Skip to content
  • Categories
Collapse
Solibri Society Forum
  1. Home
  2. General Discussion
  3. Provision for Void check rule

Provision for Void check rule

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved General Discussion
14 Posts 4 Posters 3.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    Anees Alomar
    replied to JMann on last edited by
    #4

    @JMann Is it the rule 234?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • JMannJ Offline
      JMannJ Offline
      JMann
      wrote on last edited by JMann
      #5

      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.

      COMPENDIUM BIM + Kybernetik
      https://www.linkedin.com/company/compendium-bim-kybernetik/

      A 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • A Offline
        A Offline
        Anees Alomar
        replied to JMann on last edited by
        #6

        @JMann Ok, Thank you very much

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • agroniA Offline
          agroniA Offline
          agroni
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          I also use this rule:

          1. Check if a pipe is colliding with a ProvisionForVoid Proxy. All positive results should be taken to the next check
          2. 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

          AllesWirdGut Architecture
          www.awg.at

          A 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • A Offline
            A Offline
            Anees Alomar
            replied to agroni on last edited by
            #8

            @agroni Thank you very much 🙂

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • J Offline
              J Offline
              Jim.persson
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              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?

              A 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • A Offline
                A Offline
                Anees Alomar
                replied to Jim.persson on last edited by
                #10

                @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.

                1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • JMannJ Offline
                  JMannJ Offline
                  JMann
                  wrote on last edited by JMann
                  #11

                  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

                  COMPENDIUM BIM + Kybernetik
                  https://www.linkedin.com/company/compendium-bim-kybernetik/

                  A 1 Reply Last reply
                  2
                  • J Offline
                    J Offline
                    Jim.persson
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    Perfect 🙂 thank you for a quick reply

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • JMannJ Offline
                      JMannJ Offline
                      JMann
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #13

                      You’re welcome. Don’t forget to enable the checkbox “Check only passed components” in the first cascade rule!

                      COMPENDIUM BIM + Kybernetik
                      https://www.linkedin.com/company/compendium-bim-kybernetik/

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • A Offline
                        A Offline
                        Anees Alomar
                        replied to JMann on last edited by
                        #14

                        @JMann many thanks, I tried it and It is working, great 👍

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • G GuillermoC referenced this topic on

                        Copyright © 2025 Solibri Inc. | Powered by NodeBB

                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories