Gatekeeper check

Samb

Hi guys!

I’d like to check the following:

If an MEP-guy requests a void with a certain object, that he didn’t forget the object at any place. i’d only like an issue where he didnt place the void. Screenshot over here

Rule:
-General intersection SOL/1/5.0 (Wall vs Duct) Check only failed
– General intersection SOL/1/5.0 (Duct vs object)

The problem i get is that the results i have are the ones where the object is located, nog the ones where they forgot the object.

Anyone got an idea? Thanks!

Lauri Luoma

Hey @Samb!

This is quite tricky to check… also because a MEP object (e.g. a duct) can pass multiple walls so we don’t want the duct to pass in case it has only one void in one of the walls. I’ve tried to achieve this checking in the attached model.

MEP voids rule test.smc

It’s a gatekeeper of 3 rules, first rule #234 checks how many walls a certain duct is passing,
-> check all passed components (e.g. ducts passing 1 wall).

Next rule #222 checks that there is the same amount of voids or openings close by to the duct. (same amount as walls the duct passes)
-> check all failed components (no opening or void found close to the duct)

Last rule #1 will report the ducts that are clashing with walls.

So this type of rule is made for MEP passing 1 wall, 2 walls, 3 walls… etc. Please have a look at the attached model with the example ruleset. Note that you need to define the voids in the rule to work in your own model. This might not be the perfect solution and maybe something that the Rules API could tackle. But with the existing rules this might be the solution?

Daniel D.

Hey Samb,

you could continue using your rule by adding a third rule:

-General intersection SOL/1/5.0 (Wall vs Duct) Check only failed
– General intersection SOL/1/5.0 (Duct vs object) Check only passed
—General intersection SOL/1/5.0 (Wall vs Duct)

the first rule checks for intersections of walls and ducts
(go on with ducts that collide with walls)
the second rule checks for intersections between ducts and provisions for voids
(go on with ducts that do NOT colide)
the third rule checks for intersections between walls and ducts again

as a result you should get the ducts that collide with walls without a provision for void…
I hope it works for you,

cheers, Daniel

naveedzargar

@daniel-d Hi Daniel, can you share the rule-set, as mine following the steps is not creating the desired results. Thanks

LindaFernstrom

@daniel-d Could you please share the ruleset, thanks