bent structural grid?

[eeblack]

Is it possible to have a bent structural grid? I'm working on a project with a bend in the corridor and would like to have a continuous grid line with a bend in it. Is using a dot in the grid name the only way to accomplish this?

[twiceroadsfool]

For the most part, yes. I would go with A and A', or something similar.

FWIW you can get around it with either a linked file with the other half of the grids, and with design options to (i think). Then you just need different views to show the different options overlapped.

But its not worth the hassle IMHO...

[david_peterson]

From a structural point of view you shouldn't be able to bend a grid line. Curve, put a constant radius on it..... but no bends please.
The A and A' work great. If you have lots of areas that you want to name in a similar way. You can use area letter designators area a prefix. ie A-C - A-4.
I hope this make sense.

[twiceroadsfool]

I wholeheartedly agree, just from trying to talk on the phone with engineers...

"Its on grid A..."
"Above the bend or below?"
"Below..."
"Wait, my sheet is turned sideways... which way is up?"

LOL, swear to god ive had that conversation...

[david_peterson]

I wholeheartedly agree, just from trying to talk on the phone with engineers...

"Its on grid A..."
"Above the bend or below?"
"Below..."
"Wait, my sheet is turned sideways... which way is up?"

LOL, swear to god ive had that conversation...
Then don't create grids that way.
I worked on a building that had about 15 additions to it. Depending on where in the building you were, you were looking at one of 15 different A-1 Columns. But at least you knew where you were because they were nice enough to list which addition it was. Bad, but not that bad. On another project, they just kept "bending" the grids so grid 15 at one end of the building might actually line up with grid 18 at the other end.
Grid lines were meant to be straight, single line of geometry (so I'll accept arcs).
I've dealt with some of the most messed up grid layouts in my time. I have one project that the grid consisted of 5 different arcs (3 mirrored about a center axis to create a "tear drop". I just labeled them and gave them northing and easting from a point at the center. It was the only way I could define fine. I had column r-1 to r-12. Major pain in the backside.
We have lots of number and letter combinations to pick from. My suggestion, use them. :beer:

[jsnyder.68308]

Then don't create grids that way.
I worked on a building that had about 15 additions to it. Depending on where in the building you were, you were looking at one of 15 different A-1 Columns. But at least you knew where you were because they were nice enough to list which addition it was. Bad, but not that bad. On another project, they just kept "bending" the grids so grid 15 at one end of the building might actually line up with grid 18 at the other end.
Grid lines were meant to be straight, single line of geometry (so I'll accept arcs).
I've dealt with some of the most messed up grid layouts in my time. I have one project that the grid consisted of 5 different arcs (3 mirrored about a center axis to create a "tear drop". I just labeled them and gave them northing and easting from a point at the center. It was the only way I could define fine. I had column r-1 to r-12. Major pain in the backside.
We have lots of number and letter combinations to pick from. My suggestion, use them. :beer:

I completely agree. Grid lines are meant to create UNAMBIGUOUS references. Making it more complicated than that is a waste of time.

[Dave F.]

I wholeheartedly agree, just from trying to talk on the phone with engineers...

"Its on grid A..."
"Above the bend or below?"
"Below..."
"Wait, my sheet is turned sideways... which way is up?"

LOL, swear to god ive had that conversation...

You don't seem to understand how grids are meant to work.
The whole point is that you have grids in _opposite_ directions.
Therefore you say it's on (or near) grid reference A-1.
If you just say "Its on grid A..." then your not giving clear intsructions.

By the way, do Arch's use Grids? :-)
I have enough trouble trying to get them to put dimensions on the model.
Some seem to resent having to do it!!

Swear to god I've had _that_ conversation.

[twiceroadsfool]

LOL, that made my day. Believe me, i understand how grids work. But, ive seen projects where PM's wanted grid setups that basically resulted in ASSUMED or inderterminate grids, because they wanted bendy/zig-zagging garbage on the project.

Yes, they SHOULD have intersecting grids that are all NAMED differently. But ive seen a PM take a "N/S" set of grids and bend them around a cant in the project, then take the "E/W" grids and mirror them about the bisector of the cant. So saying "A where it intersects 2" had TWO locations, on each half of the project.

A' at 2' clears that whole thing up, completely unambiguous, in every case.

Regardless of your penchant or lacktherof for architects (or whatever), theres no denying one method leaves open the POSSIBILITY of error, one doesnt. ::shrug::

[eeblack]

As a follow-up to my question, I have discovered a solution to my specific problem in which my building was shaped like a truncated triangle and the column grid needed to be bent with 3 straight segments. We had used some special characters as prefixes/suffixes but this creates some additional problems.

Here is the method I discovered:

1) Place all of your grids and let Revit name them normally.
2) Edit the tag and rename the grid line how you want, but do not hit enter to lock in the change. Instead, right-click with the mouse and select "Insert Unicode control character" from the pull-down menu.
3) Choose from the first option on the list (LRM Left-to-right mark). Choose the next option for each additional grid you need to trick Revit with.

What this is doing is using a non-printing character instead of a ' or some other symbol. What is even better is that column schedules will track correctly, whereas the old method did not. You need to have Asian Language Support turned on, though.

Thanks to the Autodesk Training Videos (Horrible Hacks) available on the subscription support site for this solution. There are pitfalls to avoid, but my building did not fall into any of those scenarios.

[dhurtubise]

I have a specific family for that use that works like a charm, just message me if you want it.
Not all buildings are create square :-)

[twiceroadsfool]

Tricking Revit or not, and regardless of the shape of the building, I cant see any justification in using the same grid demarkation for anything other than a single datum: straight or curved. Bottom line: One way includes the POTENTIAL for someone to get confused. Using different Grid Names doesnt.

It has very little to do with Revit, and even less to do with the shape of the building. At the end of the day, using different grid names doesnt cost you anything, and doesnt risk you anything. Using the same grid names may not cost you anything either, but with even the POSSIBILITY of confusion, why would you bother?

[Scott Womack]

The other issue with the Unicode method of hacking the grid naming, is that when a Structural Engineer copy monitors those, they will appear to be the bent grid with the same name, except when the structural engineer tries to schedule columns on them. The Revit Column schedule WILL know the difference and create two columns of A grids with columns on them, but because ofthe hack, the engineer will not be bale to easily tell which A is which.

[priitl22047477]

Yes you can have bent grid. It is done by hack: inserting non visible letter to the Grid name. It was shown in AU last year (SE404-1P). So in realty it is two different grids, but in drawings and in graphical column schedule it has the same name (visible).
Bent grids are really OK if the other grids are set ok, no duplicates. Then there is no difference if it is bent or not. it really depends on the building.