Reference Plane for T/Steel

[julie_panichi]

Hello, I was told by our Revit trainer (Dan) to avoid creating T/Steel levels when linking RS and RB. The consensus was that it got too confusing when going back and forth. Has anyone tried using reference planes to create t/steel levels or is there an easier way to do it that I am missing.

Thanks

[Tom Weir]

Hi Julie,
I have never made top of steel levels. If the architect is using Revit you can link in their model. You can them copy and monitor the levels created by the architect. I guess that is one good reason to use the finish floor for the level.
Of course it means every member has to be offset which takes time....

Tom Weir
Los Angeles

[Scott Hammond]

When you copy/Monitor the Architects levels, you can copy with an offset (so copy their level with an offset equal to your deck or slab). That way you are still using the copy/monitor finctionality, but are creating TOS levels.

[julie_panichi]

Thanks Steve, I will try using the offset. Do you typically rename the level when you bring it in to your model or do you leave it as whatever level name the architects have defined?

[Tom Weir]

Hi,
In my many years of architectural-engineering drafting and design I have never seen construction documents prepared using TOS levels instead of finish floor levels. Am I missing something here?

Tom

[Paul Andersen]

I wouldn't say you're missing anything, just different approaches. We use Top of Steel and/or Top of Structural Slab for all of our models and construction documents. I don't recall ever calling out or showing the architectural finished floor elevation on a structural document (plan, detail, or elevation).

[Tom Weir]

Paul,
So many different ways to do things I can see how it drives the Revit developers mad trying to keep everybody satisfied...
Maybe we should have a poll on this one. How the heck do you do that anyway?

Tom

[Paul Andersen]

So many different ways to do things I can see how it drives the Revit developers mad trying to keep everybody satisfied...
I agree. This has to be one of, if not, the toughest industry to design software for since everyone's approach to the same issues can be so radically different.


Maybe we should have a poll on this one.
This would be interesting. I wonder if it's regional or firm to firm or maybe we're just the odd duck.


How the heck do you do that anyway?
It works quite well for modeling the structure in Revit. A lot less offsetting is required for framing.

[Tom Weir]

I hate having to constantly be setting the TOS with my approach. I keep hoping they would have the geometry offset parameter on the options bar so it could be set as the member is being added. That would be so much easier.
Maybe I should change my approach to yours?

[Scott Hammond]

Tom, I too documented TOS and not FF on my documents.
You guys are absolutely right. There are so many different ways SE document/model the same thing, it does make it quite interesting on this end.
Different approaches, same result!

[Paul Andersen]

I voted Top of Structural Slab because we generally use that for all applications except where Top of Steel is applicable.