How do you update a Functional Component (Custom Pier or Abutment)?

Hi Colby,

I am thinking you need to create the parametric model with your expecting behavior before place the custom abutments or piers.

For example, you generated the each custom piers by numbers of columns(2-columns, 3-columns pier)

But you can define the scenarios that numbers of columns through the Array parametric solid feature in MicroStation or OpenBridge. 

Also, In the bridge site you need to place same substructure but different dimensions and numbers of columns. OpenBridge allow you will define the substructures using one parametric cell.

Please let me know I will be able to show you the beauty of parametric technology in Bentley.

Thanks. 

Hi Yujin,

I understand your approach, but the problem is that you can't account for every possible design change that will occur in a project simply by using parameters. Say I'm doing the modelling and the engineer decides to add lateral restraints to the headstock, or they decide to add a recess halfway up a column, or they want the footing to have chamfered corners, or they want to split the footing from a single large one into multiple smaller ones, or the piles change from concrete to steel, etc, etc. For every one of these changes I'd need to completely rebuild all the piers because there is just no way to allow for all of the possible changes in a design using parameters.

During the early stages of a design project should I really be spending more time building a fully parametric pier that covers every possible design solution? If I'm just trying to deliver a 50% design set, it should be something that starts rough and as the project develops it becomes more refined.

The problem is that the functional components don't fully allow for the flexibility that is required in a real project, where you change things multiple times during the design phase. When these unknowns come up on a project (which they do every time), it requires re-modelling.

Hi Yujin,

I understand your approach, but the problem is that you can't account for every possible design change that will occur in a project simply by using parameters. Say I'm doing the modelling and the engineer decides to add lateral restraints to the headstock, or they decide to add a recess halfway up a column, or they want the footing to have chamfered corners, or they want to split the footing from a single large one into multiple smaller ones, or the piles change from concrete to steel, etc, etc. For every one of these changes I'd need to completely rebuild all the piers because there is just no way to allow for all of the possible changes in a design using parameters.

During the early stages of a design project should I really be spending more time building a fully parametric pier that covers every possible design solution? If I'm just trying to deliver a 50% design set, it should be something that starts rough and as the project develops it becomes more refined.

The problem is that the functional components don't fully allow for the flexibility that is required in a real project, where you change things multiple times during the design phase. When these unknowns come up on a project (which they do every time), it requires re-modelling.

Hi Colby

As you know BIM software companies(Bentley and Autodesk) will not be satisfy of engineers expectations. because there are lots of substructure types in the world.

At this moment, You have several workarounds.

First one is create full custom substructures but you don't need to generate it completely. just update the model with additional constraints and save as different file name.

Second way, create custom substructure using variable pier templates. 

Third way, generating the independent custom components with your available scenarios. and place to your bridge model.

but you need to place the components three times to complete your substructure.

Last way, combine OpenBridge and custom components for your substructure.

Generate OpenBridge template with dummy column and cap to utilizing OpenBridge footing components and place custom cap and columns.

Also, OpenBridge team has hearing your voices to enhancing the workflow to more flexible between existed bridge components and custom components.

Thanks.

Hi Yujin,

I would like to ask if it is possible to develop own xml library with components like caps, columns, footings, etc. that would functioned the same as official components available within OpenBridge? This task is certainly meant for software developers not regular users. Does OpenBridge allow for such upgrade based on custom and standards in different countries? It is obvious that Bentley alone can not cover all possible shapes and varieties used all around the world but development companies can bridge this gap.

One Example:

There is a rectangular footing in substructure template where user can opt for slopped upper face but that slope with regard to reinforcement is done impractically. See image.

There can be several others examples where just a small change can be needed and user is forced to use custom cells and then loosing features like reporting, generating excavation, footing depth based on terrain etc.

Hi Tomas,

At this moment, we can't have the xml file directly.

But I would like to suggest you the workaround with GenerativeComponets. 

Generating GC package files for each components for footing, column and cap. And create a gc package file for substructure that will be used to OpenBridge Modeler. 

Hi Yujin,

Thank you for suggestion it seems promising.

Can I use created 3D parametric cells? adding them as GC notes and create GC package files or I will have to create footing, column and cap from scratch in GC?

Additional problem I have with custom pier/abutment is that I can not add reinforcement to it in ProConcrete. Will this approach with gc package solve my problem?

Hi Tomas,

Please let me know your email address and time zone.

And I will arrange the meeting for you.

Thanks.