Composite wall joints

[SeaGeoff]

Before I formulate a wish or poll question I want to get the opinion of anyone who cares about the way composite walls join and clean-up.

Currently, unless the composite cores are defined with the same fill, the sheathing is not broken but travels past the joint. This is contrary to standard building practice and so seems totally illogical.

In common practice two different core structures frequently meet with the finish cladding applied after. A typical US example is an uninsulated 2x4 stud wall butting into an insulated 2x6 exterior stud wall. My screen shots illustrate this example.

And while I'm on the subject, why is this functionality limited to walls in plan? Shouldn't we expect the same type of thing in section where the structural core of a slab would clean up with that of a wall, and a wall would properly join a roof? It sure would save a lot of patching.

[SeaGeoff]

Here's what I'd like to see.

[Aussie John]

Perfectly logical request Geoff.
Another tricky one is bringing a stud wall into an internal corner of a cavity wall. If the reference line is on the out side of the cavity wall it is impossible for the stud wall to even touch the reference line of the cavity.

Automation is great but it sure makes CAD complex to cover all the bases

[Anonymous]

If the reference line is on the out side of the cavity wall it is impossible for the stud wall to even touch the reference line of the cavity.

This is the main reason that I put the reference line on the inside face of exterior walls. I know this is not a common practice (the only others I know who do this are people I have taught) but I have found over the years that it eliminates more trouble than it causes. The biggest problem I have had with this approach was on one project that changed from 2x4 to 2x6 exterior walls in late DD. Otherwise it has saved me lots of patching and fussing with wall intersections.

Are there others out there doing this too?

[SeaGeoff]

Matthew wrote:
Are there others out there doing this too?

I switched to ArchiCAD when 8 came out and started by modeling my house. I discovered the advantage of having the ref line on the inside right away.

[Aussie John]

generally it is the outside that determines the length of a wall (eg brick dimension, wall panel width) so if you change the width of your composite wall you are stuffed if the reference line is on the inside.

[Anonymous]

Matthew wrote:

This is the main reason that I put the reference line on the inside face of exterior walls.
[...]
Are there others out there doing this too?

I've used recently another technique that has proven to be the right one in my projects : the ref line is the outer limit of my inner load bearing composite's skin : this allows to change the type of external finish easily, and adapt the width of the load bearing part depending of the Z position of the wall (wider cocnrete blocks in the basement, etc...)

[Anonymous]

I could not agree more with your request of cleaner wall intersections - in plan AND in section. I always have to clean this up manually and if I don't contractors actually wonder if I want them to build it this way. Tsss.

Please post the wish.

[Karl Ottenstein]

Geoff wrote:
Here's what I'd like to see.

Well said, Geoff.

I'm not sure I understand the other issue brought up with walls terminating at the ref line. 8.1 now keeps snaps at all edges of walls (and I think skins of composites?) whether clean wall intersection is on or not ... and if layer intersection priorities are different, then walls are supposed to terminate where you draw them, rather than jumping through to the ref line. (This is totally different than Geoff's wish - which I agree with and will vote for in his poll!) But, does this 8.1 behavior ease the situation that others are talking about here? If not, could you post an image as I'm being a little dense in following this one...particularly Matthew's rationale for the ref line on the inside.

Thanks,
Karl

PS Post-post edit: Just took a minute to test the snapping in 8.1 and we don't have quite as much as I thought. At a composite wall end, we now have snap points at each internal skin line whether wall cleanup is on or not (this is new in 8.1 - also new is that walls don't snap/extend to the reference line when cleanup is turned on) ... but I had thought that we had mercedes snapping to the skin lines themselves ... but alas, no - mercedes is only on the reference line and the opposite edge. That is something for the wishlist I think. I can still draw down to a skin position by constraining and moving my mouse out to a wall end to snap to the correct skin hotspot, but that's not as convenient.

[Link]

Have to chime in on this thread...

I've used recently another technique that has proven to be the right one in my projects : the ref line is the outer limit of my inner load bearing composite's skin : this allows to change the type of external finish easily, and adapt the width of the load bearing part depending of the Z position of the wall (wider cocnrete blocks in the basement, etc...)

Surely this is the only way to go? I've never had trouble sticking to this method 100% of the time, and can't really see how you can go wrong using this with carefully constructed composites. If a wall changes composites/thickness, all walls will still heal because the reference lines never move.

Just the mention of having the reference line on the inside of a wall makes me giddy! I would love to hear how this could be beneficial if you guys would care to expand. I'm with Karl on this one!

I'm sure if there was a drastic problem the Modify Wall command in the Tools menu, would solve most of the problems mentioned.

I still think there is a lot of room for improvement though - don't get me wrong! Geoff's original problem is a nuisance, and needs to be addressed, but in the meantime it can be worked around using the adjust command. I find the fact that we don't get check marks at every (skin) intersection far more annoying.

Cheers,
Link.