Indicating Seismic Joints on Plans

[RobertB]

How are you experienced Revit folks showing seismic joints in the model? I don't have to do this myself, since I'm in the MEP world. But I know the proper way is not to draw a wall where the joint exists just to show the dashed line in the wall up thru every level in the building. Which is what I've recently seen done.

So, in the interests of helping my architect friends rather than just whining about poor modeling, what would you suggest? The goal is to have a heavy dashed line indicating the joint that only needs to be modeled once for all levels of the building and have visibilty control even thru linked models.

So that rules out symbol lines.
That also rules out model lines unless there's some way to draw the lines on the base level and have them show up on all levels (plan view only, perhaps RCP?).

At this point I'm stuck.

[Ning Zhou]

see attched, that's the best i can do untill someone can figure out better way?
you may have to turn off floor for some levels, and check object style for line thickness stuff, etc.

[RobertB]

see attched, that's the best i can do untill someone can figure out better way?
you may have to turn off floor for some levels, and check object style for line thickness stuff, etc.Joe,

Thanks for the attempt, but symbolic lines won't work. The architect cannot draw the line once and have it show on all 20 levels.

[cliff collins]

We use a sweep with the profile of the EJ, and run it thru all the walls in the model.
i.e. model it like a real joint, instead of trying to "draft" it in all views.

cheers

[ron.sanpedro]

Joe,

Thanks for the attempt, but symbolic lines won't work. The architect cannot draw the line once and have it show on all 20 levels.

Interesting, because I would have thought the invisible line trick would work in this case. I wonder if this is a change in behavior in 2011? Time to test!

Gordon

[RobertB]

Interesting, because I would have thought the invisible line trick would work in this case. I wonder if this is a change in behavior in 2011? Time to test!Sorry, that's my bad. I simply opened the family and saw that it was a symbolic line and dismissed the idea without actually testing it in a live model. However, floors still mess with the representation, so I call it an inadequate solution.

[jeffrey.kuchta]

Interesting question. I am currently developing Revit families of my companies expansion joint systems. My thought was to add a 'void extrusion' so that when the EJ gets placed (either wall, floor or ceiling), then the Family would cut the wall for the architect(s). ie. if its a 2" EJ system the joint opening shown would be 2", or 6" for a 6" system. Does this work/appeal to anyone?

[twiceroadsfool]

We use a Line Based Family. In elevation its a Model Line (much lower performance hit), and in plan it shows the joint, the sealant, and whatever other Joint items are included in the type selector.

So it can be sketched in elevation the way the Designers and Architects want, and it shows up everywhere, in all views, and all plans, since its detail items that are in a Model Family.

That also means it works on stacked walls (if its drawn through them), through all levels (if its drawn through them), so its much less labor intensive than anything traditionally wall hosted. Its variable in joint thickness and composition, through the nested detail family, so they can be quantified and altered to fit in the different walls if necessary.

[RobertB]

We use a sweep with the profile of the EJ, and run it thru all the walls in the model.
i.e. model it like a real joint, instead of trying to "draft" it in all views.Do you have a sample? I've attached my own test and while I like it as a model, I'm not thrilled with the plan representation.

[ron.sanpedro]

Sorry, that's my bad. I simply opened the family and saw that it was a symbolic line and dismissed the idea without actually testing it in a live model. However, floors still mess with the representation, so I call it an inadequate solution.

Robert, I was actually not getting it to work either. It seems the issue was that the annotation needs to be on the ref plane at the upper extent of the object, rather than the ref level. See attached.

That said, Aaron, would you be willing to share an example of your elevation placed item? My sense has been that we need two families, one for horizontal surfaces and one for vertical, with some mechanism for coordinating how they connect/interact.

Gordon

[RobertB]

Interesting question. I am currently developing Revit families of my companies expansion joint systems. My thought was to add a 'void extrusion' so that when the EJ gets placed (either wall, floor or ceiling), then the Family would cut the wall for the architect(s). ie. if its a 2" EJ system the joint opening shown would be 2", or 6" for a 6" system. Does this work/appeal to anyone?As long as room boundaries are not harmed. If your approach means that the rooms are no longer fully enclosed than I would strongly recommend against that approach. You would be harming the MEP team if the rooms are not fully enclosed.

[twiceroadsfool]

.

That said, Aaron, would you be willing to share an example of your elevation placed item? My sense has been that we need two families, one for horizontal surfaces and one for vertical, with some mechanism for coordinating how they connect/interact.

Gordon

Im not at the office right now, but ill try to remember to post it later. Important to remember: Mine is elevation PLACED, but its NOT a symbolic or a drafted item. It USES detail items, because the INTELLIGENCE is whats important, not jacking the 3d model to the hilt. The modeled "lines" show up in all external views, and all of the detailing shows up in any plans that the user wants it in, since its a modeled family with symbology in it.

Line Based also means we can use it on non-vertical walls, floors, ceilings, and have them as curves, with an additional family.

[RobertB]

We use a Line Based Family. In elevation its a Model Line (much lower performance hit), and in plan it shows the joint, the sealant, and whatever other Joint items are included in the type selector.

So it can be sketched in elevation the way the Designers and Architects want, and it shows up everywhere, in all views, and all plans, since its detail items that are in a Model Family.

That also means it works on stacked walls (if its drawn through them), through all levels (if its drawn through them), so its much less labor intensive than anything traditionally wall hosted. Its variable in joint thickness and composition, through the nested detail family, so they can be quantified and altered to fit in the different walls if necessary.That sound promising although how does it look at Course detail level? Is it just a dashed line in plan?

[Ning Zhou]

We use a Line Based Family. In elevation its a Model Line (much lower performance hit), and in plan it shows the joint, the sealant, and whatever other Joint items are included in the type selector.

So it can be sketched in elevation the way the Designers and Architects want, and it shows up everywhere, in all views, and all plans, since its detail items that are in a Model Family.

That also means it works on stacked walls (if its drawn through them), through all levels (if its drawn through them), so its much less labor intensive than anything traditionally wall hosted. Its variable in joint thickness and composition, through the nested detail family, so they can be quantified and altered to fit in the different walls if necessary.

Aaron,
just curious how you can display lines (whether model or symbolic), etc. in multiple levels, i mean plan views when floors are still on.
i'm also thinking about nesting face-based GM void into line-based GM, but most likely won't work.

[twiceroadsfool]

It wont cut the host if you do that. The current functionality doesnt allow for it. What do you mean how do you show it in multiple levels? if i draw it in elevation, up three storeys of a building, then the Nested Detail items drawn in its section will show on any view that cuts through it. So itll show on multiple levels.

As for level of Detail.... It shows however you want it to show. I dont have different symbology in it for coarse or fine, but theres no reason you couldnt...

[Ning Zhou]

now i see what you mean, as Gordon said, may need 2 families w/ coordinating mechanism, look forward to your sample Aaron.

[jeffrey.kuchta]

As long as room boundaries are not harmed. If your approach means that the rooms are no longer fully enclosed than I would strongly recommend against that approach. You would be harming the MEP team if the rooms are not fully enclosed.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that but will try it shortly (new to the Revit game). Also, for the record, my 3D EJ family is very basic in geometry...to minimize the overhead. However I do have a full compliment of 2D Design Components which show the majority of detail...to be used on the EJ detail drawing sheets. Is this a fair way to go?

[twiceroadsfool]

Joe- I still dont understand why you would need two families to manually coordinate. Unless im not explaining it correctly. You draw it in elevation, and it shows in all the plans.

Jeffrey- These are the basic notes i give all manufacturers, about making "their content" for revit. Obviously, i ONLY speak for me and our office, but here goes:

1. If there is anything BUT native Revit material in it, we automatically put that manufacturer on a list of Revit content not to be used. It doesnt mean we wont spec your product, but your revit content is of NO use to us if it has any imported 2D OR 3D stuff in it. This includes DWG details, linestyles left over frome exploded DWG details, .sat imports, .skp imports, etc.

2. If its two hundred families, all for minor variations in specs and detailing, just because of the identity data and parameters inside of it, we wont use it. We'll delete them. Its unnecessary overhead and file bloat. In fact, an expansion joint is such a micro level element, there shouldnt be more than 5-10 families for ALL expansion joints, and even that is a lot. if you simply need differences in information, use Type Catelogs.

3. You may be better off JUSt providing the 2D details, but im sure people will disagree with me on that. The thing about something like an EJ, is there are a few ways to do it, but theyre not changing all that much, and each method has sacrifices.

Its like Curtain Wall Mullion Profiles. I dont want them from manufacturers at all. A well built parametric Mullion Profile in our template can closely represent every manufacturers mullion out there, and id RATHER have to edit mine to suit a manufacturer, than to import the 200 Kawneer profiles, which are built terribly and drag the model down to a halt.

So in that regard, if you make them models, consider the implications and benefits/risks of: Using a system family (Reveal + profile, which means a grouped rvt file, or giving out just the profile), a component (what host to use?), and so on.

[jeffrey.kuchta]

Joe- I still dont understand why you would need two families to manually coordinate. Unless im not explaining it correctly. You draw it in elevation, and it shows in all the plans.

Jeffrey- These are the basic notes i give all manufacturers, about making "their content" for revit. Obviously, i ONLY speak for me and our office, but here goes:

1. If there is anything BUT native Revit material in it, we automatically put that manufacturer on a list of Revit content not to be used. It doesnt mean we wont spec your product, but your revit content is of NO use to us if it has any imported 2D OR 3D stuff in it. This includes DWG details, linestyles left over frome exploded DWG details, .sat imports, .skp imports, etc.

2. If its two hundred families, all for minor variations in specs and detailing, just because of the identity data and parameters inside of it, we wont use it. We'll delete them. Its unnecessary overhead and file bloat. In fact, an expansion joint is such a micro level element, there shouldnt be more than 5-10 families for ALL expansion joints, and even that is a lot. if you simply need differences in information, use Type Catelogs.

3. You may be better off JUSt providing the 2D details, but im sure people will disagree with me on that. The thing about something like an EJ, is there are a few ways to do it, but theyre not changing all that much, and each method has sacrifices.

Its like Curtain Wall Mullion Profiles. I dont want them from manufacturers at all. A well built parametric Mullion Profile in our template can closely represent every manufacturers mullion out there, and id RATHER have to edit mine to suit a manufacturer, than to import the 200 Kawneer profiles, which are built terribly and drag the model down to a halt.

So in that regard, if you make them models, consider the implications and benefits/risks of: Using a system family (Reveal + profile, which means a grouped rvt file, or giving out just the profile), a component (what host to use?), and so on.

Thanks for the input! Always looking for ways that companies use/look for Revit Families. But you raise a good point (one that I've been pondering for awhile). I had thought that the Type Catalog might be the easier way to go; but do architects/end users really want that extra file kicking around? or do they (you?) find it easier than having 30+ models of the same manuafacturer floating around? Thanks again!

[twiceroadsfool]

If there are 30 models kicking around, theyre not getting used by us. Period. LOL.

I have this exact problem with lighting manufacturers. Different Files for 120 vs 277. Theres no reason for a different file. AND, they make different families for different sizes of the same product line. They go right in to the trash bin.

Type catalogs. And even then, only for things that affect the Construction documents and the specs. I dont want type catalogs for warranty selections. If its not driving something in the Con Docs / Model / Costs, i dont want it in there.

[Ning Zhou]

got masking region idea from Alfredo, updated rfa seems can solve "eaten by floor" issue.