Beam System...

[aaronrumple]

Those darn beam systems really should use the line defining the beam directtion as the start of the pattern. Right now it's always a guess as to where the start and end are. Really would love to see if the next ersion gets struture all straightend out. pita right now.

[Tom Weir]

Can't you control that from the "Structural beam system propeties"?

For instance:
If you choose a "fixed spacing" and have "end" as the justification it will start at the defining line and space accordingly.

If you choose fixed number it will space equally in the bay.

If you choose maximum spacing it will space equally, adding members as required.

Hope that helps...

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[aaronrumple]

Mine don't always start from the beam direction line. Haven't put a rhyme or reason for how it does its thing yet.....

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Haven't had time to play with this yet so I'll ask questions instead.

Can the beam system tool be used to define a suspended slab with slab bands? I know they would have to be the same depth and width.
Do you/can you join geometry once done to make the structure monolithic?
Can you define two systems that cross each other and JG to create a quick 'waffle slab'?

[gravelin]

Voici ce que j'ai pu faire en jouant un peu avec

Here what I could do while playing a little with

[Tom Weir]

Tres bien Yves

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Rhythmick]

I would love to see the roof example with the hip/valley & ridge members in place. The way the members connect (or lack thereof) to each other is where I have the most frustration. And trying to place a hip/valley beam on a compound vertical plane is something I've only accomplished by creating a roof plane along the hip/valley to attach to and that was an extensive work around. I'm thinking there is an easier way I need to learn.

[gravelin]

Pour les aretiers et les noues, placer des plans de référence sur le plan de masse alignés sur la toiture, les nommer, et créer les élévations pour se placer ensuite dans ces vues et modéliser les éléments.

For the hip rafters and the valleys, place références planes within mass plan and alignthem on the roof, name them, and create an elevation view, go to this view and model the elements wtih in-place family

see this exemple

[Tom Weir]

Yves,
That's what I have been doing it as well, though it would be great to have a simpler way to do it.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[gravelin]

though it would be great to have a simpler way to do it.


Je suis entièrement d'accord avec toi Tom.
Les charpentes (surtout en bois) sont très pénibles à réaliser avec Revit (un point faible ?).
Dans un cas comme celui-ci, aménagement de combles, la modélisation est nécessaire pour bien visualiser l'espace créer. Les représentation en annotation ou en détails sur les coupes n'est absolument pas suffisante.
Nous devrions avoir au minimum un outil pratique pour placer ces éléments et une gestion des intersections entre les éléments.

I agree entirely with you Tom. The frames (especially of wood) are very painful to realize with Revit (a weak point?). In a case like this one, a room directly under the roofs, modeling is necessary to visualize space well to create. The representation in annotation or details on the cuts is absolutely not sufficient.
We should have at least a practical tool to place these elements and a management of the intersections between the elements.

[SkiSouth]

I have not tried the beam system yet. Gravelin, have you tried the new work plane based families for this ridge beams. Wonder if it would be faster than the reference plane route? Just curious.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Haven't had time to play with this yet so I'll ask questions instead.

Can the beam system tool be used to define a suspended slab with slab bands? I know they would have to be the same depth and width.
Do you/can you join geometry once done to make the structure monolithic?
Can you define two systems that cross each other and JG to create a quick 'waffle slab'?
To answer my own questions... YUP! Very cool stuff. Easy too. I'll have to play more.

[gravelin]

have you tried the new work plane based families for this ridge beams.
Non pas encore... interressant !

Not still... interesting!

[gravelin]

Do you/can you join geometry once done to make the structure monolithic?

Je ne peux pas. As tu essayé ?
Je ne nai pas trouvé comment décomposer ou dégrouper.
est-ce possible ?

I can't. Have you try this ?
I did not find how to decomposes or ungroup the beam system.
Is it possible ?


have you tried the new work plane based families for this ridge beams
Cela n'est pas vraiment utile, Le plan de référence reste indispensable pour placer l'aretier et l'orienter correctement.

That is not really useful, the reference plane remains essential to place the hip rafter and to orient it correctly.

[SkiSouth]

That is not really useful, the reference plane remains essential to place the hip rafter and to orient it correctly.

Thanks for exploring its use here and reporting what you found here. I have used it for other in place families, but not on beams.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Yves,

Check out the image attached to my last post. Once you complete the beam system in both directions use the join geometry tool to create a monolithic structure.
The only drawback I see is that you must join the beams one by one. I can't seem to find a way to select the beam system as a whole. If you have a large area to do it will be a bit of a chore to join them all.
Perhaps a 'two way' beam system tool in R-8?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

I toyed with this a little more and ran into a couple of strange behaviors. Based on trying to find a way to speed up joining the geometry I tried to array one beam system to act as the cross beams in another.

1. When arrayed between the beams of another beam system the beam system stayed in line but the spacing was way out of whack. It was OK for one or two placements then increased three fold for a couple then jumped again.
2. Multiple copies of a single beam system seem to work OK
3. When one beam system is arrayed it seems to consistently create twice as many arrayed systems as prescribed, but at twice the spacing (eg you want 6 copies at 4800 spacing and you get 12 copies but only half are visible and are at 9600 o.c.)

Rather than keep on going with these examples, I would humbly request that the factory pipe in here and let me know if it was intended that beam systems could be arrayed. I would understand if not but, as noted, I was trying to find a workaround to the problem of creating a two way beam system without having to join geometry on each piece.

Thanks