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.
  • JMannJ Offline
    JMannJ Offline
    JMann
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    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.

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

    A 2 Replies Last reply
    1
    • A Offline
      A Offline
      Anees Alomar
      replied to JMann on last edited by
      #3

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

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • 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