mlthrift

13 hours ago, glennw said:

You can change the terrain height (and the houses relative floor height) to 100' without redrawing or starting again.

Create a terrain and use some terrain elevation data that relates to your 100' reference - say across the middle of the site at 100', across the top of the site at 120', and across the bottom of the site at 80'.

This will build the terrain 100' higher than the house.

Open the terrain dbx and set the Subfloor Height Above Terrain to 100' (or as you want - 100' will set a flat terrain at the house floor level - Chiefs zero floor level).

If you generate Auto Storey Pole Dimensions, the levels will relate to the floor level being at zero.

This is probably not what you want - you probably want them to relate to your 100' which is your actual floor level.

Go to your Auto Storey Pole Dimension defaults...Locate Elevations...Grade Level Marker...change this to 100' and change the Elevation Reference to 1st Floor Subfloor.

Now all your elevation heights will relate to your subfloor at 100'.

 

Using 100' as an assumed datum used to be the norm down here.

100' was used mainly to keep all levels around the site a positive number.

We now mainly use an Australian Height Datum that is related to sea level.

Most jurisdictions now require this as it allows for easy relationships to adjoining sites and other services.

 

PS.

You can also set Chief up so that the Absolute floor and ceiling levels are reported as relative to your 100' elevation which means that the Room Specification dbx the Absolute Elevations will use platform levels relative to 100'.

But, from memory, I think you then need to set room floor levels on a room by room basis because the default floor level for level 1 is zero and cannot be changed.

You would not need to redraw to use this method - depending on how complicated the design is, you should be able to change your plan through the dbx's.

One advantage of using this method is that if you open a dbx for an object like a roof, the heights are reported as relative to your 100' height. ie, the roof ridge might report as something like 115' instead of 15' (relative to Chiefs zero floor level). This might be particularly important when you are using real world levels for your terrain.

 

In short, there are many ways (probably at least 3 or 4) that you can use to relate the building platform levels to the terrain.

 

If you are having trouble, post a plan and describe exactly how you want your terrain and building platforns to relate.

Or, let me know and I will do a quick Skype session with you to explain as it can get a bit involved.

Thank you! This is what I was looking for. I'm going to go as is for now, as I only have the section left to finish these plans. However, I will be adding these steps to my template to make the next home easier. You're input is appreciated!

Yes, ideally we would use the actual elevation of the site. These plans are for homes and in the bidding stage, so there hasn't been an official survey done. I'm actually not sure if or when a survey is even required here for new homes. The 100'-0" is simply a theoretical number. I'm thinking I'm going to add the datums in the detail and not use the story pole.

3 minutes ago, javatom said:

Your instructor is wrong.  I have never seen a first floor plan show at an elevation of 100'.  I doubt if it is a "standard" in any region.  Elevations on plans are set to show a construction crew how to build it.  Maybe you could post a pdf of a plan that used 100'.  Perhaps we are just not understanding what you are doing.

I can assure you the instructor is not wrong as I have seen it on numerous plans, all drawn by local licensed architects. 

I can not attach a pdf, but here is a picture of one with the elevation datums shown. The first floor is at 100'-0" with the other floors and the footing with elevations referenced from this number.

5 minutes ago, johnny said:

 

I really think you need to readjust your thinking and not try to make the floor 100'-0" from the default 0'-0" Z coordinate Chief starts at, but rather set your terrain information accordingly.  There are training videos showing this in the library.

 

I've also never heard of contractors using a set 100'-0" first floor levels - is that a regional thing?.  I know that above sea level or OHWM some start at 100'-0" instead of 0'-0", but you'd always then set the floor level in relation to the actual above sea level elevation plus the 100'-0".

 

I'll have to ask my boss if keeping the 0'-0" is acceptable as previous plans used 100'-0". It might be a regional thing. Here they teach to make the first floor at 100'-0" as the architectural drafting standard. The logic the instructor gave for it, was that it makes the elevation of below grade floors a positive elevation and not a negative. Honestly, the negative seems easier. 

2 hours ago, javatom said:

I use first floor set to 0 as the program was intended.  Everything else, including terrain is set relative to the building.

javatom,

I'm trying to use 100'-0" as the first floor level as that is what the contractors are used to seeing. I'm not sure why a -# below grade is difficult to understand, they can measure down instead of up with no math involved. It seems a negative number would prevent errors.

Thank you Chris_Kelly, I was able to get the grade set and though it's still showing negative numbers below 0'-0", it split the grade. Thanks again.

Thank you Gene,

I'll have to just let it go as is and remember to start at 100' with the next one. Dp you know is there a default I can set so that it always builds at 100' instead of 0? 

Good morning, 

I am currently working on a plan and am trying to add elevation datums to floors. 

I have a few questions - 

My first floor is showing at 0'-0", so is my grade level, even though my terrain is about 2' lower than the first floor. How do I get the auto story pole to see the terrain?

Second, is there a quicker way to make the 0'-0" for the first floor to reset to 100'-0"? 

Thanks in advance!

Marsha