Copy/Monitor of walls, an architect is curious

[ron.sanpedro]

So I am under the impression that Copy/Monitor only works on centerline of overall wall, so if Structural's wall type is not exactly as thick as the Architectural wall type, Copy/Monitor results in a misplaced wall. First off, is my understanding correct? And secondly, how do you all get around this? Do you make simplified wall styles that are a properly located core and then simplified interior and exterior "finishes"? And then coordinate changes to the wall type manually? Or do you just not copy/monitor walls? Or is there some other approach that gets used? As much as we (architects) like to move things around, this seems pretty painful.

Thanks for any insights,
Gordon

[jstoffan]

My approach is to use Copy/Monitor only for levels, grids and columns. Using C/M on walls and floors has just caused much more headache than it is worth. Instead of using C/M for walls and floors I use good 'ole fashioned copy and paste. 1) I open the architects model, 2) select the walls and floors that I want, 3) copy them to clipboard from a common level, 4) paste them in current view in my model on the corresponding plan. Then I select all those walls in my model and change them to core centerline. Then I change the walls to my structural core only wall type. This way I eliminate any arch finishes that I dont want to see, while at the same time ensuring my walls are in the exact same place. From then on I rely on visual checks to add/delete/modify wall locations in future updated models. This actually has saved me more time than trying to use C/M and coordination review. Those tools sound great in theory, but real world application hasnt gone so well. Maybe another structural person has had more success than I have though.

[JH75]

Hi,

We have done dome work with the an Arch. They are using all our struct elements in their model. What we ended up doing was to ask the Arch to draw the core of the wall as a separate wall.

J

[david_peterson]

Hi,

We have done dome work with the an Arch. They are using all our struct elements in their model. What we ended up doing was to ask the Arch to draw the core of the wall as a separate wall.

J
Ditto,
We have the archies draw all the import walls as bearing, and the cladding or interior skin as another wall. Set all the walls you want to see in the struct model to bearing and link in the arch model. Set up of few view templates, and your off, off, and away. I never need to draw a cmu wall again.
We do have the archies copy and monitor grids and levels so they can manipulate them to their views. One word of warning, they don't know when you add a grid so be sure you communicate that with them. Also if you start changing labels, you might not always get a warning for it.
So at the end of the day, we model all the structural stuff, beams, slabs, foundations, pits..... the stuff that should be on a structural drawing. All the walls, door openings and anything else, they model. While we don't have a composite model (all in one) after linking your close. We haven't upgraded to 64 bit and are still on xp so... we have to wait a bit before we will take on that challenge.

[david_peterson]

It won't separate the walls for you, but if you draw the core as one element and set it to bearing in the arch model, link it to the struct model, and set your view discipline to structural usage, revit will automatically hide all non-bearing walls. So just have your archies draw 2 walls. Then they won't have to hide the copied ones. It's much easier to link in the arch model and change the display setting. The one kicker is when it comes to revisions. Depending on how nutty you want to be about them, you may have to cloud all the arch changes since they show up in your model. How ever if you take the approach that these are arch CMU walls and the only reason I'm showing them is to make sure the dowels get placed. I don't really care where they are and the archies are going to move them untill after construction starts.......so "See arch drawings for size, extent and exact location. This is different that if it were truly load bearing.
Make sense? I've done this on about 3 projects now. It's one of the few things I can get to work correctly.

[Craig_L]

if you draw the core as one element and set it to bearing in the arch model, link it to the struct model, and set your view discipline to structural usage, revit will automatically hide all non-bearing walls. So just have your archies draw 2 walls.

I have done a project using this method and it worked nicely, the only annoying thing is when they forget to set the wall as bearing, but otherwise it was effective.

[Scott Womack]

OK, First I'm an Architect, so let me get that out of the way.

In working projects with several different structural firms, the methodology we have delevoped is this (as a possible alternative):

Our structural does not Copy-Monitor our walls. They draw their own structural wall, and Monitor it to the architectural wall. Then If my wall moves, or changes length, so does theirs. We do draw our structural walls on a different workset. The Structural has a workset for walls above grade, and in effect walls below grade. In that way we can each control the visibility of the other's information in our own model.

With 2011, this will become even easier, since one of the improvements, is the ability to directly access, and control the worksets within a linked model, BY VIEW. We do draw concrete and CMU walls as the core, and then the "furring/finish as separate walls.

Also, at least in our practice, the Structural engineer is contracted to us. Therefore I would absolutely refuse to do this for structural metal stud walls, or for load-bearing wood framed walls. That said, I do discuss, and listen to my engineers, and will make some changes to the way we draw/create Revit projects.

Also, I insist on both the MEP and Structural copy/monitoring floors back and forth. This is so when a shaft/larger floor penetration is needed, everyone is aware of it at next updated model.

[cliff collins]

I agree completely with Scott.

No drawing 2 sets of walls--the models are complicated enough with one set!

We use a Shell and Core Arch. model, and a Linked Interior Design model which has all
the finishes in it. We do model "structural" items like load bearing conc. or CMU walls,
floor slabs, etc. on a separate workset, which eventually gets turned off and or deleted as the Struct. model replaces those items.

Of course, I'm an Architect, too.

cheers

[Craig_L]

Scott, and other architecty types, I want to make a point to you guys that perhaps you already realise....but here goes.

As a structural drafter/modeller it's not that we don't like the idea of the combined wall elements. We understand it's much easier to draw one wall that contains all of the sub elements as a single entity. Structural guys are not trying to make your life harder by requesting the "core" of the wall be modelled as a seperate entity.

As far as documentation from the structural side goes, all of this information and visual representation of the sub elements, is just plain useless/superfluous to us. We don't need it. And this wouldn't be such a huge deal if it was in there and simply hidden off.
The problem is that from a visibility and graphics control point of view, these walls are notoriously impossible to manipulate. I have tried umpteen dozen ways to utilize these walls to accomodate them, they just simply are not possible to control effectively in VG options. Additionally, I can't be 100% sure on this, but I wonder how (analytically) these combined walls work, as far as centre of analytical line etc go. My company doesn't yet create structural models for analysis, but someone that does may be able to comment on the viability of these conjoined walls within analysis workframes.

It's not that we don't want you guys to have an easy method, the problem really is that revit just does not allow us to utilise these walls correctly and so we're left with either;
Filled regions to indicate the wall (which defeats the purpose of a live model)
Modelling our own walls in place, which in a "single model" approach is not viable, and at best is duplicating work that doesnt need to be duplicated.
Or requesting the architects to model the important parts of the wall initially for us.

None of these options is a great work-around, and no matter how you look at it, a "work-around" is what it is. What really needs to happen is
Revit needs to give some more flexibility in how these walls display and hide subelements, until then the best and most efficient way that I can see is in fact requesting that these core elements be modelled seperately. This means duplication is kept to a minimum hence reducing any intrinsic errors that come with copy/monitor and or any other options...

The frustration really is that these combined wall elements currently as programmed, make your life a million times easier, and our lives 5 million times harder. In the interest of producing well co-ordinated documents I beg that people take the problems these walls create into consideration when deciding how best to model their projects...

[david_peterson]

My archie decided to used combo walls. I've since traced the outline of the building to show where the pre-cast is. I've now unloaded his model as it's kind of useless to me now. The studs don't stop at the floor level like they should, so there's now point is cutting sections with it - I'd have to hide it anyway.
I requested that they do this in the beginning. They choose not to.
I think it'd be a great idea for Adesk to change the way walls work. Right now if you set the wall to bearing and link into a structural view, you see the whole wall. If you could create a wall style where you could select each layer of well and put a little check box next to it "Displays as bearing", you should simply turn off the other layers of the wall and we'd be set. But you can't.

[Craig_L]

If you could create a wall style where you could select each layer of well and put a little check box next to it "Displays as bearing", you should simply turn off the other layers of the wall and we'd be set. But you can't.

....This is a very common complaint. I hope Autodesk take note of this sort of thing, as far as producing well co-ordinated sets across all disciplines (which I believe is their goal) this is one serious shortfall. I love the idea of the combined wall elements, it makes drafting much quicker and face based fixings etc a piece of cake for the architects. They just simply do not work for structural documentation at this stage, and Architects (more often than not) demand they use these combined walls, or just do it regardless, without realising the implications...which you can't really blame them for, this is a software issue and not much else...I guess it's too late to hope for a fix for this in 2011 release...

[Steve_Stafford]

Drawing structural core walls and using the Monitor side of C/M is the process (recommended by Autodesk) at this time. It is as Scott W. describes. It provides each discipline the control and relationships that they both need in their own models but also permits some automatic coordination warnings, more than the none you get without using it.

This issue is fraught with difficult subtle problems. The common thought process I hear is we draw ours and you C/M your walls by choosing a structural only element to sit in alignment with the core of the architectural wall.

Contractors want separate layers, for every layer (at least some do, even some A/E's do). The trouble is that currently we are faced with pretty bad looking drawings if we do it. Since we are still in a transitional state between drawings are king and drawings don't matter, the model does we are stuck in an uncomfortable middle. If it isn't obvious, the layers in walls are NOT real, just a graphical feature applied to the view of the wall. It wasn't obvious to me as I always assumed that the layers we could see were slightly real.

So do they provide a way to draw compound layer walls with two clicks that really create separate solid elements that behave as one but understand their relationships?

Do they make us draw every layer or just a structural layer and then let us apply finishes after openings are created? Mimicking construction?

How do they reconcile this goal with delivering what we've always done in our drawings?

This issue isn't going away and they are well aware of it. It isn't easy and no, definitely not in 2011. Personally, I'd be surprised if it could get done by 2012. I do like surprises though, nice ones that is.

[david_peterson]

I have to agree with Steve.
I still like the idea of linking and not C/M. If They'd just put a little check box that says "Structural use" after each wall component, you could simply just select the component you want to see in the Struct link, check the box and that's what gets displayed. Everyone's happy.
However since they still haven't gotten close to picking up the wishlist items from 2008, I don't think you'll be seeing it anytime soon.
Also the Adesk support staff just made it much more difficult to even submit them. They used to be tied to a support request and now you have to fill out the support request, to find out that it's a know issue and nothings being done about it, and fill out some other junk in feedback forum. I guess this is one way to lower the amount of requests they get, just make it take longer to do.
Thanks adesk for taking up more of my time to tell you what's broken in your product.


Currently, Product Support is no longer submitting wishlist items (we are adding firms to existing items, but not creating new ones), as the Product Managers and Developers prefer that they are submitted via the feedback portal instead: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1109794 Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is anything I can do to help.[/font][/font]
Best regards,
xxxxxx
Product Support Specialist
AEC Building Design, xxxxxxxx
Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting tired of waiting for things to be fixed. Skip the new tools (unless they actually do what they should) and fix the broken stuff before you sell me another upgrade.

[Ben Buergler]

Has anyone tried to use the Parts tool within Revit 2012 to solve this issue?