topic Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object in Modeling

Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

Brandon-W_DWa — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:41:13 GMT

Between and Object (out-of-the-box "Steel Beams 27") and the beam tool, what are the benefits of using one over the other for modeling structural steel beams? I'd like to standardize one over the other in our BIM Manual, so I'm trying to consider all implications: intuitive and correct plan/section display, elevation/length input, ease of use, IFC translations, etc.

I'm currently doing some testing of my own, but I'm curious if anyone has any previous insights? Thanks!

Operating system used: Mac Apple Silicon 14.7.1 Sonoma

Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

Jeff Griffin — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:10:52 GMT

I'm very interested in hearing how others handle this as well. From my experience, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are modeling complex steel framing, then perhaps using objects would be better, since there are a number of additional parameters in the beam object that the beam tool doesn't have. However, if the steel framing you are trying to model isn't very complex AND/OR you are planning on collaborating with a structural engineer using SAF model exchange, then perhaps the beam tool (and column tool) is the way to go.

Steel tower framing using objects:

Steel tower framing using column tool & beam tool for SAF model exchange.

Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

Matthew Johnson — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 00:41:20 GMT

We are curious about the workflows others are using for this also.

How is anyone handling steel connections? Oftentimes a simple beam or column fits inside our modeled building, but once the connection plates/bolts/grouting are added the structure starts to protrude. Capturing this at a early stage so that it can be communicated to all stakeholders is becoming critical.

Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

Barry Kelly — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 01:31:01 GMT

I am in the camp of "Model it as it is built".

If you do this, you should spot any problems with clashes and protrusions.

It still takes a keen eye to look around the model and spot any problems.

Having said that, it is easier to say than it is to do, and it can be a lot of work.

And I must admit I don't model a lot of steel connections.

You can create some connections with segmented columns and beams.

You can even simulate the bolts.

But it may not be super accurate and not easy to do or manipulate if need be.

The above are examples that I have played with, but it is not something I actually use.

Beam and column objects may be better, but it depends on how they are scripted and what they include.

The best objects are those that you create yourself, but that requires GDL knowledge.

Or you take it back to basics and model simple beams and columns (can be profiled).

Add your own connection plates - beams walls, slabs, morphs or objects.

Add your own bolts if you don't have a connection object that includes them.

Then work smart, saving assemblies as modules or objects so you can use them over and over.

Barry.

Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

Matthew Johnson — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 04:35:40 GMT

Barry, we have tried the segmented approach for columns similar to what you demonstrate but found that the level of manual input and management required to keep it up to date was prohibitive.

Ideally, we'd like to have an object that is hosted to the beam or column that had display controls independent of the main member but followed any changes in location.

Re: Best Practice: Beam Tool vs. Beam Object

karsten_bauschert — Fri, 05 Dec 2025 12:19:33 GMT

As far as we are dealing with steel structures using beam and colum is working great.
Beeing architects we have to model in 3D up to scale 1:50 or maybe 1:20,
more detailing is either done in 2D or by the structural engieer / firm.