Monolithic Stairs - Extra Risers in Plan?

[saeborne]

Hi All,

So I'm trying to use Revit to create stair drawings. These are not special stairs. They are simple concrete egress stairs.

I am noticing that the plan representation does not match the section representation.

Please see the attached screen capture. Notice the 1'-2" dimension that is consistent from plan to section.

Ultimately, the problem seems to be that Revit is drawing an additional riser in the plan view. Yes, I can hide the superfluous riser with the linework tool. But I have to do that for every floor and every view? That's a night mare!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Bryan

[mthiessens]

Have you tried unchecking 'Begin (or End) with Riser' in the Type Properties?

[saeborne]

Have you tried unchecking 'Begin (or End) with Riser' in the Type Properties?

Yes. I've tried toggling those parameters. However, because this is a monolithic concrete stair, the riser thickness and tread thickness is 0".

I get this error...

"Can't end Stairs with Riser because Riser Thickness is too small."

So the natural thing to try, is add some dimension to the riser thickness / tread thickness parameters.

Now, at the top of the stairs, I get a tripping hazard, because the riser extends up past the landing.

[dbaldacchino]

This is one of the fundamental "flaws" with Revit stairs. The main flaw is the 2D representation. When looking in 3D, everything works fine. Typically steel stringer stairs do not end with a riser but with a thread, which can vary in size. In our office I've typically seen this dimension to be 6", or half the width of the actual thread. In a 3D view, that line shows the intersection between the stair and the floor it attaches to, but in a plan view that line reads (wrongly) as a riser.

So the main issue here is 2D representation. if you model it like they'll build it, you end up with a misinterpreted 2D representation that has to be manually corrected as you pointed out. The alternative is to dimension and note your steps, and note that final line as a joint. If one adds a finish floor to represent the floor finish thickness, then you could use that to mask this "flaw" by extending the finish past the floor and to the edge of the first step. The same exact thing happens with a monolithic stair. We need the ability to "join geometry" between the stair and the floor to control whether we want to see that line or not. Modeling the stair as "ends with riser" to get rid of the 2D representation problem would probably result in NOT modeling the stair in the way it will be built. And we don't want to do that now, right?

[saeborne]

Yes, Dave...

The issue is definitely the 2D representation. I can understand why the extra "Riser" line at the top. There is technically an extra tread at the top, in line with the finish floor. So that one makes sense, despite the fact that it is not architecturally correct in the drawings.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why there is an additional "Riser" shown at the bottom of the stairs. There is no extra tread down there. There is no extra riser, either.

So from what you are saying, I guess I need to manually edit the linework... Boy, that's going to suck!

Thanks for your response, though. It's easier to cope with aggravation when you know you're not alone.

Bryan

[dbaldacchino]

Yep, sorry to be the bearer of bad news :D

What you could consider to make editing go quicker is to place a masking region, which you can quickly copy and paste-aligned in the affected views instead of editing linework. Another alternative (have't tried it) might be to do a generic model family with a parameterized masking region in it. since it's a model element, you might not need to fix the linework in every view.

[dbaldacchino]

Here are some experiments and fun facts about stairs :shock: