Intersection priorities of roof and wall skins

[boatingcow]

Hi everyone,

I got into the habit of modelling wall, floor and roof components separately, in much the same way as they are built. This mainly helps with detailing and scheduling, but it's a bit of pain when it comes to doors and windows, but as you do, I have work-arounds.

Recently, I've been using composites again, mainly because of the early stage energy modelling which requires a single component to represent the fabric. However, there's a scenario which never seems to work out - when a roof abuts a wall, or when a roof has a wall above, as is common with mixed roof heights, or lean-tos. See the attached image with generic skins:

1) Just using a slab works perfectly

2+3) Using a roof with trim always results in the inner or outer corner priorities not working correctly

4) Using a small slab with a roof abutting means the thicknesses are off and edges don't line up

I'm aware of trim/merge/SEO,with trim complex profiles, and different building materials with higher/lower priorities, but does anyone have a fool-proof way of modelling this basic junction? Thanks!

[ocamorlinga]

Bump

Would love to see some solutions to this as well.

[Laszlo Nagy]

I can offer only a workaround: model the problematic Wall-Roof connections as a Profiled Beam and you will be able to achieve the correct skin intersections.

[ocamorlinga]

This is the solution I have right now. It's not perfect because of the subtle slopes the roofs have, I get odd intersections at the corners, but the sections come out clean. Also because there's two beams (one on top of the other) and only one of those is sloped, I have to overlap them, which means they intersect in 3D, but again this doesn't seem to affect the sections so I guess it's OK.

[boatingcow]

Thank you both for your comments. However, the main reason for trying to find a fix to this was to address the requirement of the energy model to have a "watertight" model made using composite slabs, walls and roofs, but as far as I can tell, using a beam/complex profile doesn't form a zone boundary, so the energy evaluation wouldn't work with this technique. I'm actually still at a bit of a loss as to how to build a "good" energy model!

To be honest, as I alluded to at the start, I've had good success modelling each component separately for the purposes of scheduling, sections, details etc. so the complex profile would be an unnecessary step there.