Bond Beam for Aerated Concrete Blocks

I am using HD Pro 2014.

I am using a concrete block as a framing material. I want to show a bond beam layer in the wall. I have found I can do this by defining a pony wall with the lower section normal blocks, and a top layer as a different block to represent the bond beam. Works ok (though the material list quantities always defy my logic).

Is there a better or more efficient way to do this? I do not want to find later this method leads to other problems.

I assume also that any embedded rebar or joist hangars on the bond beam will need to be drawn manually?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davemurray

I am using HD Pro 2014.

I am using a concrete block as a framing material. I want to show a bond beam layer in the wall. I have found I can do this by defining a pony wall with the lower section normal blocks, and a top layer as a different block to represent the bond beam. Works ok (though the material list quantities always defy my logic).

Is there a better or more efficient way to do this? I do not want to find later this method leads to other problems.

(if it doesn't matter if the material shows up correctly in the material list, which isn't usually perfect anyway, but can be modified manually to fit the need) and depending on what you actually want to show, the soffit tool might be the best thing, you can set the size and change it's material to the CMU or concrete. You can always add notes in plan, wall sections, other details by using CAD lines and notes for code review, builder/contractor use.

I assume also that any embedded rebar or joist hangars on the bond beam will need to be drawn manually?

---

For the up close and personal details, I usually do a detail sheet. I like to copy and paste PDF's of selected details you can pull off he web, then "over-draw" them CAD tools, add notes, then select the original PDF and delete it. Of course not to stir a stink.....be sure you don't use the copy write protected sites or versions.

BB,

Thanks. Good idea. I was planning to pull the PDF files in for a few items but never thought of just tracing over them. Thanks for your suggestion.

Don't rely on any HD Software Material lists , they are pitiful to say the least , a complete waste of time... certainly don't use them for bidding anything, Chief's are no better from what I have seen over at ChiefTalk.

Mick, thanks. I have done a lot of programming. Computers only do what they are told to do. If I could only find what the material list calculation rules were it might actually be a good tool, but these seem sketchy. I have to agree with you.

Dave

Dave, while I agree whole-heartedly that the material list IS lacking, with over 50 years of design and construction under my belt, I like to use the list as a template, and modify quantities, materials, substitute product info etc., plugging in MY numbers w/$ for the +/- take-off for pricing and bidding. It works pretty good that way, and still saves some time/brain energy. The novice or one-time designer/builder would better themselves to let several builders do the take-off and provide the budget number. Some contractor's wll gladly share the material lists (w/o the $ assigned) then you can compare to the HD generated ML.

Bob, I hope I can get there! Just trying to get the mysteries out of the list so I can do as you say. Dave

I beg to differ with KBIRD's assessment of the Materials List tool in Home Designer Pro as "pitiful". What it does is measures exactly what is placed and how it was placed into the plan file by the end user, nothing more or less. It is not an estimating application, but rather a measuring one. It measures the competence of the 3D modeler's ability to emulate a building exactly as it will be built in the field.
If that virtual building is carefully put together then the Materials List that results from it is accurate and useful. In order to do that one has to fully master the software's tools and procedures. Any short cuts, errora or mistakes then through off the resulting Materials List.

Such a plan file takes me quite a few additional hours of work to accomplish and check. Few have been the clients I have had who are willing to pay for the additional time required to create such a plan file. Just to create 3D views and Construction Documents takes a lot less time and skill to accomplish.

The number of end users willing to learn the software to the degree necessary are scarce as well, I have observed over the years.

DJP

David,

I have scoured the reference manual. There are sections that describe how quantities of material are calculated depending on the type. It would be nice if there were reference markers in the plan to the line items in the material list. Then it would be easier to match the plan to the list. Without this and without a lot of experience knowing exactly which setting is driving an item or quantity it is painstaking to track it all down. For example, when I created a modified wall using concrete blocks as the main layer, I find them showing up as roofing material. It took me forever to find that the program was using these for soffits. The only way I found that was one dimension being off from my block dimensions. The software only does what it is told to do, but that is the difficulty. The results are not pitiful, but without the ability to cross check the calculations or review in detail it is hard to trust the output. Another example, I finally learned that if I removed the outer stucco layer in my wall I could see the blocks in cross section, and then I could count layers to see it was right. It should not be this hard.

Dave,

I commonly use Chief Architect Premier on a daily basis. It is a lot more capable, relative to 3D modeling than Home Designer Pro. The main difference (other than price) between the Premier and Home Designer Pro are additional productivity tools and how finely you can emulate actual construction in a virtual 3D model.
These additional tools take time to learn in order to be useful to anyone. There are many, many tools that go unlearned and unused just in Home Designer Pro and even more so with Premier.
To a person with high standards, especially a learner, the learning curve seems steep because it is steep and the demands upon ones own methodical approach and operating basis are exacting.
I cannot respond to the question "is it too hard", that is something one answers for themselves, moment by moment as they work.
I love what I do and I have a lot of affinity for Chief Architect Inc software but at the same time acknowledging the fact that it is not in any way "perfect" but it is totally workable and useful to my creative needs.
There is little difference in the Materials List tool set in Home Designer Pro and Chief Architect Premier, I dare say the tools are functionally identical in both applications.

The first job I was given when I started using Chief Architect Premier in 1994 by my then boss was to find out how to use the Materials List tool for our business. When I had spent enough time to really investigate, experiment and use that tool I recommended to my boss that we not use it because the level of skill necessary to affect an accurate materials list was beyond the willingness and intelligence of most of our sales people to learn how to create a perfect 3D model. I have not changed my mind since then to now. I finally gained the skill and judgement to be able when required to do that exacting level of work. Is it too hard, only the individual can make that decision for themselves.

DJP