Foundation Method

[Anonymous]

I am curious as to how others are modeling and documenting foundations. In a residential project I typically like to show my floor framing with my foundation plan (perimeter foundation). In this case the footing is usually represented by a dashed line and the stem walls are shown with solid lines. In the case of a slab on grade the inside edge of the footing is shown dashed, outside edge of slab/footing is solid. In both of these cases I want the linework to be solid in section/elevation. AFAIK if I use the wall tool to model the footings I cannot have them shown with different line types in section and floor plan. The slab tool allows this but seems much less friendly for this type of modeling task. I got good results using the offset tool/magic wand for edge footings by tracing the perimeter of a slab, but this wasn't helpful for footings on the interior of the slab. Every building has a foundation so I'm sure this has been worked out. I've only been using AC part time for about 2 months so I'm still developing my methods and techniques. Your help has been extremely appreciated. I also don't want fills in plan but I do in section, I know, I'm picky.

[Vitruvius]

Rick,

Beg to differ...

The basic problem with the "predetermined width" bit is that if you're blasting down a schematic design, the engineers will ultimately give you different parameters vis-a-vis footings. So, it seems a bit of a waste to define a composite wall. Basically, the workflow should be --- basic footing per the designers best guess --- then modified by the engineers. Easiest implementation would be to simply redefine the wall width (especially for newcomers).

I think Flamer has the right sequence - the footing should simply be a wall (any simple wall) below the foundation wall.

Brevity is the soul of wit...eh?

Cheers, Cameron

[Vitruvius]

Rick,

Mea Culpa (somewhat)),

You've defined a very elegant solution to the problem posed - the somewhat - well, you've got to admit it takes a bit of familiarity to pull off.

Nonetheless, great solution!

Cheers, Cameron

[Anonymous]

Rick wrote:

Matthew wrote:
Thanks Rick.

I'll have to check it when I've got AC running. Unfortunately this ends us up with another partial work-around, making the new composites line types only partially functional.

I have to defend GS on this one. I think the system allows you to do whatever you need, with great flexibility. I am not sure what your wish is, you can already have what you want with one simple tool setting. Maybe I am missing something, but it is quick to do without any fuss, solid in section, and dashed (or not) in plan... for any composite.

I think I have finally figured this one out, and I must respectfully disagree. I have been unable to consistently reproduce what you describe, and I believe that we have found a bug in the program.

I did (briefly) get a composite to appear dashed in plan while retaining solid lines in section. This worked only with a single skin composite, and the behavior disappeared once I added a skin to it.

While it was "working" I was unable to get the single skin composite to display the composite line types in plan at all, and this seems to be what allowed the difference between the plan and section. After I added the skin I could no longer get the behavior to recur; neither by reverting the composite to a single skin, nor by creating a new single skin composite.

If my experience is any guide, I suspect the behavior you are relying upon could disappear if you edit your composites in certain ways. Perhaps there is something I still don't understand. If you have a clear method for producing consistent and reliable results I would very much like to know it.

Assuming that my testing is accurate, it seems we do have a wish list item here. It could manifest either of two ways:

1. The simplest would be to have different settings to turn on/off the composites' line types in plan and section. The trouble with this is that it requires ongoing management by the CAD operator and does not allow fine tuning of both displays.

2. The other (better IMHO) way would be to enable different settings in for plan and section line types in the composite itself. This has the advantages of allowing complete control and fine tuning of the line types and freeing the operator from having to worry about the settings. Once the composite is set up properly it will do what it is supposed to without any fuss.

Both of these could be implemented, but I think that together they would be too confusing without adding much (if any) value over option 2.

One other possibility would be to provide a line type override in the section window settings like the section pen override that is already there. This would probably be OK in addition to option 2 (or even by itself as a quick fix) since it would (presumably) be off by default and its function would be entirely clear to the operator.

In any case I think what we are discussing is a reasonable and appropriate improvement to the cool new features in the composites.

[Rick Thompson]

Matthew wrote:

Rick wrote:

Matthew wrote:
Thanks Rick.


I did (briefly) get a composite to appear dashed in plan while retaining solid lines in section. This worked only with a single skin composite, and the behavior disappeared once I added a skin to it.


In any case I think what we are discussing is a reasonable and appropriate improvement to the cool new features in the composites.

hummm, the block wall above the footing in my example, made of several skins, turns on and off whatever lines I choose. It is consistent for me.. I will post a reverse of all the lines in the example for reference.

COMMENT WITHDRAWN

[Rick Thompson]

Vitruvius wrote:
Rick,

Beg to differ...

The basic problem with the "predetermined width" bit is that if you're blasting down a schematic design, the engineers will ultimately give you different parameters vis-a-vis footings.

Brevity is the soul of wit...eh?

Cheers, Cameron

It is actually easy to change all footings to a different composite with a search and select, so that has not been an issue. A big advantage for me, is running a take off. It will list a break out based on footing sizes, plus you can add them all together in cu.yds. and total rebar lenght

[Link]

You guys!

This has always been the way! This is why this section of the wall settings is titled 'Floor Plan & Section'!;-) And the dashed outline of a wall is not limited to just composites. The same option is available for non-composites.

I would recommend definitely using walls for footings. With the correct reference line offset, you can magic wand your slab and place all your (outer) footings with one click!

Alternatively you could use a slab (or even better the roof tool for angled sides) on a footings story below and choose to show it one story up, so that it appears dashed (or whatever you have set in Options>Preferences>Construction Elements) on the story that contains your floor framing info.

Many ways to skin a cat!:-) I do agree though that the wall settings need to be overhauled. Split up the appearance in floor plan and section and allow us to show walls one story up/down etc. Just to start!

Cheers,
Link.

[Link]

And don't forget the screening technique available to us to create dashed lines, using a thoughtfully created fill.

Bill Rattenbury in New Zealand describes it here:

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=2422&highlight=#2422

Maybe this is an option?

Cheers,
Link.

[Rick Thompson]

Rick wrote:

Matthew wrote:

Rick wrote:

oops... your right Matthew, I forgot to cut the section and the block wall does display both dashed in floor plan and section, so the skins do seem to create the difference.

[Anonymous]

The reason Ricks footings look like solid lines in section is because he has chosen the "Long Dash" as the line type and for a footing width of 24" or less there is no "dash". The dash shows up for say a 30" footing.

For what it is worth I have been using the "screened" Fill method to place Footings on plan. It is only a 2D solution. I use the display order to "place" the Footing beneath my Foundation wall (which is a wall, and in 3D it is often a stepped wall to match the finished grade. Not having the footing in 3D and therefore in Sections has not been a problem. Within my Template I have a Section that contains a Fill of a Typical Stem Wall and Footing (also a earth is shown). This 2D work is resized if necessary and then I "drag" and "stretch" it in place over the model. Grade fill is also "tweaked" to match the site mesh that is temporarily un-hidden for alignment purposes.

[Anonymous]

So I take it that nobody uses the Slab Add-on (foundation). I never was sure what the purpose of that was since it appears to be really impractical for real-world applications. I liked the option Rick used, except that I don't want to see the hatch of the footing in plan - that's meant for section only (in our office).

Currently I use the slab, but being on the newer side of things I don't have a good standard yet. The slab seems to get me the closest to where I want to go while still working with the model. Though.... Link's idea sounds good... to show it on the floor below and have it "show on floor above" option.

K, back to listening...