? Rolled Beams ?

[bgarrett]

I know that Revit can creat rolled beam but I cant remember how it is done. Any help on this task will be greatly appreciated.

[Tom Weir]

Hi,
Do you mean the beam is rotated on its axis?

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[bgarrett]

Some clarification would be a curved beam or a radius.

[Tom Weir]

Hi,
For curved beams you have to use a sweep solid. It's been on the wish-list for awhile to have an easier method...

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[bgarrett]

Hi,
For curved beams you have to use a sweep solid. It's been on the wish-list for awhile to have an easier method...

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

Thanks for the help. Can this be done with a w-beam steel shape?

[Paul Andersen]

Brett, during the process of creating the sweep hit the Load Profiles button on the option bar and path to Imperial Library -> Profiles -> Structural -> Wide-Flange-Profile.rfa. This should have most of the shapes you are looking for. You may also find the information in this thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=23889) useful.

[bgarrett]

Brett, during the process of creating the sweep hit the Load Profiles button on the option bar and path to Imperial Library -> Profiles -> Structural -> Wide-Flange-Profile.rfa. This should have most of the shapes you are looking for. You may also find the information in this thread (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=23889) useful.
Paul,
Thanks for all the help, I am just starting out with Revit Structure and I haven't had much training on it yet. I will probably have many more questions for you guy's. Thanks again.

[rmcelvain.103137]

I'm just in the middle of doing this on a project and I've run into an issue. After creating the In-Place Families I can't see my "Stick Symbols (projection)" lines below my slabs. Did I miss something obvious or do I need to add linework on top of my slab to represent the curved member?

We really need a better way :) - can you really only have one instance of an In-Place Family? I've got 20+ curved beams and only 4 variations. When I copy the beam it creates a new family and when I group 4 or 5 of them to copy to another level it creates the corresponing number of new families.

Brett, you should have access to auonline (http://auonline.mentorware.net/servlet/mware.servlets.StudentServlet?mwaction=generic&subsysid=12082&file=auol_lp) and there is a demo of doing this process. It's under Course SD33-1 (advanced modeling in autodesk revit structure by marie olivares). This specific demo is under Slide 11 of 26.

One thing to remember is that you have to adjust the top of steel elevation (using the Vertical Profile Offset) to get it to line up with the rest of the steel. I'm not sure if there is a better way but the ones I've seen have the elevation at the center of the member?

Thanks in advance,

[Tom Weir]

<We really need a better way - can you really only have one instance of an In-Place Family>
Ya, only one. So you can do a whole roof framing scheme in an hour, then spend another hour on the curved beams alone.

I agree 150%! We should be able to draw curved members just like we do straight line members. Definately been on my wish list for a while...



Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Paul Andersen]

After creating the In-Place Families I can't see my "Stick Symbols (projection)" lines below my slabs. Did I miss something obvious or do I need to add linework on top of my slab to represent the curved member?This is interesting . . . I hadn't noticed this before. I assume your Model Graphics Style is set to Hidden Line. We typically have our framing plans set to wireframe so this hasn't been an issue. It's odd that the factory delivered beams stick symbols display in hidden line but not custom beams using the factory templates. I checked RS version 1 and neither stick symbol displays in hidden line. Must have added new functionality for RS2 but didn't tweak the template.

Two work arounds off the top of my head are to switch to wireframe display or create a workplane at or slightly above your top of slab elevation. Edit the in-place family, select the stick symbol line, edit it's workplane from the option bar to be at your newly defined workplane above the slab. I'll post again if I come up with anything better . . . I realize neither of these solutions are great.

[rmcelvain.103137]

Paul,

Thanks for the reply, the beams weren't made from a template. They were In-Place families (sweeps); this is why they come in based on the center of the profile instead of the top I think.

I think I'm going to go with your 1st suggestion and switch to wireframe display. That takes care of the issue and, while I'd still like the option ..... I'll live with the results.

Thanks again for the pick up!

[James.Lupton]

10 years ago we started using Xsteel which at that stage was at an early release corresponding to the current Revit Structural the curved beam requirement became almost an immediate requirement even though curved steel was less likely to be required on a project.

We now find curved steel to be a normal consideration on many projects and an essential part of any modeling solution.

The use of in-place families is not a suitable long term solution for something which we do so frequently.

I also question the whole family based approach to structural framing members.

For speed in defining and changing a structural element it would be better to have all the variables defined in the family as the equivalent of shared parameters. The chosen profile should be parametric as would materials, end offsets, rotation about the axis, radius of curvature, profile orientation etc.

This functionality is easier to describe by considering an angle or L section. The section should be able to be curved upward or downwards with the angle leg pointing upwards or downwards and the second leg pointing either to the left or the right. It should also be able to be curved to the left or right with the angle leg pointing left or right and the second leg pointing either up or down.

The whole section should be able to be rotated about an axis such that the leg in the plane of the curve could be set at an angle to the global axis. this would allow the radius of curvature to be at an angle to the horizontal.

By allowing the properties of the object to be changed parametrically, the basic geometry can be defined before the final section sizes or material grades are known. Once these are known, the changes to the defined values can be made quickly by selecting a group of elements and updating the parameters.

All this could probably be done by an in place family or a new user defined family however, it would be much better to have this functionality within the structural system families.

[Paul Andersen]

the beams weren't made from a template.
Thanks for the correction . . . I had the same results with the in-place family that you did which got me wondering if a beam created as an outside family from the delivered template has the same issue and it does. Not sure if it's a bug but definitely not very consistent.

[Tom Weir]

Very interesting James. I agree with you, and am moving this thread to the wish list.

<I also question the whole family based approach to structural framing members.>
What I am hazy on is how your geometric parameters are not family based.

<For speed in defining and changing a structural element it would be better to have all the variables defined in the family as the equivalent of shared parameters.>
Would not those be the family "type" parameters as opposedto "instance" parameters?

We really need those curved beams daggnabbit...

Tom

[rmcelvain.103137]

not very consistent.
I agree, now go home! :-P

Thanks again! I owe ya lunch someday....

[Paul Andersen]

After the last couple of weeks let's make it some :beer: ;-)

[James.Lupton]

What I am hazy on is how your geometric parameters are not family based.

Would not those be the family "type" parameters as opposedto "instance" parameters?

We really need those curved beams daggnabbit...

Tom

What I mean is that to change from one section size to another at present we need to swap the current family type to a different family type

Since each of the geometric and material properties of the component may change from member to member, this can create a large number of different family types.

It is time consuming to search for the family type you are trying to change to and therefore it would be much better to be able to make the changes right there in the family properties. Eg a drop down list for the section size, grade and finish with fill in fields for end offsets, forces, no of studs etc.

I referred to shared parameters since that is how we would do it at present and since they can be added to schedules. If these were all changeable within the system component I guess they would be instance parameters as long as they were available in the schedules.

it is so much quicker to select the component, right mouse, properties, change the section with a drop down list and then click OK.

If you want to change the grade of multiple members select those members to be changed and change the properties right there in the family property dialogue box.

Note that if these families had different section sizes this could be greyed out allowing the section sizes to be kept the same whilst the grade is changed for all instances to a new value.

BTW I think we all need to be posting our wishes here since it currently appears that we are all so happy with the current features that we have no more wishes

We wont get the functionality if we don,t ask look at the Revit Building Wishlist.

[Tom Weir]

James,
I see what you mean. It is time consuming loading the different family members. We are probably a little too far down the Revitdevelopment road to make such a fundamental change.

<BTW I think we all need to be posting our wishes here since it currently appears that we are all so happy with the current features that we have no more wishes >

I have struggled now for over two years to make Revit work better and have had numerous and substantial conversations with the Revit developers. I will never be totally happy though. But the Revit developers have made big strides in that time. Do not underestimate the amount of attention they give us.

And yes, compared to my days with Architectural Desktop I am in seventh heaven....

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[James.Lupton]

Tom,

I don't underestimate the input from the developers. If I come across as being a bit impatient its probably because we have been waiting with anticipation for Revit Structural since we first started using Revit 5 years ago at V2.

We were among the first early adopters and I have always seen the potential in the product.

We have come to Revit from the more specialist structural applications like Xsteel because Revit offers better integration across the design team and we can cover all structural aspects. Not just steel.

The comparison to Xsteel however is worth making.

Revit probably gets 80% of a typical multi storey building defined in less time than Xsteel but soon slows down when the geometry departs from a regular layout.

Because of problems such as unwanted snaps, curved beams etc. That last 20% will take you longer than the original 80% and in some cases you may not quite get to 100%.

Xsteel will get there very time and overall would be quicker.

I would however promote Revit over Xsteel in the design team arena due to the overall versatility and high quality presentation on the GA drawings.

The problem with much of the structural content is that fundamentally structural engineers choose components in a different way to Architects.

We use substantially fewer basic types of components but each component comes with a vast range of different options. This is why I believe we need a different means of defining structural components. or at least added functionality in the family components.

If every beam had the option of being curved and rotated in section about its reference plane, we would not need a different family or to change the definition plane of the beam.

The bottom line still remains that Revit is a truly great software solution and for all that I can see plenty room for improvement, there is nothing else that I can see that comes close as an all round solution.

A great product with plenty room for improvement! the developers will be able to work away happily for many years to come.

I guess the trick is trying to encourage the software in the direction which will give the greatest productivity gains first.

[Tom Weir]

Hi James,
Thanks for your intersting discussion.
One thing about the comparison to Xsteel, isn't it 25 to 30 thousand dollars a seat to buy? I am thinking that it is out of our league (at least mine).

<Because of problems such as unwanted snaps, curved beams etc. That last 20% will take you longer than the original 80% and in some cases you may not quite get to 100%.>

This has been my experience as well, and it is very frustrating.

So they need to streamline the access to the families at a minimum so loading would not be so slow and cumersome.

And hopefully the content will get better and better for such things as curved beams, tapered steel girders, and such as we go along.

But you have been using Revit longer than I and sound a bit like things haven't been progressing fast enough in that regard.

Have a great day....

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[James.Lupton]

Tom

I was not advocating the use of Xsteel instead of Revit. The cost of Xsteel does make it difficult to justify if you are not going on to produce manufacturing drawings and NC data.

The comparison I was making was really based on speed and ability to complete.

In order to cost justify and move to 3D modeling, there needs to be a direct productivity gain or other model based advantage.

Since most contractors are not yet geared up to take advantage from the BIM data, Structural engineers probably need to base their decisions on productivity gains.

There is little doubt that Revit will save you time on the 80% part but if that last 20% is not feasible at a reasonable pace then the earlier gains are soon wiped out.

Advantages are available where the data within the model can be passed on to the manufacturer however, again, where in-place families are required to complete the project geometry, the structure which they define is not available to pass on.

It is for these reasons that I think we need a different approach to defining structural framing based on more powerful property definition within the families.

[Tom Weir]

Hi James,
The BIM throughput of information from desing to fabrication is a ways off for sure using less expensive tools like Revit and changing the workflow in th AEC industry. I am still, finding important productivity gains as I have been using Revit though so I do not feel I have to wait for that achievement before I implement modeling in our office.

That darn last 20% though....I keep hoping it is a matter of lack of content and maturity rather than a systematic flaw in the program approach that has to be overcome, and that if we keep adding stuff like curved beams, and tapered girder families, we will be eventually whittle that 20% down. But when I listen to a user like yourself with many more years of Revit experience than I, I get a little worried.

Have you ever spoke with the developers about this? It would be intersting to hear their reply.

Have a great day...

Tom

[James.Lupton]

Hi James,
The BIM throughput of information from desing to fabrication is a ways off for sure using less expensive tools like Revit and changing the workflow in th AEC industry. I am still, finding important productivity gains as I have been using Revit though so I do not feel I have to wait for that achievement before I implement modeling in our office.

That darn last 20% though....I keep hoping it is a matter of lack of content and maturity rather than a systematic flaw in the program approach that has to be overcome, and that if we keep adding stuff like curved beams, and tapered girder families, we will be eventually whittle that 20% down. But when I listen to a user like yourself with many more years of Revit experience than I, I get a little worried.

Have you ever spoke with the developers about this? It would be intersting to hear their reply.

Have a great day...

Tom


Tom,

I may be conveying the wrong impression to you.

In a comparison to a traditional 2D approach in AutoCAD, Revit delivers definite productivity gains.

At times during the roll out of Revit, the gains may not be consistent as different projects highlight the need for different solutions.

Once you get through these early stages though, the gains are more consistent so I don't want to knock your confidence. Revit is a very good product.

What I was trying to highlight was that by changing the way in which some of the system components work, This very good product could be made even better.

I think it was at around version 4 of Revit Building that the stairs component went through a major enhancement which improved the speed of use and extended the range of stairs which could be defined.

For some structural components, enhancements to the component definition could enable faster definition of more complex structures.

This would go a long way to reducing the impact of that last 20%.

We have seen a number of our requests for enhancements becoming available over the years and therefore I believe the developers are listening to our requests.

Functionality will however, improve at a faster pace if there is a body of opinion behind the need for any particular enhancement. I feel that this wish list can perhaps promote these
improvements by emphasizing that there are a number of users supporting the suggested changes.

You and I both hold the opinion that there is a split of around 80/20 in terms of what can be defined quickly. If others are of the same opinion and convey this to Autodesk I am sure we will see a solution to the 20% come along very soon thereafter.

For the time being lets hope its all sorted in 9.0

[Tom Weir]

James
I think I am sounding a little bit more defensive than I really feel. Let's keep identifying these problems. I have given the developers tons of feedback in the last two years and already seen many of the items I asked for delivered in RS2.
And I think RS3 will have substanial improvements from the scuttlebutt I have heard.

Have a great day...

Tom

[James.Lupton]

Tom

We don't get to hear much over here in the UK but I am sure there will be some good stuff in RS3

Any Beta testing rumors at your end?

[Tom Weir]

James,
I hear that we are close...

Tom

[Thomas Maleski]

This wishlist item has been granted. When placing beams, one can choose the arc option from the option toolbar.