Structural quantities for walls

Hi Robert,

Thanks for sharing all the information with us regarding your concern. 

We will have some further digging into this and will update you accordingly.

Regards,
Sayan Acharyya

I asked this question recently and it resulted in Enhancement Request 891968.

Maybe you can raise an SR so that you can be added to this Enhancement.

Ok, so i doesn't work! 

Thanks Johan! 

Sorry to dig this one up but I just figured I'd add a thought...

I think the reason why density isn't calculated for walls is that they're Architectural objects. Both the Structural Quantities property group and the Concrete reporting component (in the Structural_Comp XML file) are intended for Structural members. If you remove one of those three factors (Structural member, Structural Quantities and Structural part) then the Density value will zero out - add Structural instance data to a Form or solid, assign a base TriForma part to a Structural member, etc..

So the Enhancement requests similar functionality but for walls and slabs; e.g., Architectural objects. How exactly that pans out, well, that remains to be seen!

Just for argument's sake, in the interim would it make any sense to create a custom Concrete beam and name it "wall"?  You could always create a multi-category schedule to go along with it... 

Hi Steve,

thanks for adding your thoughts!

I understand this is the way it is in OBD (because "Structural elements" like columns and beams are based on ProStructures geometry). However in my opinion walls and slabs can be just as structural. For me there is a big difference between an "Architectural" wall (like a separation wall, insulation and finishing layers, ...) or a "Structural" wall like bearing masonry or concrete. Same goes for floors.

I think the reason why density isn't calculated for walls is that they're Architectural objects. Both the Structural Quantities property group and the Concrete reporting component (in the Structural_Comp XML file) are intended for Structural members. If you remove one of those three factors (Structural member, Structural Quantities and Structural part) then the Density value will zero out - add Structural instance data to a Form or solid, assign a base TriForma part to a Structural member, etc

In some rival products the user can place a slab / wall both from the "Architectural" as well as the "Structural" ribbon. The only difference being a property that says load bearing false/true. In OBD they can only be placed from the "Architectural" ribbon. There is the option for a specific catalog type to set the load bearing as true/false as required. However it doesn't make them "Structural". For me that is OK (though a shortcut/icon from the "Structural" ribbon would come in handy, but I could solve that with custom ribbon/workflows).

Steve Cocchi said:

So the Enhancement requests similar functionality but for walls and slabs; e.g., Architectural objects. How exactly that pans out, well, that remains to be seen!

Reading between the lines, I suppose is not likely to ever happen? 

Steve Cocchi said:

Just for argument's sake, in the interim would it make any sense to create a custom Concrete beam and name it "wall"?  You could always create a multi-category schedule to go along with it..

Absolutely not! A wall is something very different from a beam. Intersections between walls, connecting wall to floor, ... The simple fact that a wall has a (constant) thickness and variable path/height compared to a beam that has constant height as well as width/thickness and only a variable path (is it possible even to create curved beams?). Then there are the placement options that are different for walls and beams (and right so!)... Let's not forget multi-layered walls, which couldn't be achieved with a beam. I could go on for a while ...