masonry coursing

[MikeJarosz]

I just finished reading as much of the previous posts on masonry coursing that I could stand! Some of them applied to versions before 2011.

So, in 2011, is there a way to control brick and CMU coursing? We specialize in correctional facilities and use a lot of CMU.

If not, does anyone know if it is it on the wish list?

[cliff collins]

No changes I know of in 2011--if you mean the "repeating detail CMU" or detail component CMU problems.

If I recall, there IS a workaround to make it course out properly, but that's the problem--
another workaround for something basic which should be automatic in a $5K program.

Here's an old wish list thread..........LOL

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=3431&highlight=masonry+coursing

cheers

[twiceroadsfool]

The rounding problem persists with a brick being 2 171/256" (which cant be put in to 8" evenly), and that problem persists anytime you terminate something at a non-8" modular coursing.

Nothing has changed, in that regard.

Having said that, i do a ton of brick and block work in Revit, always have. Its never been much of an issue. <shrug>

[cliff collins]

I doubt if Belden or any other brick mfg. would hold themselves to 2 171/256" tolerance
on their bricks!

Therein lies the problem. REVIT thinks a brick is 2 171/256" high--so when you build a virtual model of a "real" building in Revit, it doesn't work out--thus the complaints.

I think at my old office we edited all the detail component families to make them work with
our local brick mfg. dimensions, including the 3/8" mortar joint.

Then we realized how much time we were spending messing around with it and decided
to not even use the DCs and left the CMU walls with their simple cross hatching and never had a problem with a real project from NOT using the repaeting details or DCs.

cheers

[twiceroadsfool]

It has nothing to do with what a brick manufacturer is doing. Many people will write a brick or modular block patter spacing as =8"/3... Which, as we know, isnt an even number. THAT, is the reason i bring up the 171/256". On a multi-story building that inaccuracy will add up, and cost you. Ive seen trouble with precast manufacturers on job sites over misdimensioned masonry work, you bet your behind.

So: Correct... you shouldnt have to WORRY about the 171/256"... But you DO need to know about it when creating the patterns/coursing counters/detail components/repeater details, etc. Because if anyone "inputs" '8 inches divided by three' they wont be happy.

Its great for you i guess, that your company doesnt care to detail the coursing. Some do. For them, they should just be aware. Its a very simple issue to circumvent, but an issue nonetheless.

[jamesgchambers]

Can't tell you how many times we've had this conversation in our office. There were a lot of people using the out of the box repeating detail that places a brick every 2 171/256" and then complaining that their dimensions weren't right.

In the end, I ended up building a line based detail component that places a brick ever 8/3." Doing this all in the family eliminates the creep we all are experiencing over long distances. It also allows you to place a reference line at each course so when you're detailing, you can snap to courses (which you can't do w/ repeating details). The other added benefit is that since each course is done with an array, the family can report the number of courses. Very handy when you're dimensioning and want to indicate the number of courses.

It's a workaround, but I believe it "solves" the coursing issue.

[twiceroadsfool]

It doesnt. it just keeps you even every 8 inches. If you have the family set with the reference planes EQ'd or evenly divided by three, and someone dimensions it in the project, itll show the x/256" dimensions that dont add up. (Unless your dimensions are set to round higher than 1/256", which is a very bad idea with revit).

It has to do with how Revit handles those numbers, and the only solution is to (really) not dimension them.

You can eliminate the creep in the long dimensions of the surface patterns by having each instance of the pattern have all three bricks repeat, instead of one repeater... But with the repeating detail versus line based family versus bigger line based family... Youll need individuals unless EVERYTHING you do lands on 8 inch increments. At which point youll have them, but in smaller amounts. I dont repeating detail my entire closed string of dimensions, so as long as i place them at the critical points correctly, its less of an issue.

[MikeJarosz]

OK OK............

What I learned:

No, there is no direct set of tools for coursing in 2011
It's been on the wish list foreverI did find in my research that the block pattern can be moved around using the align tool. For now, that may be enough.

[tomnewsom]

171/255ths of an inch! I know it's unsporting to gloat, but it sure sounds like it sucks to use imperial :D Our bricks are 215x65x102.5mm with a 10mm join and not a fraction more or less!

[sthedens]

We use a repeating detail component that represents 3 courses of brick with 3/8" joints that is EXACTLY 8" high total. If the total wall coursing is not evenly divisible by 3, we add individual 171/256" high single detail components.

[r.grandmaison]

The only remedy about this issue that I know is to put something like this on your renderings/elevations:

"Masonry coursing and patterns are shown as schematic and are not intended to depict actual, intended conditions. Actual coursing and patterns shall be determined by..."

;)

(PS: I feel your pain.)

[patricks]

I'm not sure I understand what is being wished for. An automatic dimension type that will report a number of brick courses instead of an actual dimension? Is that it?

Our modular brick surface pattern is pretty accurate up to 10 feet. Above that and it will report an extra 1/32" on every 3rd course... even up 30 feet high it still only reports an extra 1/32". I need to check that pattern actually and see if I can correct that.

I really have no problems at all with the accuracy of the brick detail components and the model surface pattern.

[mark.98140]

Our preferred outcome, from an W.Australian perspective, where almost all construction is in brick, is for a tool;

1. Not only for detailing, but for calling out coursing on elevations and sections
2. A tool for use with or without face brick/blockwork (rendered blockwork / bricks).
3. A tool that would operate with the on click simplicity and functional aspects of the spot elevation tool
4. A tool loosely based on selecting (one time only) a project reference for the coursing to start and an integer value for the number of units above or negative value for those below this reference.
5. Ideally there would be an adjustable tolerance value (i.e 5mm) which if the selected height varied from the coursing level it would revert to providing a spot elevation height in lieu of coursing.

This tool could be built around the spot elevation tool if only this tool were accessible via the family settings we have available (seemingly not?). I understand there are some work arounds, but none seem to offer a one click simplicity (as found in other platforms), low system resource usage (an issue with some work arounds) or mot importantly a fail safe means of selecting coursing (an issue with some work arounds that rely on selecting two points to set the value - an issue with hundreds of coursing levels on each project).

For the record, we have tried numerous work arounds and approached autodesk formally regarding this wishlist item, but we have as yet to find a satisfactory solution.

Quietly, we are hoping this will change in the future.. but for now, we will keep reading to see what other bright minds are doing.

[twiceroadsfool]

I already know our solution isnt preffered for some in the post, but since others may want to try it:

We have a Line Based Detail Component, with a Nested Generic Annotation Label in it. It looks just like our dim style, and it just takes the length and divides it by Brick dimensions. Its nice because you can alter what it uses for the basis of coursing, if youre using Economy or other non-standard bricks. Since its using a matematical formula for calcuating coursing numbers, you can deal with the fraction issue any way you like.

We try to limit its use, since (as a free form dimension), it COULD potentially be abused, but ive got some highly complex models that Revit is being finicky about dimensioning, and weve got TONS of these placed, without a performance hit.

[mark.98140]

Just to clarify our needs here in australia apart from what others are happy with using elsewhere... We are not after a dimensional coursing tool, that is one that reads like an dimensional string with coursing in lieu of a dimensional number. Our coursing notes are applied over the elevation at the points selected throughout and show as a simple number, ie 34c - not two reference points and a line with a coursing between. Aside from the fact it will take two picks using the noted alternative methods (lesser issue really), it would be unworkable in our instance here where numerous coursing heights appear over the elevation / section / details... not aside as one traditionally might list a dimension on a working drawing. This is the std practice way of notating coursing heights here (becaue of the shear number of references required) and alternative suggested formats would be problematic. (though i would be happy to see a dimensioned example of an elevation done any other way of course?)

[mark.98140]

Actually, I take my comments back. The above approach (as per twiseroadfools) CAN be adjusted quite nicely to reflect the desired look (my fault T-R-F). Perhaps the biggest issue is still though if there is a better way to control the point selection so that it remains vertical or attached to a reference point each time?

[twiceroadsfool]

It can be aligned/locked/constrained as everything else can in Revit. And as i said, i understand there are "some people" in the thread who dont want to do it this way, but there are also quite a large number that DO want dimensions, and just want them to reflect coursing instead of feet and inches.

Until we get formula capabilities in dimension styles, they work great for this. (As you already said, you can make them LOOK any way that you want.)

[mark.98140]

will play around this morning and see what else can be done. cheers.

[greg.mcdowell]

Care to share Aaron?