Which is the best way to model rebar reinforcement by using only MicroStation Connect Edition

Question

Hello, 
 Could you please advise me the way to model rebar reinforcement for concrete by using only MicroStation Connect Edition. 
 I think ProSteel, ProConcrete or ProStructrure are better, but it's also expensive for small project. 
 
 Thank you in advance.

Barry Lothian · Accepted Answer

If 3D representation is absolutely necessary, I wouldn't waste my time making it parametric, I would suggest that you do it like this: 
 For each rebar member type: 
 
 Create 2No. levels which use _Solid and _Path as suffixes. 
 Use the Place Smartline tool to draw the centreline path of the rebar member, using the _Path level. 
 Now set the _Solid level as the Active Level 
 Activate the Solid by Extrusion Along tool, set Circular active, assign Inside and Outside radius with the same value that is half the rebar diameter, and enable Keep Path. 
 Select the SmartLine element and left-click to accept, to create a SmartSolid representation of the rebar member. 
 Copy/Array the new SmartSolid as many times as needed 
 Repeat the process with all other member types. 
 
 To create a symbolic view: 
 
 Create a new DGN file and reference in your 3D Model 
 Draw a clip-volume through the Model 
 For members parallel with the Clip Volume , turn off the _Solid levels 
 For members perpendicular/cut by the Clip Volume, turn off the _Path levels. 
 Create a Saved View and attach onto your sheet & annotate etc... 
 
 It might be a bit more work than with dedicated packages, but I see no reason why these steps wouldn't give you same kind of output, from MicroStation.

Johan De Cock · Answer

Hi Tuan, 
 Do you actually need to model the rebar in 3D? 
 If not, I suggest simply drawing it with smartlines in 2D on the drawings. This off course makes it impossible to get any bar bending schedules or anything ... 
 The biggest added value - in my opinion - of ProConcrete is the resymbolization when creating a 2D drawing based on the 3D model. It's not simply showing all the 3D rebar geometry but really regenerating new 2D geometry and labels based on the rebar properties. That is something that you won't get in plain MS. So that's why I think modelling with standard 3D MS tools will result in very chaotic drawings. I'll give a very simple example: 
 Non-resymbolized view: 
 
 Resymbolized by ProConcrete:

If you really do need the rebar in 3D for clash detection or something, I'd suggest creating some parametric cells with the different rebar shapes (you can look at the BS8666 shape codes: https://www.dynahurst.com/s/cc_images/cache_2416315759.png?t=1335431761 ). If you combine this with "Item Type" you will be able to extract some reports with the different shapes and even a count. But you'll have to manually keep track of all the different position numbers so I think it will be a headache :)

MaryB · Answer

I agree with Johan. 
 If you don't NEED a 3D model of your rebar - if all you need are the 2D section drawings - it may be simpler to just draw those out as 2D details. The time you might think you could save creating a model and viewing sections could easily be eaten up in trying to get that model right. 
 I also agree with the parametric cells if you really do need a 3D model. Rebar tends to come in rather specific shapes (just with different dimensions) and may lend itself well enough to parametrics. I don't know much about that process, though, so it could be another instance where you could spend more time modelling than just drawing the darn thing. 
 You are right that the design packages are far better for this kind of work, but you are also correct that they tend to be too expensive for something you don't do a lot. I detailed bridges for a small company for a decade or more, and we never had the budget for rebar detailing software. I could generate the details faster, and that was all that was needed for our plans.

MaryB · Answer

I do like this, Barry! That's as painless an approach to the 3D version as I can think of - and definitely better than parametrics for smaller projects and one off jobs. 
 I can see parametrics if the work is done frequently to a reasonably defined set of standards. One of the things I used to do was shop drawings for precast concrete structures (manholes, wingwalls, etc.) That might have suited itself to parametrics because of the similarly repetitive nature of the detailing involved. But I was faster at drafting than figuring out parametrics, so I just had a library of details and drafted the modifications as needed. 
 Your solution is very good, and I like that a lot. I need to keep that in mind for future rebar detailing. Thank you!

Barry Lothian · Answer

Hi Johan, 
 If there is repetition then perhaps it would be worthwhile, but I've never encountered rebar changing during a project, so modelling it as non-parametric (in my experience) is fairly low-risk. but given that paths are kept, its child's-play to adjust the path and extrude again. Also, parametric modelling (from what I have seen in MS) seems to be still very much in its infancy with constraints not working as expected etc... . A simple fence stretch will also achieve the same result, or model each member as a cell, and Edit & Update Cell. 
 MaryB said: Your solution is very good, and I like that a lot. I need to keep that in mind for future rebar detailing. Thank you! 
 Hi Mary 
 No problem. It's nothing fancy, just a simple robust approach which caters for 2D & 3D representation, and also provides the functionality to adjust the symbology between Solid and Symbolic geometry, as required.

Which is the best way to model rebar reinforcement by using only MicroStation Connect Edition

Top Replies