opesch
2012-06-14, 05:22 PM
Hello,
I need your help because I'm really stuck with that!
So if, perchance, the architect who design that or someone else has some advice for me, I promise to drown him with Belgian beer :beer: (or maybe conclude a consultancy contract)! :mrgreen:
If you need some detailed illustrations these are in the attached PDF. Figure 3 showing the completed Roof done with 1st method is also joined as PNG
Project Requirements:
We need to reproduce the waved roof as per the architect’s design (using their own unknown program) within our own BIM model (preferably in REVIT 2012).
Roof Shape Details:
The roof consists of concrete slabs waving South to North and spanning East to West between two radial axes (B & C on the following figures) and four top and bottom sloped surfaces (yellow & cyan triangles on figures 1 & 2 respectively). These rise from South to North and are folded at one of their diagonals.
Slabs form "V-shaped" concrete sheds as shown in figure 3. The bottom level of the slab wave corners are dictated by the intersection of those surfaces and their respective main folds with radial and parallel axes shown on figure 2.
The top of wave folds are reinforced by a 250 or 500mm thick trapezoidal beam (TS on fig.3) and are truncated by a plane at 300mm offset below the upper sloped surface (in yellow on fig.1).
Previously Adopted Methods and Problems Encountered:
1. Creation of standard Revit floors and modification of their Sub Elements to acquire accurate slab border levels : (see figure 4)
Successes :
Slab bottom corner levels and faces are as per the client’s design.
· 2D & 3D aesthetic appearance is good
· Ability to measure, except where there are voids cutting the geometry. (i.e. TS)
Theoretical Problems :
· The slab thickness (Floor type driven parameter) is taken vertically and not perpendicular to the concrete surface.
Unmanageable Consequences :
· The actual concrete slab thickness is thinner than specified due to the above.
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
· The slope for each single slab must be measured in order to compute the slab thickness deviation. From this, one floor type and thickness per slab must be created (as slopes for each face vary) and its offset parameter from the reference surface (see figure 1 & 2) should be adapted accordingly.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· Slab borders join vertically hence slabs will not chamfer as they would in reality. This situation is amplified at joins between slabs with different thicknesses as shown on figure 5.
2. Creation of standard Revit floors and setting their unique mean slope, slope arrow direction & starting offset level : (see fig.6)
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design.
· The concrete slabs can be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab corner bottom levels differ from the specified levels (circa. 20mm) perhaps due to the slope direction approximation. (see fig.7)
Unmanageable Consequences :
· The concrete slabs join inaccurately themselves.
· Slabs corner levels and faces are incorrect.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· All slabs must be created as per the previous method to enable measurement of the mean slope and the upper corner level of every single slab face. Further to this, the slope arrow and its tail offset must be set within a new floor entity placed at the same location.
· Slab borders join vertically hence slabs will not chamfer as they would in reality. This situation is amplified at joins between slabs with different thicknesses. (see fig.8 )
3. Creation of standard Revit Multi-layered floors (variable air layer + constant concrete layer) and modification of their Sub Element elevations to acquire accurate slab border levels :
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design. (see fig.9)
· Volumes Schedules shows correct values but only in materials schedules and not for whole entity. (fig.10)
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab cannot be separated from the whole floor entity.
Unmanageable Consequences :
· Concrete slabs cannot be shown in 3D views. (see fig.11)
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· Walls cannot be attached to the slab bottom face unless both these entities are structurally well layered.
· The floor offset from the reference level parameter must remain below the lowest corner level and will be the Air Layer bottom face. (fig.11)
· Air infill material must be ignored when scheduling quantities. (fig.10)
4. Creation of Adaptative Revit Family Component (based on adaptative generic model template) and picking its slab border levels : (see fig.12)
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design.
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab is incorrectly generated, non-cuttable & non-schedulable
Unmanageable Consequences :
· Concrete slabs randomly extrude in the wrong direction for certain faces and for an unknown reason, whatever the point number order.
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into pouring parts volumes.
· The void created between two extrusions at slab folds cannot be filled.
· Concrete slabs cannot be cut by voids residing outside the adaptative family even if they shares the same category.
I need your help because I'm really stuck with that!
So if, perchance, the architect who design that or someone else has some advice for me, I promise to drown him with Belgian beer :beer: (or maybe conclude a consultancy contract)! :mrgreen:
If you need some detailed illustrations these are in the attached PDF. Figure 3 showing the completed Roof done with 1st method is also joined as PNG
Project Requirements:
We need to reproduce the waved roof as per the architect’s design (using their own unknown program) within our own BIM model (preferably in REVIT 2012).
Roof Shape Details:
The roof consists of concrete slabs waving South to North and spanning East to West between two radial axes (B & C on the following figures) and four top and bottom sloped surfaces (yellow & cyan triangles on figures 1 & 2 respectively). These rise from South to North and are folded at one of their diagonals.
Slabs form "V-shaped" concrete sheds as shown in figure 3. The bottom level of the slab wave corners are dictated by the intersection of those surfaces and their respective main folds with radial and parallel axes shown on figure 2.
The top of wave folds are reinforced by a 250 or 500mm thick trapezoidal beam (TS on fig.3) and are truncated by a plane at 300mm offset below the upper sloped surface (in yellow on fig.1).
Previously Adopted Methods and Problems Encountered:
1. Creation of standard Revit floors and modification of their Sub Elements to acquire accurate slab border levels : (see figure 4)
Successes :
Slab bottom corner levels and faces are as per the client’s design.
· 2D & 3D aesthetic appearance is good
· Ability to measure, except where there are voids cutting the geometry. (i.e. TS)
Theoretical Problems :
· The slab thickness (Floor type driven parameter) is taken vertically and not perpendicular to the concrete surface.
Unmanageable Consequences :
· The actual concrete slab thickness is thinner than specified due to the above.
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
· The slope for each single slab must be measured in order to compute the slab thickness deviation. From this, one floor type and thickness per slab must be created (as slopes for each face vary) and its offset parameter from the reference surface (see figure 1 & 2) should be adapted accordingly.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· Slab borders join vertically hence slabs will not chamfer as they would in reality. This situation is amplified at joins between slabs with different thicknesses as shown on figure 5.
2. Creation of standard Revit floors and setting their unique mean slope, slope arrow direction & starting offset level : (see fig.6)
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design.
· The concrete slabs can be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab corner bottom levels differ from the specified levels (circa. 20mm) perhaps due to the slope direction approximation. (see fig.7)
Unmanageable Consequences :
· The concrete slabs join inaccurately themselves.
· Slabs corner levels and faces are incorrect.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· All slabs must be created as per the previous method to enable measurement of the mean slope and the upper corner level of every single slab face. Further to this, the slope arrow and its tail offset must be set within a new floor entity placed at the same location.
· Slab borders join vertically hence slabs will not chamfer as they would in reality. This situation is amplified at joins between slabs with different thicknesses. (see fig.8 )
3. Creation of standard Revit Multi-layered floors (variable air layer + constant concrete layer) and modification of their Sub Element elevations to acquire accurate slab border levels :
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design. (see fig.9)
· Volumes Schedules shows correct values but only in materials schedules and not for whole entity. (fig.10)
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab cannot be separated from the whole floor entity.
Unmanageable Consequences :
· Concrete slabs cannot be shown in 3D views. (see fig.11)
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into individual pouring parts volumes.
Manageable Consequences (by post treatment) :
· Walls cannot be attached to the slab bottom face unless both these entities are structurally well layered.
· The floor offset from the reference level parameter must remain below the lowest corner level and will be the Air Layer bottom face. (fig.11)
· Air infill material must be ignored when scheduling quantities. (fig.10)
4. Creation of Adaptative Revit Family Component (based on adaptative generic model template) and picking its slab border levels : (see fig.12)
Successes :
· Slab thickness (Floor type driven) is taken perpendicular to the concrete surface and is thus in accordance with the client’s design.
Theoretical Problems :
· The resulting slab is incorrectly generated, non-cuttable & non-schedulable
Unmanageable Consequences :
· Concrete slabs randomly extrude in the wrong direction for certain faces and for an unknown reason, whatever the point number order.
· Concrete slabs cannot be divided into pouring parts volumes.
· The void created between two extrusions at slab folds cannot be filled.
· Concrete slabs cannot be cut by voids residing outside the adaptative family even if they shares the same category.