Demolition, Insulation and Phases

[barrie.sharp]

When I apply insulation in a new phase, I draw the new wall and join it to the existing. The opening cut out nicely. The only time I have issues is when demolishing an opening and adding a new one that overlaps. The automatic infills don't behave like normal walls and I can't get things to tidy.

I know Revit has shortsfalls in this area but just wanted some ideas to work around this scenario? It is nice joining the walls because it sorts out line weights too.

[arqt49]

My solution (I have a similar situation) is to do it like in real life:
1. The opening already exists (model a window, or something else, wall based with an opening).
2. The existing window can be wall based, but has no opening. That way, when demolished, oly it's frames, etc disapear.
3. The new window family, also has no opening, so that when placed it does not create a new opening that in fact is not done in real life.

This method has the advantage of not creating the wall fill and demolish it again in the quantity schedules that you get when using those window families with openings.

[barrie.sharp]

I see what you're saying. The situation I have is that we are changing the window size so the openings are infact different. I suppose you might suggest creating my own partial infill but enlarging openings becomes tricky.

[ws]

I have to admit that I got so fed up with Revit's limitations in this regard that I just copy the entire project and have an 'existing' and 'proposed' project.

Not ideal but when you have complex old stone buildings where rooflights, windows, wall gaps, floors are all being altered to varying degrees, Revit just isn't quite there yet.
There are too many graphic glitches - roofs in particular I find a problem and windows as you describe.

[arqt49]

If windows sizes are different, families with openings should workout fine.
I just tested a couple situations and found no issues.
Now if you want your new window smaller and the new wall fill is different from the existing host, you have model it inside the existing (and demolished) opening.
Anyway, I stick to my first reply: Things should be modeled keeping the real actions in mind.

[patricks]

When I have a situation with existing walls, new furring walls, and new and existing (demolished) inserts, I find that I can ususally make things work through varying join geometry operations (new and existing walls, new wall infill to existing wall, etc.). Then sometimes I might have to place my new window or door slightly away from the final position, and then move it into place.

[signalbass]

When I have a situation with existing walls, new furring walls, and new and existing (demolished) inserts, I find that I can ususally make things work through varying join geometry operations (new and existing walls, new wall infill to existing wall, etc.). Then sometimes I might have to place my new window or door slightly away from the final position, and then move it into place.

When you say "new wall infill," is that simply modeling a new wall in the area that needs to be infilled? I wasn't sure if there was a specific method for creating "infill elements" when auto infill fails.

Thanks

[jessica.146534]

I agree with the previous post - model it the way it's actually built. I made an opening family (I find that the wall opening tool doesn't always work the way I want it to) that has instance parameters of height and width so you can just use the grips to adjust the size, then make the windows non-wall hosted so that you can just demo the window and insert a new one without dealing with the opening. If you're making the window opening larger, make the opening the larger size and then draw another wall inside of that. Make another opening the size of the smaller window and put that in the "infill" wall. Then you can demo everything so you're left with just the big opening. Does this make any sense? I know it sounds complicated but I deal exclusively with existing buildings so this is an every day occurrence for me and this is the best solution I've come up with.

[barrie.sharp]

I think that maybe the requirements of the project should be considered. Many of our contractors don't want demolition plans. They turn up on site and just follow the proposed plan. These are of course small residential refurbs and phasing isn't quite as important. WS raises a good point and I would like to decide when the trade of is worth while (productive).

Keeping phases is helpful but it gets annoying when a wall that has been knocked down is interacting with my new wall..curse you wall joins. Additionally, Insulating walls or refinishing becomes messy when a new wall type would suffice. Revit needs to do more than just change element visibility when it's demolished, it should discount it from existance. This becomes further complicated when using design options in a new phase with demolished walls hanging about :shock:

If you have a floor joined to core, it cuts the wall finish which is desirable untill that floor is moved in the new phase. You then have patching up to do. Why can't it infill? Phasing is just too selective and I'd rather it repairs/infills everything as it goes or nothing at all!