Hi
I'm trying to clean up the definitions when placing beams, columns, walls and slabs to fit our way of work. But I can't get rid of the Structura Data, it don't show in the catalog editor. Super annoying when the betongbalk (concrete beam) has default material steel.
Any ideas? Running connect edition, Aecosim update 4.
Regards,
Roebrt
Paul Wagner said:I want to recommend that you don't need to utilize Structural Data. As I mentioned this was used when exporting-round-tripping directly to RAM or STAAD analysis programs
Paul, I think that you are very out of touch to recomend this. Are the old Structural Modeler tools that bad, un-maintained? Sounds like that you are post-rationalising a cost cutting decision... unconsciously.
You are assuming that the structural engineers would be using STAAD/RAM and ISM. And even if they do, they often do NOT use the Aecosim model as the basis, especially after the model starts changing.
Structural information would still be useful/required by the cost estimators, and often form part of the BIM deliverables to be handed over at the stipulated data drops.
Ok. I'm not sure how structural engineers work in the US or any other part of the world. But for me, and our users, there's is no differences in what properties needed for a beam or a wall. But I get your point too.
A way to customize the GUI to make it look the same way would be great. Let's say a user is drawing a foundation. They start with the strip footing (by placing a beam) and they add the material, grade and a few other properties to the structural data. When they place the foundation slab, there is no structural data. So they add the data in some other definition. When creating a report to tell the contracter how much concrete is needed, there's a big risk of getting only the amount needed for the slab och the strip footing, since the data is added to different definitions.
So in order to get a good reporting tool, the options on placement are the most important one. Preferably a way to hide the structural data in our case, since we don't use it, and it don't have the same customizable abilities with lists and so on, as the definitions have.
Robert
Hi Robert,
Walls (and Slabs) have never had Structural attributes since their origins are as Architectural objects. That is why both respond to the Add Structural tool to add those attributes required for certain downstream processes. But they still differ from "native" Structural components such as Beams and Columns. So off the top of my head I'm not sure how to best approach your goal of having the same list of properties for both, particularly during placement. Or is reporting the more important aspect?
Ok. Yes, I can see it greyed out for walls. They are structural (in the sense of structural/non-structural definition), but I haven't added structural to them with the tool you mentioned above. Not sure how those circumstances affect my wall in what way.
But as I said I'm looking for consistency. I need the same properties available when placing both beams and walls. If it's the structural data, I want a way to create lists, choose if it's supposed to be a number or so on, as I can with definitions.
Or, I want to be able to place beams without the structural data shown in the place structural dialog.
If you're specifically wanting to hide the Structural or Structural Data tabs in the Building Element Info tool, I don't think will be possible. That data predates the DataGroup System itself and is an inherent attribute of Structural components. However, you did mention earlier that you see this info greyed out for walls, so perhaps I'm not looking in the right place.