Building Pad Can't Extend Beyond Toposurface

[jstaylor]

I have a topographic surface within my model that extends well beyond the limits of the existing buildings on the site. The surface data is from an existing site survey so the points stop at the walls of the existing buildings. Therefore, the surface that is rendered within the spaces occupied by the existing buildings is an undulating mess of extrapolated contours between the exterior walls.

I have modeled the existing building walls, placed model lines that follow the outside face of these walls and can easily place the desired boundary for the building pad tool. Unfortunately the tool reports the error, "Building Pad Can't Extend Beyond the Edge of Toposurface". I would have interpreted this to mean on the X/Y axis but the area is well within the extents of the surface on this plane. This leaves me to believe that it is referring to the edges in the Z-Axis. But even if I set the base level of the pad well below any of the contours I receive the same error.

I have experimented with creating subregions which form just fine using my outline but are useless for actually setting the grade to a uniform level.

I have experimented with creating split surfaces which also form just fine using my outline but placing the number of points required to create a flat bottom with vertical sides is near impossible and really defeats the whole purpose of having the building pad tool. This is further complicated by the fact that one of the intended pads is effectively two pads that share the same long edge down the center but are at two separate elevations (sheer not sloped).

What is the building pad tool complaining about? What good is it if the outline of the pad cannot be outside the Z-axis of the surface in either direction? It seems the pad tool is only useful for creating cuts in otherwise perfectly planar surfaces.

Am I missing something, here?

TIA

Using Revit Architecture 2012.

[Steve_Stafford]

How did the surface get larger than the smaller contours between buildings? By dragging points? Adding more? The boundary the error is referring to is the planar X/Y boundary of the toposurface, not the "Z". The issue is probably that the boundary points aren't all outside the pad. If you create a toposurface and drag some of the points I've seen the situation you describe.

How about a picture of the topo and pads, might help.

[jstaylor]

The points originated from a 3D DWG. I have neither added nor removed any points except in my experiments with the split surfaces which have since been discarded.

Also, when I said, "between the exterior walls" I mean the interior space of a single building between its walls not the space between the exterior walls of different buildings.

Attached are the following views:

The toposurface with the outline of the intended pads as model lines. In this particular instance I intend for the West half to be padded to a level 5' lower than the East half with a sheer drop at the center line.

The same toposurface in "edit surface" mode so that the constituent points are shown (thereby illustrating why the surface is contoured without having any points within its area). The blank areas North and West of the outlined area are additional existing buildings I would like to pad as well.

The same surface with the modeled walls of the existing buildings inside of which I'd like to place pads. The additional shoring walls shown inside the Southeast building with the model lines can be ignored for this purpose.

And finally, the same surface with the outline of the intended East pad drawn and the error message displayed.

Hope this clarifies what I am trying to convey.

Thanks for your interest.

[jstaylor]

I did some experimenting placing pads on this same toposurface. I tried placing simple rectangles using the rectangle tool. I got a variety of results but ultimately found that there are simply portions of the toposurface that are unavailable for placing a pad.

I have attached a picture of what appears to be the extents of paddable surface. Any attempt to expand the pad beyond these limits results in the error. I found these limits by placing a small pad and then using "edit boundary" to push the boundary further and further in each direction until I experienced the error.

Using this information I was able to successfully place the West half of the pad I need for the Southeast parking deck building. According the current limits I will not be able to place any of the other pads or the other half of this building's pads.

Why is Revit interpreting these limits as the edges of my toposurface?

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Can you upload the dwg file of the site?

[jstaylor]

Attached

and Thanks!

[jstaylor]

I popped the same site file into a new Revit project and it lets me place a pad anywhere I please.

Edit: I use Cont_MJR and Cont_MNR for the applicable layers in the topo tool.

[jstaylor]

I drew a new toposurface using the same DWG into the problem model, deleted the old toposurface and have the exact same problem.

[Steve_Stafford]

Are phases in use? You could have another phase and too assigned to that, pads sometimes get confused about phasing

[jstaylor]

Phases are in use. I have been experimenting with changing the phase of the pad to various phases and the error occurs regardless. Besides, if it were a phasing issue I would expect to not be able to place a pad anywhere on the surface.

That certain portions of the surface are off limits is the issue. That these areas are not off limits in a new project indicates something about this project file and not the surface itself. I have tried splitting the surface and placing the pad on the new area and the limits are in the exact same places.

Something, somewhere is defining these limits. I have exported the surface to Navisworks and it comes out in whole which tells me the limits are not logically confined while being graphically displayed in Revit.

I am truly stumped.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

No answer yet. Just wondering if you've done an audit of the host model. As you suggested, no problem in a new file so it must be something with the set up in the existing host. Phasing also came to my mind but if you have checked that too...
I can't reproduce the problem on my end.

[Steve_Stafford]

Your images show a gray surface color which is the typical color of an existing toposurface. I've seen issues with pads where there are surfaces in both existing and new construction. The pad seemed intent on working with the existing one and not the new one. When the Phase Filter of the view removed one or the the other the pad responded correctly.

As Dimitri said, since it doesn't happen in new project files. There is some setting or corruption occurring in your current project file. Try opening the file using the Audit option to see if Revit "fixes" it...

[jstaylor]

I continued messing with the phases to no avail.

I ran the audit to no avail (although that was an entirely new concept to me).

If I unload the linked Architectural and Structural models then the toposurface behaves appropriately (i.e. allows a pad anywhere on the surface). I placed a random pad in the spot I knew was previously disallowed and then reloaded the linked models. I then attempted to place another pad and got some whole new errors which I think might be pointing more towards the problem.

"No element in a secondary Option can be referenced by an element outside that Option."

"A pad in the main model cannot be hosted by topography in a Design Option."

There is new topography in the design options of the Architectural (and maybe even Structural) model. So, apparently, Steve's hunch about new topography was right but it wasn't in the phasing it is in the options.

A few minutes later...

After looking looking through the linked model options I discovered a duplicate version of the "new grading" option in the host model. I deleted this option and my toposurface behaves correctly now. I'm not entirely sure if I have broken anything by removing this option (the only linked view was one I had created for randomly sectioning the model as needed for visual identification purposes. I have a saved a backup in case this deletion did remove something desirable.

The duplicate design option is a vestige from where I originally began modeling into what is now the linked Architectural model. At some early point I deleted all the Architectural (or so I thought) elements and simply linked the Architectural model which gets regularly updated. Yes, I know, terrible practice but it was the best method to retain the work performed up to that point.

Thanks for the help, I'm not sure I would have found the rogue option without using the forum as a sounding board and getting some fresh ideas. I'm open to any further suggestions regarding what I may have broken removing this option or how this option was affecting the toposurface. Specifically, if the offending option was in the host model why did removing the linked models correct the issue? Once I had the models relinked deleting the option from the host model was the solution. I believe I could have gotten my pad placed by either A) Unloading the linked models, placing the pads and the reloading the linked models or B) Delete the "new grading" design option from the host model.

[jstaylor]

It's a beautiful thing.

[Steve_Stafford]

Glad you figured it out! If I had realized your model file started out as a copy of the architectural model I might have guessed design options. I'll have to make a mental note about that one!