So to do what you are asking I guess you would need a specific family for your bracing member that had its visibility set to display a model line in fine instead of the sweep/extrusion in plan/rcp views (don't think symbolic lines would work as chances are the view wouldn't be parallel to the beam, being a brace).

I could be entirely wrong about all this too, of course