Provision for Void check rule

Anees Alomar

Is there a rule that checks if, Every pipe or duct that is going through a wall, must have a provision for Void element?

JMann

Hey Jim,

yes there is. The order of the cascaded ruleset stays the same. Just take the components, which don’t collide with a provision for void to the next check (elements which passed the first rule = no collision with a provision for void). If a collision with a wall is detected you know that there is a void missing.

Here you see the cascaded ruleset:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-06-30 um 13.44.40.png

Here are the settings for the first step. The elements in the component 1 filter are your voids, elements in the component 2 filter your pipes, etc.:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-06-30 um 13.44.58.png

And the settings for the second step of the cascade. Elements of the component 1 filter are the pipes etc. which passed the first cascade, elements of the component 2 filter the parts of the structural or architectural model you want to check for collisions:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-06-30 um 13.45.10.png

JMann

Hi Anees,
I use self-configuring rules.
1: Check, if Ducts/Pipes/etc. collide with a provision for void element
2. check only the elements which do not collide with provision for voids if they collide with walls etc.

Works ok for me. It does not give the right results e.g. if an element collides both with provision for void and at a different position of the model with a wall.

Anees Alomar

@JMann Thanks for your reply, so you are using the same rule two times?

Anees Alomar

@JMann Is it the rule 234?

JMann

Yes, I use the same rule two times (general intersection rule) and put one under the other one.
#234 doesn’t work for that. Use rule #1.

Anees Alomar

@JMann Ok, Thank you very much

agroni

I also use this rule:

Check if a pipe is colliding with a ProvisionForVoid Proxy. All positive results should be taken to the next check
Check if pipe is colliding with a concrete element

I devide these into Walls and Slabs, to have a better understanding.

You can achieve this only with a cascaded ruleset. One rule won’t do the job

Anees Alomar

@agroni Thank you very much

Jim.persson

Is there a possibility to turn the rule the other way and get results where the compnent is colliding with a wall and missing a Provisionforvoid object?

Anees Alomar

@Jim-persson that was exactly my question, anyway, I couldn’t get the solutions mentioned above to be working yet. I will post the results as soon as I get a working solution.

JMann