Irregular Window Opening / Wall Construction

[tompaxton1351340]

Hello there,

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've been a long time user of Sketchup to produce construction models followed by CAD exports for construction drawings.
I am experimenting with Revit to simplify this process and getting to grips with some of the different way to model elements. I'm pulling my hair out here as I'm so used to just pushing and pulling surfaces in Sketchup and it all seems to be so backwards sometimes. I'm sure its just the learning curve though and I'm determined to stick with it to give it a fair trial.

Question 1. I have an existing building (modelling the existing first) with a complicated window opening within a rubble filled stone wall (see attachments). This involves splayed reveals, thin under wall section and a curved head on the external side. The only way i can think to achieve this is by modelling a bunch of separate voids and cutting them into the wall to achieve the irregular shape. Is there a better way to achieve this?

Question 2. Having read around it seems to have proper control of wall connections in 1:5 details each layer of a wall typically needs to be modelled separately. This especially seems to be the case when working with existing buildings as every wall construction is a bit different and i would end up with a whole bunch of wall types. Again is there a better way to achieve this as currently im doing the cut by voids and having to paste in place to each wall layer?

Thanks in advance.

[CAtDiva]

To answer Question 1: yes, for irregular/partial depths of cuts in walls, using voids is necessary. If you haven't discovered already, you cannot use both Openings and Voids in a window (or other) family.

Openings are basically an extrusion void that extends from one wall face to another. Which is great & simple if you have a simple profile opening.

Voids allow for additional parameters to control where they cut. Work with reference planes (name them if you can) and labels (aka parameters) to make them flexible in the project model. Depending on the regularity or irregularity of conditions, some of the parameters may want to be instance parameters while others could be type parameters.

Re: Question 2: With existing buildings, particularly historical buildings, wall thickness irregularity can get interesting. If you can determine nominal thicknesses for common assemblies (based on a reasonable tolerance for inaccuracy), then you could potentially decrease the number of wall types. Your alternative mention of modeling the individual wall layers would work too ... may be worth the analysis of which option results in fewer wall types. The window family with voids can cut multiple elements ... for those not hosting the window, use the Cut Geometry tool to cut additional walls.

[tompaxton1351340]

Thanks for the advice! This is beginning to make a bit more sense now.

So essentially make a void family with a series of instanced parameters that can be adjusted in the model once placed.
This should be able to achieve a series of different opening types then without making multiple extrude in place voids.

For reference, previously i was doing the following;

1. Model in place component for simple void extrusion.
2. Use it to cut stone wall.
3. Copy and paste-in-place into other layers of the wall to cut them as well.
4. Rinse and repeat for the other parts of the shape.

[CAtDiva]

Thanks for the advice! This is beginning to make a bit more sense now.

So essentially make a void family with a series of instanced parameters that can be adjusted in the model once placed.
This should be able to achieve a series of different opening types then without making multiple extrude in place voids.

Yep.

For reference, previously i was doing the following;

1. Model in place component for simple void extrusion.
2. Use it to cut stone wall.
3. Copy and paste-in-place into other layers of the wall to cut them as well.
4. Rinse and repeat for the other parts of the shape.

Model-in-place elements serve a purpose, but they get less useful with repetitive elements. I'm sure you learned a lot starting there.