Footings/Walls

[cgrover]

I'm working on a footing and foundation plan and I have a couple of large pad footings of different sizes and I tried to create them with different "walls", but when I do this they want to "join" even though they are about a foot apart. Does anyone have any suggestions on having walls not join or should I create an in place family and do the pads that way?

Thanks,
grover

[luigi]

You can actually use a footing component (which is recognized as a footing by Revit) Just load the footing component from the Standard Structural-Foundation folder and load the rectangular footing (you can then size it accordingly to your need) Then you will add it in the plan of your basement/foundation plan and the height of the footing will grow from the level of insertion to the ground. Then you can treat it like any other component and join if you will, or edit profile, etc.
Hope this helps

P.S. You can then use the foundation tag and schedule them, etc.

[aaronrumple]

I like to use floor for my pad footing if the footings might be odd shaped.
I've also used "structural columns" - - just a very fat short column really. This worked well with the grids. This works best if the pads don't vary too much and are not odd shapes so you don't need too many types. In this case I've added in base plates, grout, anchor bolts and sometines even the steel column.

[cgrover]

Thanks, that is what I was looking for. Also using the join geometory tool it cleans up where a strip footing meets a pad.

grover

[Wes Macaulay]

With regards to the question of should footings be floors or walls, consider this...

If the footings have only one or very few different depths, then use floor objects, since floors can have any width but you need a separate assembly for each depth. If you used walls in this situation you'd need a wall type for each width of footing!
If the footings are always the same width but vary more often in depth, then use wall objects.
Frankly, I like using floor objects more for footings. They're more inert than walls, and you don't get as much wall join weirdness.

[christo4robin]

I'll second the vote for floors. I often run a stem wall at a consistent height, let the footing (floor object) step down, then attach the bottom of the wall to the lower floor. Its pretty smooth. I schedule these also, and isolate them from other floors by having a foundation phase. The concrete guys really seem to like the axonometrics of the foundation alone also.

[Scott D Davis]

Make sure the concrete guys know it took you 'hours' of extra work to produce that special axon for them to use, and that it should cost 'em extra!

[christopher.zoog51272]

I'll toss my vote in for floors as well. They work great for odd shaped footings, step footings, etc. You can also use spot elevations to control the location of footing in z space. Typically I draw the steps as floors at the same level, then add a spot elevation to it, which, like any other type of dimension in revit, can be used to “move” the footing up or down.



See attached (some walls removed for clarity)

http://www.zoogdesign.com/albums/revit/foundation.sized.jpg

[ita]

Way to go Scott!

[cgrover]

Thanks for all the good advice. I can always count on you guys for help. I tried the structural component for the pad footings and it worked ok, but I think in the future I will use floors, who knows maybe I'll redo this project just for the heck of it.

Thanks again,
grover

[Wes Macaulay]

Man, Chris... I hope structural is paying you for all the nice work you're doing for them -- what benefit is there for you to go to such lengths to model subsurface structure?

[ita]

Wes, I would expect no less in any project that I did or that was done on my behalf. If you don't model it as it is, then you finish up on site resolving the details there. At least if you have modelled the subsurface structures, the volumes of objects are defined, can be noted on docs, and consultants can see your intention. to not model those structures accurately would (in my opinion) be remiss.

[Wes Macaulay]

There's no doubt that it's a good idea. There are but two problems with this:


you're [re]interpreting the engineer's design -- this isn't about your design intent -- it's about the engineer's, thus placing some liability on yourself
are you paid to do this? Your efforts may bring to light some problems with the footing design -- a benefit that Revit brings to the table -- but if you do it I don't imagine the client will pay you more for it. Do it for free and they'll begin to expect it. The bar gets forever raised and not a dime to show for it
On the other hand:

you're really being the "co-ordinating registered professional" -- a term used here for the person with the stamp who's responsible for making sure the overall design (from all consultants) works on the whole
you'll have that much more understanding of the design
So, as usual, I'm of two minds about the issue.

[gregcashen]

With regards to the question of should footings be floors or walls, consider this...

If the footings have only one or very few different depths, then use floor objects, since floors can have any width but you need a separate assembly for each depth. If you used walls in this situation you'd need a wall type for each width of footing!
If the footings are always the same width but vary more often in depth, then use wall objects.
Frankly, I like using floor objects more for footings. They're more inert than walls, and you don't get as much wall join weirdness.


I have requested this before and I think that it is even more important as the size and complexity of projects done in Revit increases...we need a dedicated foundation tool. Or the ability to give walls and floors categories and/or subcategories that would indicate that they were actually foundation objects.

[cgrover]

Greg,

That sounds like a great idea/tool. It would be nice to have some more control over the footings.

grover

[luigi]

I have requested this before and I think that it is even more important as the size and complexity of projects done in Revit increases...we need a dedicated foundation tool. Or the ability to give walls and floors categories and/or subcategories that would indicate that they were actually foundation objects.
I agree with you 100%. I think the pad footing components work great, but it is a problem using a combination of pad footings and foundation walls, unless like you had mentioned there was a way for REvit to consider the foundation walls as foundation. For the most part, when feasible, I have and will use the footing component. I will use Foundation walls for spread footings and trench footings.

[tsbykatherine60220]

Man, Chris... I hope structural is paying you for all the nice work you're doing for them -- what benefit is there for you to go to such lengths to model subsurface structure?
Wes (everyone for that matter) :),

I'm a structural draftsman in a consulting engineering firm and am curious how you think the building model will be utilized when the rest of us catch up to the architectural level with BIM and Revit (Revit Civil, Revit Structural and Revit Building Systems - dreaming?).

Who will "own" the different elements of the Building Model....foundations elements and the structural framing (concrete shearwalls, steel, wood, and concrete framing, etc.)....plumbing fixtures, electrical items, mech equipment....

How will the building model be shared?

How will cross discipline coordination work when architects and consultants are in different locations? Will the model data be accessed over the internet with project websites so real-time coordination is possible? Alerts popping up to indicate interferences with other elements....

Love to hear everyone's thoughts on this topic...

4D WannaBee,

Rick McElvain

[Wes Macaulay]

I think the folks at the Factory are probably the best to answer this question, but in the trenches, here's the view I've got:

Structure and architecture overlap. Hugely.

Anybody here think we've got a fast enough WAN to work live on the same data model? Centralised vs. distributed? In the chaotic world of design, distributed is what's happening.

People are so busy doing their job, they have no time to learn something new. So it's got to be simple to learn. Are we really doing more complex projects than we were five years ago? I don't think so. But we may be doing them more efficiently with Revit.

The talk about convergent data is happening sooner than I would have thought. Structural and architectural would like to work live on the same data, but that's hard to do at this point.

Could it be done with exclusive worksets between offices? I doubt it... what's more likely is linked files, but this is difficult, too.

Take a plywood shear wall: the architect locates it, and the engineer puts ply on it. Who's going to put that wall into the building model? Right now, probably both parties, and that's duplication. In the future it would be great if the architect places the wall, and the engineer adds the plywood and returns his data to the architect, whose wall now includes the ply. It's that kind of intelligence that we're going to need, despite the fact that this process did not happen live on the same file.