Revit Walls

[JayCon]

Hey everyone,

Hope you've all are having(or had) a good holiday season thus far, but I have a question that may be best discovered via message board polling. Basically, I've been out of school now for a year and while I've found myself employed for over half a year(:mrgreen:), I have noticed quite a few differences from my scholastic practicing and the office's applications of certain Revit features. One thing I found most intriguing was the Firm's use of a wall that scales the entire outside shell(something stretching from the ground all the way to the 4th floor for instance) where as school had us apply the walls per level(first floor wall was based on the first floor and only extended up to the second floor level, then the second floor wall was based on the second floor and stretched up to the third floor level, and so on).

I'm sure I'll do exactly what my firm asks of me, but I can't help but think of a discussion I had with one of my technology proficient teachers and them having solid reasoning for applying the walls the way we were taught. Since we are still discovering the optimal uses of Revit, I wouldn't mind finding out how you apply this tactic and why, or what your experiences have shown. I'll admit, the "real world" has been teaching me new aspects of architecture, however, when it's come to revit, my school did a fine job of preparing me for it's use.

PS: I'll try our poll option too, but I'd love to see feedback as well:
First Option: One Exterior Wall stretching the height of the building
2nd Option: One Exterior Wall per level
Third Option: Other?

[cliff collins]

It depends on a lot of things. If the model is to be used downstream by the GC/CM for 4D scheduling and 5D cost estimating, clash detection, etc--then walls from Level to Level may be REQUIRED,
as the GC will need to break out the walls as they will be built in the field, and for a Level by Level QTO (quantity takeoff).

In Revit, it is MUCH simpler to extend the walls from Level 1 to Roof, since it minimizes the amount of walls that the software (and users) has to keep track of, and manage. But, as you will find out--
in the real world, the best way in Revit is not always the best way for the entire project outcome.

So--I will not "vote" here, since there is no "preferred" choice, as the decision on how to model is a group decision, and should be discussed in detail with the entire BIM team before the project begins. This should be part of a BIM Execution Plan, which is agreed to by all stakeholders early in the project planning stages.

[antman]

As Cliff said, there are cases for modeling them differently, and neither option is inherently right or wrong. I would like to weigh in, however, and mention that I've been burned by using stacked walls. Namely, if you ever change your mind and change a stacked wall to a basic wall, and dimensions attached to it go away. I'm not aware of any other issues that might exist with stacked walls, but that one was a dealbreaker for me.

An equally relevant poll is whether you should include wall sweeps/reveals as part of the type, or applied as a separate element. You just have to look at each condition and decide what's best. Oh, and then change your mind later. And then let someone convince you the original way was best all along. .-D

[cdatechguy]

I know for structural walls they have to be level to level for their calc programs...but I like to use a wall as much as possible so that there is no offsets level to level and don't have to be concerned about joining walls and aligning fill patterns on each individual wall.

[JayCon]

Thanks for the feedback Cliff, Anthony, and Michael. I feel much more informed about that and can hopefuly apply that later if necessary. When the initial topic started in the office, the response back just seemed quick and too casual, so I figured I'd throw out a feeler to the forum.

Good luck in 2013!

[MikeJarosz]

the GC will need to break out the walls as they will be built in the field

I voted "other strategy" and this is it: as it will be built. A Revit user group meeting I once attended had a Revit expert from Tishman show what he does to the model after the architect hands it over. The first thing he does is break up items like columns and curtain walls that were modeled as full height into constructible sections. This struck me as common sense and I have used his approach ever since.

[irneb]

Same: also "Other". Usually we'd go with full height up to presentation stage, just beacause it's a lot quicker to draw / edit (and up to this stage revisions are near daily). After that we start splitting the walls/columns per level. Finally with construction documentation we'd have a fully coordinated model including the columns tied to beams carrying floors with walls filling in the gaps / claded over on the outside. Depends on the construction really.

[JayCon]

intriguing... I know on all my school projects I did it level by level and just alligned them by pasting per level, however, on taller buildings I did experience some conflicts. I do like the strategy of starting it as one concise, stacked wall and then splitting it later.

[irneb]

Yeah, the usual issue is that for some reason staring off with level by level walls (especially façade walls) you get a slight misalignment every now and again (usually some snap point which takes the wall off perp). Then you get elevations with lines which shouldn't be there, and trying to align them then usually simply pushes the problem to the next wall - making for a catch 22. And especially since presentation stage is done at break-neck speed and done on risk, you don't have time to fight with these niggly bits. Rather just take the time afterwards when the client's actually decided to go ahead with the project. At least then you know you'll get paid and possibly have a little gap in the "deadline" while the client's sorting out the budget.