wall finishes

[timsea81]

I'm familiar with Revit MEP but not Revit Architecture (or architecture in general for that matter), so this is probably a stupid question. I have a wall that is brick on the outside and plaster on the inside. How do I go about modeling this? As far as I've gotten has been picking between the 'generic-12" ' and 'generic - 12" masonry' wall types. Should I do the brick and the plaster parts of the wall as 2 seperate walls beside each other? Or is there some way to treat either side of the same wall as having unique construction?

[zenomail105021]

Don't know if I am missing the gist of your question but:

Wall>Element Properties>Edit Type>Structure>Edit

Bill Maddox

[amara]

I suppose you are asking whether to include wall finishes in the wall structure. I summary no, because this will cause problems regarding wall construction width and dimension. currently you can show finishes only in detail views as detail items.
I wish there was a way to include wall finishes in wall composition, with finishes (plaster, wall tiles, even paint) to have the option to appear only in fine detail, and/or assigned a phase. This way the wall dimensions will not be changed in coarse or medium detail levels. This will also help in material quantities takeoff and in labeling.

[patricks]

Not sure what everyone is saying in this thread, but just set up a wall type with the various layers you need as structure, substrate, finish, etc. layers for the different materials in your wall.

If you're not familiar with how to do this, read the help and/or the tutorials on setting up wall types. It should most, if not all, the information you need.

[timsea81]

just set up a wall type with the various layers you need as structure, substrate, finish, etc. layers for the different materials in your wall.


this is what i was looking for. thank you.

[amara]

I have no problem with defining wall types with all combinations and thicknesses needed. What I am trying to point at is the ability to include finishes in wall types. Currently, in order to apply wall ceramic tiling, we add a separate wall called wall tiles to the original block wall. We wouldn't want to include the tiles thickness in the basic wall structure because this will create problems regarding dimensioning (wall thickness should not include thickness of finishes including tiles or plaster).
Now if we were able to define wall finishes within the wall type definition, but with the option to hide finishes at coarse scales it would be very helpful. the same would apply to slabs, floors etc. This way if we do a callout at 1:10 scale for example the wall with all its finishes details would appear, and there is no need to add detail components for finishes. This will also make it more convenient for material quantity measurements.
I hope I made my point clear...

[cporter.207875]

I have no problem with defining wall types with all combinations and thicknesses needed. What I am trying to point at is the ability to include finishes in wall types. Currently, in order to apply wall ceramic tiling, we add a separate wall called wall tiles to the original block wall. We wouldn't want to include the tiles thickness in the basic wall structure because this will create problems regarding dimensioning (wall thickness should not include thickness of finishes including tiles or plaster).
Now if we were able to define wall finishes within the wall type definition, but with the option to hide finishes at coarse scales it would be very helpful. the same would apply to slabs, floors etc. This way if we do a callout at 1:10 scale for example the wall with all its finishes details would appear, and there is no need to add detail components for finishes. This will also make it more convenient for material quantity measurements.
I hope I made my point clear...

I get your point but I don't see the problem. You can dimension to the face of any layer in the wall construction. So if you don't want to include finish thickness in your dimensions then you simply dimension to the substrate or the stud or whatever.

[mthurnauer]

Cory is right. There is a reason to be able to dimension to finishes. Lets say for example you are dimensioning finished casework that will go into a space after tile is on or a wall is plastered. Or, maybe you need to provide the finished dimension on a plan to indicate how much room will be available for a piece of equipment. Or, maybe there is a minimum width that has to be maintained per code and you want to state it as finished min. regardless of construction tolerances.

[amara]

2 cm finish layer doesn't make sense on a 1:100 scale drawing. In addition this will show as a bold line in plan, so I'd rather not have it at all. Dimensioning to internal layers is not easy. Finished dimensions can show in detailed drawings with at least 1:20 scale or so.

[cliff collins]

For Interiors, we have separate Revit models which are linked into our Shell & Core model.

This way, you dimension to the framing in the Shell & Core model, and then dimension
to any finishes in the Interior model as required. Sheets can be issued from either or both models. Works quite well. If you think about it, it makes sense to separate these models,
as the sequence of construction is delivered in the real world in this way.

It also helps to keep users from constantly stepping on each others' toes, and lets the SC and ID teams work independently. It also helps manage file sizes and simplifies the models, esp. on large, complex projects.

cheers...........

[patricks]

2 cm finish layer doesn't make sense on a 1:100 scale drawing. In addition this will show as a bold line in plan, so I'd rather not have it at all. Dimensioning to internal layers is not easy. Finished dimensions can show in detailed drawings with at least 1:20 scale or so.

We draw most of our floor plans at 1/8" = 1' scale, which is 1:96. We draw the plans with medium detail level (which shows all wall layers) and dimension to the faces of core structural layers. Yes the 5/8" gypsum wallboard on the interior or the 1/2" sheathing on the exterior will usually show as a heavier line, but really, it's not a big deal. We've been doing it this way for years and haven't had any problems.

I prefer to show all layers so that I know my available clearances and can measure them, if needed, in any and all views. And having all layers visible makes it a snap to dimension to your core structural layers. There is no option to make only the core layer of walls visible (unless you do some tricky workarounds), so IMHO this is the best method.

[pfaudler]

For Interiors, we have separate Revit models which are linked into our Shell & Core model.

This way, you dimension to the framing in the Shell & Core model, and then dimension
to any finishes in the Interior model as required. Sheets can be issued from either or both models. Works quite well. If you think about it, it makes sense to separate these models,
as the sequence of construction is delivered in the real world in this way.

It also helps to keep users from constantly stepping on each others' toes, and lets the SC and ID teams work independently. It also helps manage file sizes and simplifies the models, esp. on large, complex projects.

cheers...........

Cliff,

when you have Interior model seperate that shell/core model, what happens with doors/windows? Also, for finishes walls in Interior model, if they dont have opening for doors/windows then does it not affect finishes schedule?

[snowyweston]

Cliff,

when you have Interior model seperate that shell/core model, what happens with doors/windows? Also, for finishes walls in Interior model, if they dont have opening for doors/windows then does it not affect finishes schedule?

(Cough, Cough) Don't even think about it!

How's about we ask the more pertinent question Rahul? Patricks - I to am an advocate of the "model-all" method - but so far we're settling for everything up to finishes (so we show plasterboard, fibre board, tiling etc - but not "finish" per say)

BUT we are struggling to come up with an ideal wall tag that can pull lining information from both sides of the wall.

We've quite a clumsy double-headed (vis-optional) tag at the moment that pulls a 2nd Type Mark (introduced as a shared project parameter) but this reports errors all over the shop as a great number of our basic wall types "share" alike linings one one side or another. Any suggestions to get round this?

[pfaudler]

Thanks Snowy.

Yes, it is currently a problem pulling lining information on either side of the wall using double headed wall tag. But the shared parameter workaroud (for second type mark) works well.

[patricks]

Why not do a separate instance mark instead of a separate type mark? All Revit objects have a "Mark" field under instance parameters. Doors typically use this instance Mark field for the number and the Type Mark field for the door type. So just make a 2nd shared instance Mark parameter for your walls and do it that way.

[snowyweston]

Why not do a separate instance mark instead of a separate type mark? All Revit objects have a "Mark" field under instance parameters. Doors typically use this instance Mark field for the number and the Type Mark field for the door type. So just make a 2nd shared instance Mark parameter for your walls and do it that way.

In the closing moments of my working year, but I've never been particularly good at procrastination, so:

Instance Mark? Hmm I'm not sure I understand entirely. Instance marks would require manually inputted data (number for example) to each and every wall no? Ideally we would rather use automated tags to return a "type" field.

Oh wait, look, the run to the pub.... I'll return to this in 2010 to elaborate further.

[dilages]

I have a genric wall that runs 3 compartments .... but each environment will have a different wall finish .. how I do for use 3 diferente wall tag in one wall? ... I have to divide the wall in 3 .. and rename each one so that they are individualized to have your own code!?

[cliff collins]

Sounds like time for a Stacked Wall.

cheers.....

[snowyweston]

Sounds like time for a Stacked Wall.

cheers.....

That'd be true in the vertical - but if "dilages" means in the horizontal, than I suspect it's a split-at-each "environment".