Notes on the naming of section definitions. |
  
|
Notes on the naming of section definitions. |
|
When naming your custom shapes (or indeed thinking about renaming the sections from a steelwork catalogue) it is tempting to give the section size a name like “C1 – 400 x 400”, such that the name includes both the geometric size and the mark to be applied to that element. Or, even worse, to simply name the section “C1”.
It is highly recommended that this practice is NOT used. The naming of the section sizes should stick to geometric sizes such as “400 x 400”, rather than names such as “C1”.
Any ‘Mark’ data should be applied in the ‘Mark’ attribute attached to an element. CADtools Structural specifically includes the ‘Set Mark by section size’ tool to help co-ordinate values if desired.
Potential problems with section names which include the ‘mark’ include:
•Loss of knowledge. If a section size is labelled “C1”, then clicking on that element will tell you nothing of it’s actual size, until you look it up in the shapes file, or on the drawings (information outside the BIM !). It also means useful tools such as Bentley Navigator cannot tell the section size, as Navigator does not use the Structural Shapes file.
•Problems translating to analysis. GSA doesn’t understand “SB1 – UB254x102x28”, but it does understand the simple “UB254x102x28”. If the mark is included in the name, it makes it more work when translating.
•Potential problems when using IFC to share data. Same reasons as the analysis programs.
•Potential duplication of sizes. For example, section sizes such as “C1 - 400x400” and “C12 - 400x400” might be required because C12 is higher strength concrete. Again, bad idea, the ‘Grade’ and ‘Mark’ attributes can easily handle this distinction, in a better way.
•Potentially more complex resymbolisation rules. Currently, rules that add annotation can simply display whatever is in the ‘mark’ or ‘section size’ fields for that element. If the rules need to be able to split the ‘section name’ into 2 parts based on some naming convention, things get much harder.
Direct link to this topic:
© 2013 Arup