Use of composites in large jobs

[Conrado Dominguez]

I would like to hear your comments regarding the use of composite walls.

It appears to me that for other than single not complicated projects, documenting wall layouts using composites will be rather time consuming as oppose to layouts showing the wallcore only.

For example, on a large job, with large number of different spaces, and using several steel stud sizes in combination with one or more layes of gypsum board.

Is it worth it to document all that with composites?
What may be the advantages of using composite walls other than showing critical "clear finished" dimensions. ?
Anybody using them documenting 2D large scale details?

I will really appreciate hearing your comments, opinions and experiences.

BTW I am using AC10.

[TomWaltz]

K&A uses composite walls exclusively mostly because they do a lot of housing and wish to dimension to the stud but be able to show the finish to make sure the clear dimensions work.

With the introduction of Profile Walls in AC10, we are even adding top and bottom plates/tracks in the stud walls.

You cannot use the wall tool in Detail windows, so they have no use in detailing.

[Anonymous]

I use composite walls almost exclusively, particularly on large projects. The idea is not to get every last detail documented but to constrain the basic wall types to those scheduled in the drawings.

For simple framed walls I generally use just three skins; the stud core and one on each side for the gyp, etc. I set the thickness of the outer skins to the full build up of the layers, so two layers of 5/8" gyp and 1/2" plywood (for shearwall) is a single 1 3/4" skin. I think it is very important to include the full finish thickness of the walls. In the above example this can mean a 3 1/2" difference between rough and finish dimensions in a corridor.

[James Murray]

TomWaltz wrote:
K&A uses composite walls exclusively mostly because they do a lot of housing and wish to dimension to the stud but be able to show the finish to make sure the clear dimensions work.

That's the thing. Model true extent (so the trim works) and dimension to the framing. Composites are the only way.

[__archiben]

James wrote:
That's the thing. Model true extent (so the trim works) and dimension to the framing. Composites are the only way.

yep. and even with single-skin walls, composites are the only way to have the fill orientation flow with the wall direction . . .

(by the way, tom and others, a thought just occurred to me that careful use of pensets could in fact be a workaround method for showing 'core-only' of composites when required?? haven't had a chance to flesh it out yet, but . . .)

~/archiben

[TomWaltz]

~/archiben wrote:
(by the way, tom and others, a thought just occurred to me that careful use of pensets could in fact be a workaround method for showing 'core-only' of composites when required?? haven't had a chance to flesh it out yet, but . . .)

Didn't Link say that like 6 months ago?

[__archiben]

TomWaltz wrote:
Didn't Link say that like 6 months ago?

typical. i never listen.

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

~/archiben wrote:
...by the way, tom and others, a thought just occurred to me that careful use of pensets could in fact be a workaround method for showing 'core-only' of composites when required?? haven't had a chance to flesh it out yet, but . . .

I've been doing that for some time now, mostly for sending DWGs to consultants. It's quirky in 9 but much better in 10.

[Link]

I had a similar discussion with Karl O when we met up late last year. On top of all this, we agreed that for calculation purposes composites are the only way to go.

If you want accurate bill of materials, not only should composites be used for some walls, they should be used for all walls.

Cheers,
Link.

[SeaGeoff]

~/archiben wrote:
by the way, tom and others, a thought just occurred to me that careful use of pensets could in fact be a workaround method for showing 'core-only' of composites when required??

My AC 9 pen set was set-up for precisely this purpose. After a time I established dedicated pens for almost all elements. The most successful logic for me was based on material or element type—walls, doors & windows, fixtures, concrete, stone, etc. I ended up with small groups for each typically with pens for plan symbol, section cut, fill FG, fill BG, etc. I arranged all these toward the bottom of the pen table and created a generic set of pens at the top. After a time I was using only the dedicated pens with the help of a cheat sheet. The new pen descriptions in AC 10 will make this a lot easier to keep track of, especially in an office environment. This system not only enables lots of tricks on the layout side but allows the user to globally tweak the color and "puch" of one material or system relative to the rest. The US ArchiCAD 10 Default pen set in the newer US template is a modified version of this with only the Graphisoft and generic pens defined.