X Force Keygen Revit Live 2013 32 Bit Tam Indir
Stephanie Dejoode
It seems to me that the best way to leverage BIM is to have standard drafting view details such as door jambs and other things that should be the same in 90% of the conditions the details might occur drawn in basic 2D drafting views and use model geometry as a guide in live views to draw details where specific conditions exist. Drawing everything including enlarged sections in 2D views is more of a CAD way of thinking and drawing and causes problems when things move or shift in the 3D model or in linked consultant models.
I do both. Our first BIM project did details in drafting views only, but as we developed efficiency in the software, almost all details are from a live view. If pressed for time, I'll often overlay a detail group of something (like a reveal or post connection) with white-out fields on top of a live view. This only works if what ever I drew does not need to be shown in other views.
The only exception is for stand alone details, often a 1:5 roof drain or expansion detail. We also build our wall assembly legend in a drafting view. Easier to make clear and pretty diagrams this way. Just need discipline if ever some wanker decides to get creative with the wall type names mid-project.
BIM in my experience should be about the process. Start with a live detail and cover pieces / connections with detail families as you develop the project. Standard details are not drafting views like the old cad days but detail families. Note ect. should be embeded in the detail families. One old cad detail may need to be broken into multiple Revit detail families for correct operation. Very few details, except boiler plate stand alone details should be simple drafting views. Wall assemblies as drafting views is dangerous for coordination. The more divisions you create between the model and the information displayed the more opportunities for errors. This conversation is really really hard to move upstream to the old guard who has their cad detail library they just want to copy and paste, It seems like the simple answer but becomes a big problem when down the road there are differences between the model and drafted details. Clash detection, consultant coordination, rendering, take offs, are all junk and nearly impossible if you are using primarily drafted details. The bulk of the information should be modeled. additional information is added through drafting.
Thanks for the insights, think my coworkers for the project I am on part time are just stuck in the old CAD ways of thinking. I always like to take a moment and ask how can I use the BIM Like master Yoda asking Luke to use the force, before starting in on a task. It is frustrating when you know how to make Revit do it but your team wants to do it the analog CAD way.
I can do a Force Balance analysis to achieve the result I want at discrete linkage positions, but to generate that even at 10 degree intervals is somewhat tedious. I do this by setting the input force to 1, and the load cell is at the output on the linkage.
Ok, so I am going to assume you need the force balance in varying positions for some more complex linkage system, like a 4 bar mechanism for example. The snap that you show will have the same force ratio from output to input regardless of the angle.
The trick is to use the multi-objective Design study feature of CREO to vary the angle of the mechanism and record the force balance value as a function of the angle. You will need the behavioral modeling extension to use that feature.
Create a "motion analysis" where the definition is your force balance analysis and your parameter is your loadcell reaction measure. Be sure to highlight the parameters needed. Hit [RUN] to populate results, then [Add feature] to put it in your model tree.
Under design variables choose the dimension picker and pick on your model until you have the dimension of the angle you will vary. Change the range Min and Max to what you desire such as 0 to 360 degrees.
This is very powerful once you unlock the ability to do this. You can also vary a linkage arm dimension, not just the angle as part of the study, pretty much anything parameterized by CREO. I use it to rotate an entire assembly using a spherical coordinate system to study the effect of gravity in all possible directions.
I do wish the setup was a little more straight forward from within the Mechanism application itself, but I am glad it is possible in some form, and I am very interested in the additional optimization abilities. I have previously used excel or Matlab functions to optimize linkage parameters, but the tedium of creating force balance and position equations usually slows me down/drives errors.
What I discovered is that within the motion analysis, result params can be set to create on, or create off. I'm not sure why, but the load cell was defaulting to create no. To set to yes, edit definition of the analysis, double click on Result params, and select 'YES' for the parameter that needs to be created. The parameter will then be recordable in the multi-objective study. I attached a snapshot of the window where the parameters are turned on/off.
Good catch, They default to create - YES only if you select the loadcell parameter and hit run the first time when you create the Analysis feature. If you redefine the analysis feature because the parameters are missing (did not know you had to highlight/select them), hit next and highlight/select the parameter and run, the parameters show up but are create - NO for some really strange reason!
I have started working with the optimization study function. I can do simple studies such as vary link length to achieve desired output force for a given linkage angle. What I would like to do, is optimize the output force over the range of motion, i.e. from 0 to 60 degrees the change in force is minimized.
Is there any way to optimize for measurements taken as part of a multi-objective design study? It seams I can only optimize an analysis feature. If I had everything defined dynamically, I would be able to do what I am describing I believe, by creating an analysis feature of the dynamics. I could then create a measure of max-min force and minimize that value.
Yes I agree you would need a dynamic study to get the max/min throughout the range and then optimize on that. You should be able to slow down the analysis, adjust the mass/inertia to be negligible, and maybe add a tiny bit of damping to one or more of the joints such that your results are quasi-static. Study varying the mass, speed, and damping to assure yourself that a little variation is not affecting results significantly. Also study varying the mechanism relative tolerance from default 0.001 to 1E-4 and 1E-5 etc to ensure no significant changes there. A tighter tolerance may also help a more complex mechanism run successfully. A looser tolerance usually runs faster.
What I have is essentially an actuator on a four bar linkage. I was able to create a proper dynamic analysis that generates some outputs, for example the applied force at the end of the actuator, the velocity/acceleration of the end point.
here is one method. I am not sure if this will help you. create a design study - motion analysis and save it as a feature. then redefine and make sure CREATE yes is on the results you want. I believe I have seen this somehow change from yes to No in certain circumstances causing INVALID. Anyway, that is all I can think of at the moment.
maybe..... Check if when you right click on the motion analysis feature and choose Parameters, that the measures you are looking for are shown. I think there might be a bug because when I first did this it did not create the parameters but after trying a few times, now it seems to always make them....
...after some tries... I think I found a bug that happens when the motion analysis is first created and No parameters highlighted in the dialog. (see highlighted below) Try re-creating the motion analysis and be sure to select some parameters. Then afterward check in model tree the right-click - parameters to see them.
Invalid also occurs if the joint or reference the measure used is missing in mechanism, or not valid for the type of analysis. When I hit run for this dialog charts pop up live for the measures selected.
I'm fairly confident I've got everything set up correctly. When I run the motion analysis, results for min and max values as well as a plot of values vs time generates. It is only when I go to an optimization or objective design study where I have an issue.
This pier design example is based on AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (through 2002 interims). The design methods presented throughout the example are meant to be the most widely used in general bridge engineering practice.
7025e2c3df