advantages / disadvantages to stacked walls

[tonyr.233722]

I'd like to hear some people's comments on how they feel stacked walls are advantageous or disadvantageous. I'm having a discussion with a fellow CAD operator about using stacked walls instead of drawing two separate walls on two different levels.

One of the first things that comes to my mind is the fact that a repeating pattern on the wall (ie brick, or some other non "sand" pattern) would all align correctly together in a stacked wall. With two separate walls, pattern (for instance, brick) would not align - right?

Other issues would be with doors / windows cutting vertically through two different wall types.. (ie one wall would not cut itself automatically if you used two separate walls.) With a stacked wall the cut would be automatic through both walls and you wouldn't have to mess with any profile adjustments to cut the second wall.... if you moved windows or doors to different positions it would be kind of tricky with two different walls on different levels - right?

Any other thoughts? I can't seem to convince this person that there is any advantage to using them. Some constructive criticism would be useful, not just "I hate them, they are a pain in the ***" type comments please.

[twiceroadsfool]

I'd like to hear some people's comments on how they feel stacked walls are advantageous or disadvantageous. I'm having a discussion with a fellow CAD operator about using stacked walls instead of drawing two separate walls on two different levels.

One of the first things that comes to my mind is the fact that a repeating pattern on the wall (ie brick, or some other non "sand" pattern) would all align correctly together in a stacked wall. With two separate walls, pattern (for instance, brick) would not align - right?

Other issues would be with doors / windows cutting vertically through two different wall types.. (ie one wall would not cut itself automatically if you used two separate walls.) With a stacked wall the cut would be automatic through both walls and you wouldn't have to mess with any profile adjustments to cut the second wall.... if you moved windows or doors to different positions it would be kind of tricky with two different walls on different levels - right?

Any other thoughts? I can't seem to convince this person that there is any advantage to using them. Some constructive criticism would be useful, not just "I hate them, they are a pain in the ***" type comments please.

I use them on just about every project i touch. Theyre absolutely fantastic once you understand the pros and cons of them, and are comfortable working with them.

I suppose its to each their own, but theres NO way id work without them, LOL...

[patricks]

I personally try to avoid them whenever possible. And it's not because I've never used them. All too often I've tried using them, only to run into some issue when I need to do something like edit the wall profile, etc. that would have been much easier had I used separate walls.

If you join geometry between the 2 separate walls, inserts will automatically cut both walls just fine.

[wmullett]

I like to use them for initial placement but because of join / edit issues, I usually unstack them fairly early.

[mars12762009]

We have tried this in the past. See we generally as a rule will make 8"wide x 4' tall foundation walls with 8" Girt and panel walls above that.

Thing is, we create foundation plans and for this we use the structural plan template view so that we can see our footing and structural footers. We have piers that we have created as part of that. When we do this our lower foundation wall doesn't show up. It is treated as the same type that our 8" girt wall is... architectural and not structural.

So you might say, "why not just make the plan view collaborative?" Well the answer to that is then we see the upper part of the wall as well. So then why not just change the view region you might say? Well when we do that we lose sight of where the base is at on the Finish Floor level because we are looking below that. If we hide the top part of the wall, the whole wall is then hidden.

And doing Wall sections is a pain because then instead of keynoting by type you are now keynoting by material. Personally I have found the leaders of my keynotes move around when I keynote by material.

So it's all quite complicated and much simpler to just create a Top Of Footer level as well as the Finish Floor level, place a 4' basic wall on the Top Of Footer level and the other 8" girt wall at the Finish Floor level. Sections through the wall are easily keynoted, and sweeps still work well also. I use Keynote by Material for my sweeps, and a general keynote for the wall panel itself.

A lot simpler this way.

[Hilux]

We use Stacked walls frequently.
Again, understanding how they work is the key to efficiency.
There are some limitations though which is a down side. ie. when using filters to overide elements of the individual wall types making up the stacked wall. Wall joins can be tricky also. But we have found there are many more advantages. You will only need to controll one wall whilst modeling rather than two which is a great help when the upper portion is above the cut plane.

[amorie]

We too have been having discussions about this same subject. I believe that a stacked wall, while a timesaver for initial design, begins to lose its luster as you move into documentation. I am a believer that the model should reflect the actual methods of construction. More often than not, for the types of structures we are doing, the stacked wall doesn't represent or integrate well with the reality of construction.

Another thing we have adopted is a system of filter displays for representing the code ratings of walls (also for floors, ceilings, roofs, doors and windows) on code plans and sections. We are using a hatch pattern for the wall in the coarse level display setting, associated to a parameter (other than the one native in Revit) for hourly rating in the project. We also have attached a parameter to our walls to define the code function of the wall. This parameter displays in a tag on our code plans and sections. None of these parameters are available in stacked walls. The workaround is to override the graphic display, (in both plan and section) which requires lots more work. Tagging would require a manual tag system for indication of code function. This seems to run against the time saving and QA advantages that Revit can automatically give us.

[twiceroadsfool]

We too have been having discussions about this same subject. I believe that a stacked wall, while a timesaver for initial design, begins to lose its luster as you move into documentation. I am a believer that the model should reflect the actual methods of construction. More often than not, for the types of structures we are doing, the stacked wall doesn't represent or integrate well with the reality of construction.

Another thing we have adopted is a system of filter displays for representing the code ratings of walls (also for floors, ceilings, roofs, doors and windows) on code plans and sections. We are using a hatch pattern for the wall in the coarse level display setting, associated to a parameter (other than the one native in Revit) for hourly rating in the project. We also have attached a parameter to our walls to define the code function of the wall. This parameter displays in a tag on our code plans and sections. None of these parameters are available in stacked walls. The workaround is to override the graphic display, (in both plan and section) which requires lots more work. Tagging would require a manual tag system for indication of code function. This seems to run against the time saving and QA advantages that Revit can automatically give us.

We use them religiously, and we use them all the way through CD. The trick is, you cant think of a stacked wall as an *item* by itself. Its a placement strategy and *strategic alliance* of the walls. The "Stacked wall" doesnt get identity data, type marks, type comments, etc... Because it is STILL segments of individual basic walls that get those pieces of information.

We very rarely use the *break up* command on stacked walls. They typically survive intact all the way through construction of the project. The few exceptions being attaching bases to roofs, where the bottom basic wall height is lower than the roof... Since it will stay there. Sometimes complex wall joins require a little extra attention, but thats usually becuase they also require a little extra detailing architecturally, so we meander through it.

FWIW we still use Filters for our Code Compliance plans, Filters run on walls for various drawings, and we still use all of the wall type tags and designations that revit affords us. We will typically have a LOT of wall types in a project, basic, stacked, and otherwise.

The ONE MAJOR CAVEAT to them (in my opinion) is that if a stacked wall has a location line defined (interior face, exterior face, etc), and you have to edit the thickness of a basic wall in its makeup that will change the overall thickness of the stacked wall, it wont respect that Location Line if you EDIT the basic walls definition through the stacked wall. But if you duplicate the stacked wall, edit THAT definition, then CHANGE the type in your project, it respects it. Its a minor issue if everyone involved knows, but thats about the worst issue with stacked walls, as far as im concerned.

Its also fantastic for getting conditions done quickly and correctly at things like Brick shelfs, foundation walls, precast bases, and the like. I do- however- wish stacked walls were usable in every condition that basic walls are (Wall by face, for example). Its a chore to take a blend and break it in to two blends, to get two basic wall definitions on it.

I think in the last 5 years, ive done ONE project without stacked walls. And truth be told, (its still going on) i now wish i had done it with stacked walls. lol.

[kreed]

We're starting to have a strucutral engineer use Revit on our project and that leads to a question about the advantages/disadvantages of stacked walls in structural models.

What I've found is that you can't assign structural modes to stacked walls so when you change the view discipline to structural none of the stacked walls show up.

On previous projects the engineers asked us to make all of our bearing walls bearing and shear walls shear so they could see them and use them in their model.

My question is does it make a big difference if the SE uses a coordination mode and copy/monitors the walls and replaces the type or is it easier for him to have our walls come in as bearing and use them straight from our model?

Has anyone found any problems using stacked walls with Revit based structural engineers?

[twiceroadsfool]

It doesnt affect Structural Engineers at all. They just have to be aware when they are Copy Monitoring the walls, and which walls they are CM'ing. That will change from job to job and wall makeup to wall makeup.

Ive worked with RST engineers for years using stacked walls, its never been a problem.