Historical building surveyed and modeled in Rhinoceros

[MarCur]

I've build a 3d model of an urban building block in Italy. And for surveying purposes I've drawn 2D layouts of plans, sections and so on.

 

Let's say it's made up of three main buildings built in continuity each other, sharing walls and other parts.

Since It has been built in different "ages" the parts have not the same ground level nor the first floor elevation is matching across the various parts (have look at attached transversal section). 

Load bearing masonry construction technique is used for walls which are not the same width here and there.

Rooms have vaulted ceilings of various shapes.

 

Since the work should soon pass a next step toward architectural restoration and planning I need to work it on VW (which i'm pretty new).

I need some advices and suggestions to make the workflow as neat as possible.

 

Would you recommend setting up VW stories?

 

Rhino model is build so that surfaces that makes vaults and interior wall faces are not joined together but independent. This said what If I want to import the Rhino 3d model so that it can be handles in VW? I mean is there a way to make the vertical surfaces be imported so that I can set 'em as walls in VW, and therefore accept opening placing (doors, windows etc...).

 

 

[P Retondo]

You will probably have to reconstruct the model in VW using the imported Rhino model for all dimensions.  It will take maybe 40 hours for a proficient user, but for a new user, a fantastic opportunity to learn the software.

 

Using stories is optional.  Other experienced users may differ, but since stories was designed to make changing story-to-story heights easier, it’s not a capability and complication you need.

[line-weight]

two potential strategies:

 

1.

- import all of the "historical building" walls and vaults, etc as generic solids - in other words don't attempt to convert them into "walls"

- then you need to accept that any new door/window openings or alterations you make will have to be done manually. It's quite possible to do it manually

- if you want to convert any of those walls into multi-layer buildups (for example if you want to show plaster or other finishes internally) then you will also have to model these manually (possible but pretty tedious) OR you could simply add them in 2d only, using the annotations space on your drawing sheets.

- the advantage of this strategy is that you can import everything and avoid a lot of re-drawing.

 

2.

- Try and recreate the building using VW "walls". As @P Retondosays you will probably have to reconstruct the model (there's no way for VW to automatically convert)

- I'd say that this is only feasible if you are willing to accept some compromise/approximation in the geometry. For example, creating a wall with non-parallel sides is virtually impossible in VW. You might make a pragmatic decision that losing the geometrical accuracy is worth it because of what you can then do with "wall" objects (easily insert openings, depict layered buildups, etc)

- Looking at the drawings I think you'd end up really fighting the system to recreate it all using wall objects. I think you'd spend a lot of time trying to make things work that didn't want to. Apart from anything else, I don't think you could recreate the vaulted ceilings usefully, using any VW parametric objects.

 

So it really depends what the priorities of the project are. But for me, if I could manage to import the geometry you've already got, as clean VW solids, I think I would go with that (strategy 1) rather than attempting to convert it into parametric VW objects.

 

On stories - I'd probably agree with @P Retondothat it would be unneccessary complication for this. However, you might want to try and split the geometry into layers that correspond with storeys - just for ease of editing, navigating and keeping things generally under control.

 

I'll be interested to hear how you get on with this because really most of the standard VW tools assume all buildings to be basically rectilinear and new and aren't able to cope with this kind of thing all that well.

[MarCur]

Thank you @P Retondo and @line-weight.

You both pointed out some good criteria to think about.

 

The fact that the model was built with rhinoceros3D is obviously connected to the capability of Rhino to handle such challenging  irregular models by designing surfaces.

That said  once the actual survey is here, at present we need to handle it to design the new property's desires (the building in it's complexity will include both residential and commercial activities).

So, for architectural planing need of the various rooms it's clear that actual geometrical accuracy is a must. Neverthless the project layout needs to be approved by local authorities and therefore what we have has to be drawn as is. So no shortcuts.

 

At moment basing the decision on your suggestions I may consider an approach to strategy 1 by line-wight that would imply:

• join the various surfaces in rhinoceros so to end up with solids for walls and solids for vaulted ceilings, floors and so on.
• importing the model so that the solids elements can be processed in VW with boolean operation if needed. (Closing or opening holes for doors, windows etc, if needed). 
  • the smart thing of this approach for holes would be the capability of putting a parametric windows for example in the already made hole and deal as needed. (am I wrong about this assumption?).

 

One more thing that may be straightforward for you but that makes me dizzy at present: 

let's say that as you both suggest the story approach has to be left apart. I'm Ok with that. Now I need to choose the less painful way to import the elements so that theyy lay on the proper design layer (ground elevation and wall eight)

 

 

 

 

[line-weight]

Yes - the solid elements could be processed with solid additions/subtractions etc. I would recommend that you try and import these as a number of solid elements, rather than the whole mass of walls & ceilings as one object. This will make it easier to manage and to troubleshoot if you start having issues with any of these boolean operations. Exactly how you divide it up will need a bit of thought. It could also present you with some issues when you come to generating sections (VW knows to "glue" connected wall objects together without drawing a line on section where they join but it won't do this with solids) but there are ways of getting around this.

 

Yes, you can still put a parametric window or door into a manually modelled opening.

 

As for design layer ground elevations etc - although VW is set up so that you can give each design layer a "ground elevation" and wall height, you don't have to use this. You can have multiple layers all set with a ground elevation of zero, and then place any objects relative to zero rather than relative to a layer elevation. There are a few advantages and disadvantages to this, and it affects how the elevation of things like doors and windows are determined but I actually often set all my design layers to zero height because I find the advantages outweigh the disadvantages especially for buildings that are only 2 or 3 storeys high. I think with your building I'd do the same. Then it ought to be the case that you can import everything relative to the same height datum.

[zoomer]

You want to set a Story System only when you will profit from Story Levels.

Otherwise you can pretty much do the same by just manually giving Layers

a Layer Height.

Which is useful for drawing/modeling or putting library elements into it,

on the correct Story and height.

 

So you may still want to use a Story Setup with Levels for your architectural

design later. For your existing geometry in special I would say you don't need

that extra complication - but it would not hurt either.

 

 

For your existing building I would also prefer the Generic Solids + 3D Modeling

approach vs trying to force the geometry into VW's restricted BIM PIO Tools.

(also because your existing geometry will likely not change much)

I would use those Tools later for your design.

[zoomer]

And if I decide I will want a Story System, but have Geometry Imports,

where most are not VW Layer Height standard ready, as they usually

Z heights by object, related to Z=0.00

I will import them Layer (Story) by Layer (Story) and move all content

by the negative value of their Layer Height manually,

to bring all Stories objects back to their proper height in VW.

(where object Z positions are calculated from the Layer Z Base)

 

That is tedious but manageable.

As long as there are no later changes and re-imports needed.

 

[zoomer]

I also would try to separate your geometry in Rhino for

Walls, Slabs, Columns, ..... and usefully slice larger wall complexes

before exporting.

So later you can better IFC tag all your existing objects.

[line-weight]

I've had some success with the strategy described here

 

https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/83697-multi-storey-building-all-in-one-storey-would-this-work/#comment-393698

 

[shorter]

What benefit is there to rebuilding this as 'walls'?  It's an existing building.  Walls are not ideal in existing buildings were the wall thickness varies, and the walls are not vertical or straight.  Best as a solid, which you then 'cut' using HSVP or Auto-Hybrid.

 

You then use solid addition and subtraction when editing the existing walls, and use 'walls' for all new build.

 

Building a multi-storey building in one storey would only be permissible within Vectorworks.  It would not be advisable if you have to export IFC since you will not be able to attributes any element to different floors.

[zoomer]

2 hours ago, shorter said:

What benefit is there to rebuilding this as 'walls'? 

 

 

To be able to use the comfortable VW pseudo Top Plan realtime Plan "Section" and not need to ....

 

2 hours ago, shorter said:

then 'cut' using HSVP or Auto-Hybrid.

 

 

Which may an advantage for some users.

(But I am totally with you better using generic solids in this case and 

use PIO for the New only)

 

[shorter]

In such a workflow the existing can then come from whatever software you like, as long as it can be brought into VW as solid.

 

We have a nice workflow from Rhino to VW, but equally IFC to VW works well except for the fact that an IFC delivered by BIM software rarely captures the existng building accurately enough.

[zoomer]

29 minutes ago, shorter said:

but equally IFC to VW works well except

 

Never worked for me.

I hate the overhead in VW to put the geometry into that IFC-Object container,

which can likely contain additional myriads of nested groups.

 

Yes, IFC references from 3rd parties were never meant to be touched.

But even if I do not touch or change the building geometry in general,

I may still want to sort Classes, add or change Materials, simplify,

repair crappy Meshes, ....

 

Even for the added complexity of the hindering VW IFC container itself,

i feel a strong feeling to "explode" them.

But usually the whole IFC tagging is assigned to the VW IFC Container only,

so exploding them would make me lose all BIM information.

 

 

I am happy for him that he has a realistic chance to bring in Solids.

[shorter]

Explode the ifc entities to get at the true geometry

[shorter]

And then classify it.

 

the BIM information is worthless really unless you are passing the information on but who does that?

[MarCur]

23 hours ago, shorter said:

 'cut' using HSVP or Auto-Hybrid.

 

 

Can you please tell me what HSVP mean?

 

And I need an explanation on the term PIO too.

 

I think that in the Italian version some commands terms are not matching English one.

 

I think that I need to try and download the user guide in English too so that I may better interact on this forum.

 

23 hours ago, shorter said:

 

 

[shorter]

1 hour ago, MarCur said:

 

Can you please tell me what HSVP mean?

 

And I need an explanation on the term PIO too.

 

I think that in the Italian version some commands terms are not matching English one.

 

I think that I need to try and download the user guide in English too so that I may better interact on this forum.

 

 

Apologies.

 

HSVP is 'Horizontal Section Viewport'.  'PIO' is 'Plug-in Object', eg. Wall, Door, Window.

[shorter]

We are just tussling with a survey 'modelled' (and I use that term very loosely) in Revit, issued with ±40mm tolerance.

 

This means a wall that it out of whack 80mm in the vertical, is modelled vertical, i.e. it could be -40mm at the bottom and +40mm at the top.

 

When we are trying to model against that and to 'construction' tolerances, one wonders why we are bothering.

 

To some extent this is worse than the engineer modelling off of the as-built plan, versus the architect modelling off the 2D survey.  The 3D survey suddenly becomes the go to for 'BIM' and yet is hopelessly inaccurate.

[zoomer]

21 hours ago, shorter said:

Explode the ifc entities to get at the true geometry

 

Yes in theory.

 

But often I saw VW importing BIM objects containing lots of hierarchical unnecessary groups.

E.g. 3 nested groups that just contain a next group until you reach the next group with content.

So have to ungroup quit a lot.

And as all info and attributes is for the IFC Container only, you will receive just a bunch of dumb

geometry which you can't even Select selectively for certain object types ....

Something which will look like a 3D DXF import on one Layer and Class from the mid 90ies.

 

Completely redrawing everything may be faster in the end.

 

So I do not get the idea of VW importing IFC Objects into an extra Container Object.

Have not seen this anywhere else so far.

 

 

Take a look at Revit Imports.

E.G. Revit Doors.

When importing you can choose to convert RVT (family ?) BIM objects to VW PIOs.

(To avoid everything coming in into similar Revit Containers)

OK, these converted Doors are pretty useless and annoying in VW for various reasons,

in case you want to edit them - but hey, you can tediously work with them and they

will at least insert in and cut Walls.

[P Retondo]

If you are going to do your work by manipulating the generic solid objects, why wouldn't you just use Rhino?  It's just as good, if not better, than VW for such work.

[shorter]

On 8/9/2022 at 7:22 PM, zoomer said:

 

Yes in theory.

 

But often I saw VW importing BIM objects containing lots of hierarchical unnecessary groups.

E.g. 3 nested groups that just contain a next group until you reach the next group with content.

So have to ungroup quit a lot.

And as all info and attributes is for the IFC Container only, you will receive just a bunch of dumb

geometry which you can't even Select selectively for certain object types ....

Something which will look like a 3D DXF import on one Layer and Class from the mid 90ies.

 

Completely redrawing everything may be faster in the end.

 

So I do not get the idea of VW importing IFC Objects into an extra Container Object.

Have not seen this anywhere else so far.

 

 

Take a look at Revit Imports.

E.G. Revit Doors.

When importing you can choose to convert RVT (family ?) BIM objects to VW PIOs.

(To avoid everything coming in into similar Revit Containers)

OK, these converted Doors are pretty useless and annoying in VW for various reasons,

in case you want to edit them - but hey, you can tediously work with them and they

will at least insert in and cut Walls.

 

All third party geomtery need tidying up.  It is a myth, and naive to think you can really use data from another file format without editing it in some way.  This is why we never reference DWG or IFC directly.

[MarCur]

On 8/11/2022 at 7:13 AM, P Retondo said:

If you are going to do your work by manipulating the generic solid objects, why wouldn't you just use Rhino?  It's just as good, if not better, than VW for such work.

As pointed in my first post Rhino is not so cousy when it's up to make architectural designin' for interiors etc. So when you have to modify few elements like an internal wall division it'so time consuming that's better to spend time now and export the solid model from Rhino to VW that than while in rush for client approval. 

[MarCur]

Anyway, I've started the migration process from Rhino to VW and I'm dealing at present with the "simplier" building of the block that has almost straight masonery walls.

One odd thing I'm noticing is that some solids are not showed as such while using the "volume section" tool (I don't know if it's this the english name of the tool).

I connot clearly identify what may be causing this since the solids are perfectly watertight, without naked edges or non-manifold edges.

I'm attaching screen cap and vw file.  

 

via_di_Bari-import3DM.vwx

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, MarCur said:

One odd thing I'm noticing is that some solids are not showed as such while using the "volume section" tool (I don't know if it's this the english name of the tool).

I connot clearly identify what may be causing this since the solids are perfectly watertight, without naked edges or non-manifold edges.

 

It is called "Clip Cube in VW.

(BTW pressing CTRL (or ALT or such) when reactivating will bring you the last Clip Cube configuration back)

 

This can happen if Solids sightly overlap.

Like when an interior Wall intrudes a Slab and such.

(But normally this happens only for the overlapping part ... not the whole object !)

You can usually check if your imported Solids are really problem free

by using the PushPullTool. If PPT will not allow to move a Face,

something may be corrupt though.

 

 

If I look at your current import screenshots only,

I would say that is something that you would do - once you are used to

and comfortable with Vectorworks - at least as fast and easy as in

Sketchup or Rhino .... with later parametric control ....

 

It is only when I look at your first screenshots of the whole Building,

where I would propose going with Generic Solids, instead of forcing and

misusing standard VW BIM PIOs.

[P Retondo]

If those are wall objects, there could be a couple of explanations.  One is the class of the inner component may be turned off.  Another is the height of the component.  That can be very difficult to understand and to track down, but the way component heights are determined can be different within the same wall.  Check each component's top and bottom constraints, and if they are different, change them to the constraint parameters that the outer components are using, since they look correct in your section.