Walls in linked model don't show

[dbaldacchino]

Hi all,

We linked a Revit Building 8.1 model into Revit Structure 2 and the walls did not show up. We checked the visibility categories of the linked model and they were all turned on :banghead:

After some tinkering, we tried to link the model within Revit Building and walls showed up fine. We re-opened the model in Revit building, selected a wall and changed it to Structural Combined. All walls are set as Architectural by default when we draw them in RB. We saved the file, relinked it in Revit Structure and the wall we changed showed up.

I think this is kinda strange. The model from the Architect will have architectural walls by default. The fact that architectural walls don't show up in a linked model in RS seems to be by design, although it's not helpful at all. On the contrary though, a linked model in RB with structural walls shows all the walls. I don't follow the logic. The Engineer needs to see the architectural walls and it seems stupid to me to designate all arch. walls as structural in order for the engineer to see them in the linked model.

Are we missing something here? Is there a way to change some setting to show arch. walls in a linked model in RS without having to change the walls in the RB model to Structural?

Thanks to all for your feedback.

[dbaldacchino]

Duh! Ok I just figured it out....the view has to be set to Architectural or Coordination. The weird thing though is that if in the RB model we set some walls as Structural and then in the RS view we set the discipline to Architectural, the structural walls still show up. The help file states the following:

Discipline: Options are Architectural, Structural, or Coordination. Coordination combines both Architectural and Structural. Select Structural to hide (non-load-bearing) walls from the view.

This excerpt appears in both RB and RS help. It doesn't say what should or shouldn't display when a view is set to Architectural. It seems like it behaves the same as Coordination.

Is there anyone out there that has in-house structural? A while ago during a webcast I asked Autodesk whether it's better to work off the same model file or use linking, and the answer was linking, especially for good sized projects. Anyone have experiences to share about pros/cons/best practices? Is it ok to leave views in RS as Coordination? Thanks again!

[Tom Weir]

Hi,
Yes, I have also experienced the same thing and use the coordination view which seems fine. As for linking the structural vs. a workset approach I think if you are working in-house the workset approach would be very appropriate.
We are consultants so have used the the linking method since the architect is in another city. While there are specific tools to aid coordination in linking, namely the copy/monitor feature, linking files also has display issue limitations. Hidden foundations linked in show up continuous and cannot be chagned. Things like that.
On the other hand linking gives you greater control over your work. I guess there are trade offs.

good luck. keep us posted.

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[dbaldacchino]

Well, for our first trial, we have decided to try linking. We will link each other's model so that in the Architectural model and sheets, the linked structural model shows up in Arch. and vice versa and the grid and columns etc cannot be moved by Arch. We're going to use the Copy/Monitor on slabs (Arch. would like control over location of those items and structural wants to use them for analysis so we decided to make a copy and monitor for changes done to the Arch. model). Same will apply to Load-bearing walls.

We'll see how this process flows. In the Arch. views, we only have to dimension the linked grid once and any changes done in the RS model will update these dimensions.We need to do some testing regarding slabs. In early DD, we're keeping slabs flat, but later, we'll start being more accurate and sloping everything for storm drainage. We're hoping to try constrain the framing to floors and roofs so once their correct configuration is modeled, the framing coordinates automatically. This is typically a quite manually-intensive task with traditional CAD, and prone to errors.

We'll see what level of success we have as we get more proficient and I'll keep you posted!

[Phil Read]

Even in-house I'd recommend linking between disciplines. This avoids the architect inadvertently moving a structural element (a result of transparent element borrowing). Not everything should be always be automatic. ;)

In many cases the architects first design pass might include structural elements. This is fine. If the structural elements are kept on their own workset the file could be saved as the beginnings of the structural file. Then the architect would then delete the structural Workset from their file. The structural engineer would open the file in Revit Structure and delete everything except structural Worksets and Shared Levels and Grids.

Then both files are linked to each other. Everything should match up.

My .02,

-Phil

[dbaldacchino]

It's more than 2c Phil :) You know what you're talking about, I've seen it at AU!

That's what we typically do in ADT. We start plans and rough in a framing scheme with grids etc. because it's hard for the engineers to understand what's going on in the building in terms of massing. This has already changed for us in Revit because now the engineer sees the 3D model; walls and slabs are placed so they can go ahead and lay the grid, columns and framing right away. That's what we'll be doing in this first project because we're a bit behind (architecturally) since we have to learn and plan for the documentation phase (and company standards, templates, families, etc.) as our knowledge builds. But your tips are well taken and we will surely use them in future projects.

Thanks a lot!