simpson hangers in 3d

[ray salmon]

or is there such a thing

be just really cool if we could have simpson stuff as models in RVT or even some imported 3d mode....

any successfull hunters out there..

ray

[patricks]

IMHO that would be total overkill and would probably totally overload the Revit model.

Sometimes I will model some roof framing, but never wall framing or any of that, and I wouldn't want to go around trying to figure out where to put all the different joist hangers, straps, etc. etc. That's what the guys in the field are supposed to do.

The only exception I might consider would be some of Simpson's really big architectural exposed connections, which I would probably want to model if it shows up in an elevation or section view.

[ray salmon]

just thinking about puting them where they would be seen

the model should be much smaller than a lot of specialty kitchen and bath families...

saw a few in Revit City... but they appear to be just 2d paste ons.

[BigBadBIM]

or is there such a thing

be just really cool if we could have simpson stuff as models in RVT or even some imported 3d mode....

any successfull hunters out there..

ray

Oooo, Oooo, and 3D nails too

I'm just kiddin' Ray. I hope you don't take this the wrong way.

I did have a guy ask me if he could model nails once. Not sure what HE was thinkin' :roll:

[ray salmon]

well actually we do show a lot nailing in details... but probably don't need a full on 3d model of them...

on of my big disappointments is lack of hardware shown like door handles hindges etc...

ray

[BigBadBIM]

well actually we do show a lot nailing in details... but probably don't need a full on 3d model of them...

on of my big disappointments is lack of hardware shown like door handles hindges etc...

ray

What kind of work do you do, Ray?

Seems like nailing details would best be handled as detail components at most. As far as door hardware and such there are families out there that have them. You just have to ask yourself "where will this be seen?" Only in elevation, then part of the family might be linework that shows the hardware. If you do a lot of renderings that show close ups of the door and the hardwares hows, then yeah, you need it, but otherwise... Doesn't it just increase the file size of your model?

[barry.40197]

We're designing prefab modular homes that get built in a factory & shipped to site. They want shop DWG's with every stud, joist, hanger, electrical box, etc... dimensioned & scheduled on the DWG. So I to need the 3D Simpson families. Here is my first attempt at creating one.

[cliff collins]

I think Revit Structure would be able to handle hangers like these?

Maybe export to Tekla or another structure-specific BIM app?

I'd hate to populate a RAC model with all of those!

Perhaps a separate linked model with the hangers only would minimize
clutter/performance hit?

cheers.........

[patricks]

It would still have to regenerate all those surfaces every time you zoom/pan/rotate etc. I'd bet even a linked model with the hangers would slow it down.

[twiceroadsfool]

Those families are a neat idea, if youre detailing a model to that extreme... But thats the top of family we shouldnt be manually placing, or theres little point in the *I* of BIM.

For instance, if theyre for joist hanging, nest them in the ends of your Joist families. Then, its ancillary. If i have to place joists, then place hangers, then reconfigure joists and reconfigure hangers...

I wouldnt mind it, and id feel more BIM about it, if they were built in to the objects like joists, trusses, etc...

[ray salmon]

We're designing prefab modular homes that get built in a factory & shipped to site. They want shop DWG's with every stud, joist, hanger, electrical box, etc... dimensioned & scheduled on the DWG. So I to need the 3D Simpson families. Here is my first attempt at creating one.

wow thank you...
we are doing more detail dwgs in perspective view, plus if 3d models of conponents are used any view will show the their correct use, I believe this will become a more common practice with BIM.

also, simpson connectors for example are offen more visable than than one would think (like decks for example), also i haven't them overloading the file that much, common bathroom installments are much more data heavy...

sorry took so long to reply... I was in the hospital for a while.

r

[cliff collins]

I'd be asking my friendly Structural Engineer to take care of this--i.e. Revit Structure,Tekla, etc.

or better yet, have the home mfg. take responsibility for the shop dwgs.

What does the Architect's Contract and or/ Structural Engineer's signed proposal
say as far as who's scope of work the connections and shop dwgs are?
(i.e. is the Architect responsible for detailing/modeling/shp dwgs, or someone else?)

Even me, the "super-modeler" would have to back off and call this "over-modelling!"

cheers....................

[ray salmon]

well briefly,

our eng people still largly just give us 2d pencil drawings (scribblings)

we are trying to find good BIM practices, 3d details, framing etc. have proved their worth, a lot illusive questions become obvious. it cuts down too all the very error prone line work in drafting views. if one has a good library of conponents it works really well... we recently did a very complicated custom frame with many custom made connectors if we had not done it all in 3d we would have gotton a lot of those unhappy phone calls as it is we recieved none... that made it worth it.

if you can model it all.... it all can built .... so the saying goes.

I know things like this throws a lot of hot spices into our favorite soup

ray

[peakprecisiondesign]

Hangers and other stuff might look cool but that's about all. With the exception of complicated or custom hangers like you mentioned, if a framer needs to see a 3d view of how hangers work on a deck, he isn't much of a framer.
Same goes with framing elevations showing the studs, headers and trimmers for basic walls.

[barry.40197]

Hangers and other stuff might look cool but that's about all. With the exception of complicated or custom hangers like you mentioned, if a framer needs to see a 3d view of how hangers work on a deck, he isn't much of a framer.
Same goes with framing elevations showing the studs, headers and trimmers for basic walls.

Yes you're right. They're not much of a framer. The factory is using cheap $10 an hr. labor. So we need to spell everything out for them. Down to the last nail...

[peakprecisiondesign]

Yes you're right. They're not much of a framer. The factory is using cheap $10 an hr. labor. So we need to spell everything out for them. Down to the last nail...

Hi Barry. In your situation, I can understand the high level of detail. I was referring to more typical home construction.

[barry.40197]

Ya for typical home construction I agree. This is a strange situation our management has gotten us into....

[david.metcalf]

I am called out by the codes guys for not specifying the hangers down to the model numbers for various applications. this is in Pima County and City of Tucson. So I use model lines in plan view and detail or drafting views and use text to call them out. :roll:

If I am going to have to use more that "Hangers per Code Requirements" then I might as well create a hanger schedule and bill of materials with this level of detailing.

[Craig_L]

just thinking about puting them where they would be seen

the model should be much smaller than a lot of specialty kitchen and bath families...

saw a few in Revit City... but they appear to be just 2d paste ons.

Hi,
from a structural perspective I have modelled every connection plate in a project once before. It's not that bad and it doesn't blow out your model size that significantly but I would agree that most of the time this is really overkill. If you wanted to do it, the best way is to group the connection and copy the group around - I think the best way is going to be for you to model it into your family for the beam/joist at each end. and that way it will simply be there with each beam rather than modelling in a seperate hanger for each instance.

Oh wow, I didnt see the families that someone else had created until just now.
Those are excellent, but as was suggested by someone else, I really think you just want to nest these into the actual joist/beam family instead of trying to insert one for each instance. They are only ever going to need to be at end points and that way you ensure you have the correct hanger for size of joist you are using - much easier also as its much less work intensive once these families are set up properly.

I would agree its a little overkill - seeing the hanger in only the 2D sections views should suffice - and just create a detail item for yourself I really think thats the best way to go.

[adeihimi]

Guys,
I created these families from Simpson Catalog as a sample. I am gonna make more of these products, but I thought your feedbacks will be so helpful.

[barry.40197]

Simpson starting to push out Revit families.
http://www.strongtie.com/drawings/revit.asp

[aaronrumple]

Simpson starting to push out Revit families.
http://www.strongtie.com/drawings/revit.asp

Boy - those are poorly drawn for what the architectural industry needs. (Not to mention just silly ways of massing the basic object. Way too many parts to get the desired geometry.)

I wonder if this is some sort of Inventor-to-Revit port(?)

[adeihimi]

This is what the architectural needs is. See attached. Simpson will be uploading these shortly! I dont think these ones would look silly in your eyes! Let me know if you neeed more of these......