Medeek Wall

I’m trying to think of a circumstance where I’d cut both top plates at the same location.

Shep

2 Likes

Tutorial 9 - Split Wall Tool (6:36 min.)

1 Like

Prefab. but we always either:
Leave the second top plate to be mounted at location
Or have little overlaps

1 Like

Having watched the tutorial now, it’s obvious - at least to me - that the envisioned use of the wall split tool is to then move - or shrink - one (or both) of the 2 co-linear and abutting walls in a way that makes them no longer co-linear and abutting. Thus the cutting both top places actually makes sense, given the likely next operation.

Yep, I get it. After seeing the video it’s clear that it’s more of an editing tool than a design tool.
The first gif made me think panelizing, where it would be a bit of a no no.

1 Like

It is primarily an editing tool but I can see where everyone is going with this. To allow for co-linear walls (panelization) I need to employ a parameter which will allow for the overlapping of the second top plate, I will need to give this some more thought. I can see the split tool also being useful in this regard as well.

Or for walls with a change in top or bottom plate elevation like this?

2 Likes

You mean like this?

View model here:

1 Like

Since the height of the top plates change when you have abutting, co-linear walls with different heights, the top plates can’t overlap.

However, I can see that, for remote construction of longer walls, to be assembled on the jobsite - or even for small crew on site work, splitting a long wall into panels (panelization) for ease of handling could well be a good thing. And in that case, while maintaining an overlap on the model might also be a good thing, I expect that the panels would be built with a single top plate, with the 2nd top plate added in the field - at which point any competent framer would strive to provide a reasonable overlap.

So while maintaining an overlap in the model might be of value for take-offs, this is one detail that I think is far more likely to be handled in the field.

2 Likes

Version 1.1.7b - 12.25.2019

  • Enabled temporary (construction) dimensions for the wall split tool.
  • Added a vertical offset to the holdown symbol(s) to eliminate Z-fighting with the wall panel top plate.

1 Like

Something that I have had on the to-do list for quite a while but have avoided it due to the many permutations and pitfalls: Stacked Windows

I have some additional testing to do, but so long as the windows line up (same x-position along wall) and they are the same width (as shown) then the algorithm seems to be successful.

The real problems arise when the windows partially overlap, or even if they are aligned but the windows widths are different. Those type of scenarios create all kinds of framing permutations which then becomes a real can of worms for the logic. I may eventually tackle it but for now I’m going to make some simple assumptions, so that I don’t become too bogged down with this problem.

1 Like

My original algorithm was too simplistic, it did not account for multiple window stacks within a wall panel, now I have that resolved:

The final step is to make sure that the blocking and insulation modules are compatible with stacked windows. As can be seen in this screen capture there is still an issue with stacked windows and blocking (right side).

Version 1.1.8 - 01.06.2019

  • Added a “Stud Spacing Offset” parameter which allows for custom stud spacing/placement.
  • Enabled stacked windows within a wall panel.

View model here:

Both of these items have been on the to-do list for quite some time and together constitute a fairly substantial upgrade to the functionality of the plugin. The offset parameter has been requested numerous times over the last few weeks.

This update does not yet allow for stacking of windows/doors or doors/doors. However, now that the logic path has been established I should be able to enable these additional possibilities much more quickly. I will see if I can knock this one out this coming week.

The same stacked windows as below but with the insulation included:

I haven’t finished the window/door stacking algorithm yet but it occurred to me that window over door is the most common configuration and not the other way around. In fact, I really see no reason to have a door over door algorithm either. Correct me if I’m wrong.

2 Likes

Now looking at stacked windows over doors:

It’s also possible that you might have multiple stacked windows over top of a door as shown to the right. A few things to consider here.

Version 1.1.9 - 01.09.2019

  • Enabled stacked windows over doors within a wall panel.

Note that for this to work correctly the king studs of the window(s) and door must align and the windows and doors must be centered on the same location within the wall.

The framing, blocking and insulation modules are now updated for stacked windows and stacked windows over doors.

View model here:

Hi Nathaniel. Nice work — the continual rate of evolution of your Medeek BIM extensions is impressive.

Just a comment on the stacked openings framing: The load is carried by the topmost header, so adding headers over each lower opening is redundant and simply increases thermal bridging and material/labour costs.

I just read a good primer on various header options and approaches — including eliminating them completely on non-supporting exterior walls — that might be of some interest:

As a broader question: have you given any thought to having an O.V.E. (Advanced Framing) option?

This approach is becoming more widely adopted as people (and codes) have started recognizing the issues with traditional framing approaches — especially wrt thermal bridging and lowered r-values for the overall wall assembly.

3 Likes

I agree the lower headers do not need to be anywhere as substantial as the top header in a stacked array of windows and/or doors.

The plugin allows for the independent editing of each opening and its header so the user can easily adjust each header to an appropriate size.

I’ve spent some time looking at advanced framing and from a structural standpoint I am more in favor of traditional framing practices even though you may take a penalty for energy conservation. I guess my structural engineering background leaves me a bit biased in this regard.

To put it a different way then: the reason I haven’t invested in your extension (yet) is because of the lack of an OVE option — the houses we design all use some form of advanced framing / non-traditional wall assemblies. And I suspect an ever-increasing number of your (potential) customers have — or will have — a similar need.

The proper application of building science ensures that structural engineering needs are met, while providing much higher-performing assemblies and envelopes.

Engineers and builders tend to be a pretty conservative lot, so I understand the reluctance to move away from traditional approaches — but this is the way modern residential construction is moving. And it is being driven by evolving and ever more-demanding codes:

2 Likes

Just because I don’t personally subscribe to the tenets of advanced framing doesn’t mean you can’t make the plugins work to meet your framing needs. What features are you looking for specifically? I have tried to make as many options as possible to increase the flexibility of the plugins.

1 Like