Impossible to Create Masonry Plans

[ejc]

Wall clean-ups seem to have made it impossible to create a reliable masonry plan.

Situation:

2 Walls meet at an outside corner.

Wall 1 is a cmu wall with brick ext. finish and interior furring and gyp. bd.

Wall 2 is a metal stud wall with ext. brick finish and interior gyp. bd. This wall also occurs at an inside condition in the attached illustration.

If you hide the metal stud walls or change the view discipline from architectural to structural, the masonry wall changes dimensions.

See attached images
(before) Discipline = Architectural
(after) Discipline = Structural

Am I missing something?

ejc

[Teresa.Martin]

Hi! You might want to try the different wall joins available from the Tools toolbar (Butt, Miter and Square Off). You can also set how material wraps around a corner in the wall editor per layer.
I hope this helps!

Best regards,

[gordie_v]

for this case I would disallow joins on each end the select join geometry.

if you select the wall then right click on the blue end dot you have an option to disallow joins. place the wall ends now where you want them, Once both ends are dis joined and now overlapping select join geometry and select the two walls

[ejc]

for this case I would disallow joins on each end the select join geometry.

if you select the wall then right click on the blue end dot you have an option to disallow joins. place the wall ends now where you want them, Once both ends are dis joined and now overlapping select join geometry and select the two walls

The problem with "disallowing joins" is that it can cause havoc with the many hosted wall sweeps. Also, the exterior elevation ends up with missing outside corners everywhere.

I should have created the exterior masonry as cmu only (with disallowed joins), then slapped the skin on as an additional wall style.

Any opinions on this option would be appreciated.

thanks,

ejc

[rjcrowther]

I use a combination of

wall joins
pulling the walls apart and then putting them back to see if they will re-knit themselves
disallow joins
and last resort is the cover the join with filled regions - it is faster to do this then do the ideological BIM thing and go for a correct join at all costs.
Certainly wall sweeps make the job harder - I don't use them unless its an absolute must.

I haven't tried having a separate wall style and using it as a wall layer although I have been tempted at times ..... but more to do with phasing and wanting to demolish certain parts (layers) of a wall rather then wall cleanup.

You can help yourself by having the function of the wall layers (structure 1, substrate 2, etc) correctly determined - particularly the core boundaries.

Good luck,
Rob

[ita]

A double click on the blue dot can often resolve troublesome joins.

[ejc]

My approach to the wall layers - structure - substrate, finish, is a rock - paper - scissors concept.

Masonry is Structure - Metal Stud is substrate

Therfore

Masonry always dominates metal stud.

Is this a flawed concept?

Thanks,

ejc

[sbrown]

ejc, you got it exactly. Thats the correct way to think about it. The only problem as you have found is your interior walls the metal stud will be the structure so it won't join properly with your exterior metal stud furring. I think this is a good case study to be submitted to adsk for their work. Basically if you can show them a dwg with how you need it to join, let them figure out how to modify the tool.

[ejc]

ejc, you got it exactly. Thats the correct way to think about it. The only problem as you have found is your interior walls the metal stud will be the structure so it won't join properly with your exterior metal stud furring. I think this is a good case study to be submitted to adsk for their work. Basically if you can show them a dwg with how you need it to join, let them figure out how to modify the tool.

Actually the exterior metal stud layer is "substrate". I did this to force Masonry "Structure" to be dominate! That is the disproved theory anyway.

thanks for all the responses,

ejc

[Calvn_Swing]

"Masonry is Structure - Metal Stud is substrate


I'm inclined to disagree...
We rarely use "structural" masonry walls. In most cases, our exterior masonry walls are really just a masonry "finish" layer that is being supported by the metal stud wall behind it. I know technically, the masonry wall can support itself in most of these cases, but we really use it like a finish. Thus, we classify it as a finish. In the rare cases where we use a self supporting masonry wall, we model it as a stand-alone wall. If we're putting up studs on one side of it then that is a separate wall. If it is actually a structural masonry wall (as in it is holding something else up other than itself) it is modeled in a separate file which is eventually handed off to our structural engineers. In this last case, it is also a separate wall.

We find this works best for scheduling, costing, and modeling/drafting.

My two cents...

[Gadget Man]

...In most cases, our exterior masonry walls are really just a masonry "finish" layer that is being supported by the metal stud wall behind it. I know technically, the masonry wall can support itself in most of these cases, but we really use it like a finish....You are absolutely right from where I stand...

Masonry layer (rock, sandstone, brick, block, etc.) in a composite wall is just a "finish (4)" (we call it "veneer") that in fact is supported by a stud wall (metal or timber) or even another, different masonry wall (although very rarely). This stud wall is a "structure (1)".

If you want a masonry wall to be self-supporting (freestanding) it could be either single skin or multi skin wall (e.g. double brick, etc.), but all of it would be just a single layer "structure (1)"; however this type of wall wouldn't be composite anymore.

[gordie_v]

I think the issue was wall clean up not actual construction
in this case setting the masonry as structure tells revit that is is the most important, and the stud is set to substrate so revit knows it is not to control.
it is the dimension of the masonry that we care about even if i is only a finish.

I know that construction cost will be lower on a building when the skin dimensions come out to a round increments of 8" versus 5 1/2"