Best practice for family modelling specific to building?

[patricks]

What is the best method for creating a family that is specific to a building project, where I need to see the buidling components in order to create the family? Is it best just to do an in-place family, dissociate all the geometry from work planes, and then copy it around as needed? I don't suppose there's a way to save in-place families as an actual .rfa file is there?

For instance, we do quite a few pre-engineered metal buildings around here (as much as I despise them) and on most every building the rigid frame members are different. So I will create a rigid frame member as an in-place structural framing family, using my walls and roof slopes as references for the shape of the frame, and then copy it around to all my grid lines. I would like it if I could save that in-place family as an RFA so that when future changes have to be made to the family, it will occur project-wide. As it is now, if I have to change the shape of a frame, I have to delete all my other frames and then re-copy the original one back around to all my grid lines.

Another example is custom casework made exactly to fit the particular project, which would be too complicated and require way too many parameters if it were a family made to be used on several different projects (same deal with the PEMB rigid frames).

I suppose perhaps a model group would be the remedy to that? Even still, I would rather be able to save the family from a project as an RFA file.

Any comments or suggestions?

[patricks]

Here's an example image. Lately I've been modelling as much of the structure I can to make for better building sections and to better understand what's going on. Keep in mind this is all in Revit Building, nothing from Structure.

The main rigid frames, including the lean-to frames, are in-place families. The roof purlins and eave struts were created as structural beam families, and the other tube steel around the windows are normal structural beams and columns. For the purlins, I set my work plane in my RCP view to each side of the bottom of my roof slopes (the roof itself is only the 1 1/2" thick standing seam panels) so they would automatically follow the roof slope.

[dbaldacchino]

Patrick, why couldn't you create those portal frame members as a parametric rfa family? Why do you need to create those frames inside the project? Isn't it just a matter of planning.....figuring out how they need to change (slope angle, height, span, etc) and building it in the family editor so it can be re-used between projects?

[robert.manna]

I agree with David. At the end of the day you're dealing with manufactuered compoonents that have to follow certain rules. The fact that the components follow rules is what makes these buildings so cheap and easy to do. Figure out the rules, and figure out how to break it all down, and you should be able to build yourself a kit of parts that can be used to assemble each every new building as required.

-R

[sbrown]

This will sound silly, but I've frequently exported my sections to autocad to bring them into the family editor to help create these type of geometries. While making them parametric is best, when you need it quick and matchjing your building, exporting works great.

[dhurtubise]

Same here Scott. Exporting and reimporting into the family kindda recreate the in-place environment you we're looking for.
Plus you now have the ability to add some flexibility to your family and modification propagates through all without having to group in-place.

[Wes Macaulay]

...and of course it's not that AutoCAD is even needed for this process ;-)

[dbaldacchino]

Good tips....didn't think about that (trying REALLY hard to not resort to dwgs!!)

[patricks]

Patrick, why couldn't you create those portal frame members as a parametric rfa family? Why do you need to create those frames inside the project? Isn't it just a matter of planning.....figuring out how they need to change (slope angle, height, span, etc) and building it in the family editor so it can be re-used between projects?

I do have a rigid frame family that works great.... if the building is symmetrical on both sides of the roof ridge with the same slopes on both sides and if the frame is clear-spanning the space (not really possible much past 100 feet spanning).

In the particular image I linked above, I have rigid frames with an off-center ridge, 2 different roof slopes on either side of the ridge, with interior columns, and then a couple of frames that are single slope because they're only underneath one part of the sloping roof, and then the lean-to frames along the back side.

As many of these buildings I've done so far, I start to know sort of what the frames might look like, and I like to model them as best I can, with all the different tapers along the columns and beams, all the different gusseting plates at the column-beam haunches, reinforcement plates and beam tapers where there are interior columns, etc.

I think it looks better and makes my building sections and details more believeable and readable if the structure looks as close to the real thing as possible. There are so many different configurations of PEMB rigid frames out there, a parametric family really just could not satisfy all the different possibilites, unless it were a massive family file with many numerous parameters and options, etc.

[dbaldacchino]

Well, I'm thinking that with one family you could get an infinite number of configurations of slopes, location of center, taper angle of left column and right column, left beam depth and right beam depth and at least some obvious gusset plates at joints. I'd just do one family with one beam and column with all the necessary flexing parameters and then I'd nest that twice into a host family.You could control visibility of each side easily that way together with parameters for the left and right side.