High Rise (Groups questions)

[scowsert]

I'm modeling a 34 story high rise.

1) Floors 1-24 are the same (almost). I went ahead and modeled a floors columns with the floor above (looks like a table), Grouped it and arrayed it up the building. Works great so far in my early phase except... (you knew this was coming right?) I have one floor to floor height that is different. Do I have to make a separate group to fill this space? I almost want to be able to control this groups floor to floor height like I can with a family and adjust some parameters. Can I do that with a group?

2) Later I can select the group in the project brower and select edit. Revit spits out the group into a new session. Pretty cool. I do my edits and save my work. Is there a "Load into project" button that I'm missing? For now I'm saving this into the project folder then within the project go to the project browser right click on the group and selecting "reload". While this works pretty well I can't help but to think there must be a more elegant way to do this. Am I missing a button or load option somewhere?

Thanks
Sage

[Scott Womack]

1) There is no way to elegant this different Flr to Flr height. You can set the columns to be from one floor to the next, but this emay bite you later on. Make a new group isthe best way.

2) No, you are not missing a button. There is no automated load button. You can to go to the groups in the browser, select one, right-click and reload. (2010)

[twiceroadsfool]

I would use Links instead of Groups. Then you can actually just have a design option in the link for the floor to floor height, and have "Level 2" in the link adjust per the design option.

[cliff collins]

Aaron's idea is good.

Convert the "odd floor height" Group to a Revit Project.

Then Link it as a new .rvt into your main project.
This way you can work on that floor independently, make changes and then Reload the Link via Manage Links.

Once the design is solidified, you can then "Bind" the Linked revit file into the Project.

( Design Options is another way, but I tend not to use them for this sort of thing..others
may be fine using them. )

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

[scowsert]

I would use Links instead of Groups. Then you can actually just have a design option in the link for the floor to floor height, and have "Level 2" in the link adjust per the design option.


I like the concept of using links for this however the engineer (shh... I'm a structural guy) is real particular in how the core wall elevations look. He is insisted that the walls join floor to floor (no line between levels). I can join them with groups and keep him happy.

[twiceroadsfool]

I like the concept of using links for this however the engineer (shh... I'm a structural guy) is real particular in how the core wall elevations look. He is insisted that the walls join floor to floor (no line between levels). I can join them with groups and keep him happy.

I wouldnt put core walls in the Linked Files anyway. When i plan high rises i have all of the individual floor levels as Links (with design options for things that vary slightly level to level, like chases, duct clearances, floor to floor heights, etc). The DO's are great for that.

The core stays in the main model, or is its own model, so to speak.

I wouldnt bind them, id keep them as links all the way through the project. I would (maybe) use groups inside the Link for similar rooms, but i wouldnt be using them for the floor plates.

Theres a hundred ways to skin a cat, thats just what i would do. :)

[scowsert]

I wouldnt put core walls in the Linked Files anyway. When i plan high rises i have all of the individual floor levels as Links (with design options for things that vary slightly level to level, like chases, duct clearances, floor to floor heights, etc). The DO's are great for that.

The core stays in the main model, or is its own model, so to speak.

I wouldnt bind them, id keep them as links all the way through the project. I would (maybe) use groups inside the Link for similar rooms, but i wouldnt be using them for the floor plates.

Theres a hundred ways to skin a cat, thats just what i would do. :)

So your cores you model full height/Floor to floor? How about columns? In the same 'model' as the walls?

Like you said there are a million ways to do this. I appreciate your advice.

[cliff collins]

To clarify what Aaron suggested:

All floors as Links--meaning Floor slabs for Levels 1-34 in a single Revit file,
linked into the Shell?

Or--( I hope not ) 34 separate Linked Revit files? This is getting a bit too much like ADT/ACA where everything was an xref for each floor and linked into a Master File.

I would not recommend having 34 Linked models !

We typically model all Shell/Core floor slabs, shear walls, shafts, columns etc. in a single
Revit model. Then the Struct. eng. ends up replacing all the "skeletal" structural slabs, shear walls, columns, etc.

We then Link in an ID model which contains Groups of all the interior walls, doors, finishes, guestrooms, plumbing fixtures, ceilings, etc. This model does get pretty huge--
200-300 MB, but our 64 bit systems and lots of RAM seem to handle it OK.

The tallest one we have done is about 26 stories--so once we get over 30-50 floors,
I can see having more models--but limit the amounts of links as much as possible,
based on performance -vs- linked model management considerations.

just my 2 c worth.

cheers......

[twiceroadsfool]

If the first ten floors are the same, id have one Linked file, with ten instances of it. But yes, i would make every floor its own link. It works extremely well. Especially with small changes between floors, as design options in that link.

I even then Workset the Main Model (with the drawings in it) to have Floor 1 (link) and Floor 2-10 (rep link) to indicate that those 9 instances are repetitions of the first one, so they dont have to be loaded for performace reasons.

My core walls, id model whatever way theyre getting built. If its floor to floor, id model them that way, aligned to a Shaft penetrating the floor. If theyre full height with the floors held back, id model it that way around the shaft.

Columns... Depends on the players. If theres a structural engineer, ill let them model them. More likely than not they wont run full height, only because (if its steel) they change size as they go up.

I dont limit the number of links at all, and weve never had a problem. Its management, sure. But its a thirty story building, it has to get *managed* either way.

If theyre similar enough to group, theyre similar enough to link.

Project-Shell-Main-RAC10.rvt

has the Core (and Podium, if there is a podium) and all of the sheets in the set.

Project-Int-Link-RAC10.rvt

has the single floor interior walls, doors, rooms, whatever else. (Yes, there will be 30 instances of this link. So in VG:RVT Link there will be one linked file, and under the tree there will be thirty instances of it, for selecting the design options. :)

Project-Shell-Ext-RAC10.rvt

has the skin, if its a complex skin. You could make a case for putting it in Main, but it depends on how complex it is and whats going on with it.

Then structural and Interiors, i would do in similar fashion on par with your office standards.