Other issues with foundations and piers

[david_peterson]

I'll be the first one to say I don't have much of a clue on where to start with foundations in RS. Just when I thought I was getting the hang of it I realized something else. By using the Conc col as a pier idea (which works great) I noticed that it still creates a little analytical stick; which in turn will be exported. (That my first issue) Has anyone figured out how to export just selected items? Which leads to my second question. From what I know (which is very little) about Ram, negative elevations are a big NO NO. So should I be putting a 1'-0" tall (technically more like 9 1/2" after you take out for the base plate and NS grout) col below my first level plain, or just skip it and pretend it's not there. In the future I'm hopping the col schedule gets tweaked so that I can use it on a sheet and have it be similar to the one we use now. But if we used the graphical column schedule, the little stub cols show up, you also see the conc piers as cols, and you'd see a splice at each floor line due to the analytical programs not being able to do Multi Story cols, only floor to floor.
If anyone can give some insight on best practices here, that would be great.
Thanks in advance.

[Paul Andersen]

David just one quick comment. If you don't want an analytical stick representation for your piers try using a column from the architectural tab instead. No analytical line and they clean up better with the foundation wall too. Something to try anyway. I've typically used them as concrete encasements for structural steel columns and have not yet tried them for piers. Let me know what you think. You're still going to have to slap a void on top for the pocket in the wall. If you go this route most views have the visibility for the architectural columns turned off by default if they aren't showing up for you.

[david_peterson]

Thanks For the suggestions Paul. I'll try those. I'm still pulling my hair out just trying to get my void mass to connect to the wall. Not working for me right now. In ADT when it came to foundations I had the "joy" of makeing one massive mass element for the entire foundation. It was the only way to get my lines to clean up correctly. I don't want to go that route again. Why can't they make Cast In Place tools that allow you to "notch" the corners instead of having to jump through all the hoops. Anyway enough for my rant of th day. Thanks again Paul. :beer:

[rmcelvain.103137]

I'll be the first one to say I don't have much of a clue ..... From what I know (which is very little) about Ram, negative elevations are a big NO NO...... the analytical programs not being able to do Multi Story cols, only floor to floor.
If anyone can give some insight on best practices here, that would be great.....
Thanks in advance.
Well David, if you're the first I'll be the second! As for the RAM issue you are correct, we're currently setting our base elevation at 100' so we don't have any negatives. Also, regarding the multi story column you are correct again and it would be great to get some insight but I think we've got a little time to sit before that comes.

Regarding RAM, another BIG BIG problem is that this current beta (RAM-REVIT) is not truly 2-way. Once you export to RAM you have to add your loads, bring it back into REVIT make some changes and if you export out to RAM again you have to start with a whole new model (due to the changes) and you have to .... yes, add all of your loads yet again. RAM has recommended that if the changes are minor enough in REVIT that you should make them manually in the RAM model as well as the REVIT model. It's 2 models but it is a start and will only improve from here!

[david_peterson]

I think (not sure, haven't played much with the other links) that the other links are the same way in that you have to start with a new analytical model each time you export. Now the other links may be taking the loads into their model, but the load has to exist in RS before it can be imported back. We had a gentlemen from autodesk at the last local Revit User group that told us this was a problem with the API and that Adesk needs to to some re-programing to make it work. To quote the guy "If it doesn't exist in Revit to start with, Revit's not going to recognize it because there's not "part id" number for it.

[rmcelvain.103137]

I really think Revit is going to need to open the API up a little further eventually. If an engineer is working in their analysis software and needs to make a quick change to a location they're not going to want to go to revit, update the model and then re-export it and continue in the analysis software. I think I'm going to start a new thread to see if any engineers are actually using the links and what their thoughts are, I'm really curious about this part of it.....

[david_peterson]

From everyone here that I've asked about it, they've all said they are "testing" the links. One other point to put on it, is that Adesk knows and I've heard from a little bird, that they are going to crank open the API a lot more, but due to legacy they are reluctant to do so.