This support article describes best practices that will help you troubleshoot performance issues that you might face when modeling pour objects and pour breaks.
There are several operations in Tekla Structures that require geometrical calculations of pour objects, for example, opening a model or view, creating a general arrangement drawingdrawing that is created from one or more model views and that shows information needed to understand the general arrangement of structural elements on a project
General arrangement drawings show how parts, assemblies, cast units, or pour objects are located in a building.
with pour objects in the view, adding pour breaks, adapting pour breaks, adding, modifying or deleting cast-in-place parts that form a pour objectbuilding object that is formed of one or more cast-in-place concrete parts, or parts of cast-in-place concrete parts
The cast-in-place concrete parts are merged into one pour object if they have the same material grade and pour phase, and if they touch each other. Pour objects are visible in pour view.
The more complex a pour object is, the longer these operations might take. Pour object complexity increases with the following:
- Higher number of parts creating a pour object.
- Higher number of faces in a pour object. The number of faces may increase dramatically when the pour object contains curved parts or segments.
- Higher number of cuts in parts.
- Higher complexity of the cuts (for example, round cuts).
- Higher number of pour breaks splitting a single part.
- Higher complexity of pour breaks (for example, dependent breaks, polyline pour breaks, etc).
A complex slabplate that represents a concrete structure
In Tekla Structures, a slab is created by picking three or more points.
Slab may be part of a floor, for example.
made of one single part, curved chamfers, several complex cuts and split by several dependent pour breaks.
If you face performance issues, it is a good idea to reduce the complexity of parts, cuts, and pour breaks that make up the pour objects. It is difficult to give categorical advice because cases vary a lot and might be affected by several variables. For example, in some cases increasing the number of parts actually helps to reduce the number of pour breaks that split a single part. The following sections will give you tips on how to improve performance by reducing the complexity of the model, focusing on using pour breaks more effectively. The examples are just simplifications of much more complex cases, simplified for the purpose of explaining the concepts.
Prioritize pour phases over pours breaks
Additionally, when you use pour phases, you are always guaranteed that the pour objects will be formed correctly, as sometimes the pour breaks might fail to split a particularly challenging geometry.
Reduce the number of pour breaks in a single part
The general rule of thumb is that the fewer pour breaks splitting a single part, the better. For example, modifying a part with many pour breaks will take longer than modifying a part with fewer (or without) pour breaks since all those pour breaks need to be adapted to that part’s change.
This is especially true if the parts in question are quite complex, for example, have a large number of faces, round edges, several cuts, complex profiles, etc.
a) A single part representing a tunnel, split with several pour breaks.
b) Preferred arrangement, where the tunnel has been constructed using more than one part (different parts shown in different color).
Reduce the number of dependent pour breaks
. Dependent pour breaks are inherently slower than other pour breaks. The performance is further compromised when the amount of pour break dependencies increases. This is because adapting one pour break might trigger adaptivityautomatic linking of model objects to another model object
For example, reinforcement and surface treatment automatically adapt to the changes made to the part they are linked with.
on other dependent pour breaks, which consumes time.
As mentioned before, you should try to create pour objects using pour phases, or at least reduce the number of dependent pour breaks. If you cannot avoid dependent pour breaks, try not to have so many pour breaks in the same part.
A simple example is illustrated below, where the preferred configuration is shown in image b). Parts with different pour phases are shown in different color. By modeling this way, you can reduce the number of dependent pour breaks and also ensure that there is only one dependent pour break in each part.
a) Cast-in-place slab split by several dependent breaks.
b) Two separate slabs (indicated by different color) used to construct the same pour geometry by replacing one dependent pour break.