Structure become unreliable

[jamesd10181097]

I went through and laid out the entire structural system just as it should be. I have gone on to do some other work, then when I look back at the structural members several of them are skewed or don't meet at grid line intersections.

After spending hours getting that structural system just as I needed and now to see that it is off is very frustrating. I have a project to get done, I should not have to worry if work that I had previously done is going to change with out my knowledge.

Does anyone have any advise on this. Please.

[aaronrumple]

Yep. Happens. It better work slick as snot in rel. 8 or lawsuits will ensue.

[jamesd10181097]

Is there any way to fix the items that have been thrown off? Or do I have to delete then and redo it?

[nmangon]

could you please send the model to nicolas.mangon@autodesk.com and give some indications of the problems?
Thanks

[lev.lipkin]

In handling structural beams (and braces) Revit automates attachment relations between those elements and their supports.

Current implementation when support is changed attaches end of the beam to the center of the support (except for concrete beam families).

For concrete beams, implementation checks that support geometrically overlaps with the end of the beam, and leaves it alone in such case.

We are looking to extend such logic to other types of structural families (steel, etc.) and keep direction of beam curve when possible to continue support.

We will analyze provided examples when such logic causes problems for our users, so please forward those (with explanation of desired behavior if needed) to email in previous post.

[aaronrumple]

You forgot wood framing.... It is automation should be very different from steel or concrete.

[J. Grouchy]

I often get structural steel columns falling off the grid and when I go to align them sometimes I have to do it two or three times in each direction to get it to align to the grid. Since I don't typically put any other modelled structural element in the drawing, I don't know what might be throwing them off. I usually end up putting in detail components instead unless I need them to show up in elevations or sections.

[Rhythmick]

You forgot wood framing.... It is automation should be very different from steel or concrete.Thanks for speaking out Aaron,
I am sure hoping that structural wood framing tools are on the very near horizon. It's quite frustrating doing work arounds like adding end extension instance parameters and having to set that perameter to each end of each member to get members to meet up and have proper bearing. Along with redoing members that shift on there own to be centered if it lays close to a column or whatever reason it decides it needs to constrain itself.

[Adam Mac]

I've experienced the same thing with steel framing. I get it all looking right in the 3D view, change the height (or some other property) of a column and then find i have to go back and re-align/attach any steel beams that were connected to the particular column.
I'm sure the team at Autodesk are well aware at this stage of the wishes of the majority of users with regards to these families and their behaviour. I look forward to seeing the results of their efforts in the near (?) future.

[Martin P]

There was a post some time ago about this that showed how to remove the relationship where beams have to snap to the centre of columns - only problem was you have to edit all of the families yourself. This has been a major problem for a long time, Revit cannot decide to move structural elements it cannot know better than the user where something ought to be. This has me pulling my hair out with frustration that this still happens. This is a far too simplistic rule to control how structural elements work. The constriants cause problems rather than solving them, which is daft. just get rid of this relationship between column centres and beams altogether, there are plenty of ways to lock this manually if you wish.

[mmodernc]

ditto - does not impress clients or engineers either if you don't pick it up first.

[Martin P]

We will analyze provided examples when such logic causes problems for our users, so please forward those (with explanation of desired behavior if needed) to email in previous post.


I am sorry to be blunt but I can see no logic in Revit taking over control and deciding to move a structural element from where it is placed. The desired behavoir is and always has been simply for things (ie the ends of beams) to stay where the user decides they are supposed to be. - Is Revit still forcing beams to column centres in the Revit structural package? In my opinion that is going to cause problems if it is the case, as this is not the only way beams connect to columns....