Provision for Void check rule

[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:

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

[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]

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:

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.:

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:

[Jim.persson]

Perfect thank you for a quick reply

[JMann]

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

[Anees Alomar]

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