×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office
8

Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

(OP)
We are strongly contemplating a purchase of Revit Structure software and implementing it in our company. We are a small structural consulting firm of 6 people and work in a variety of sectors from residential (single, multi-family, commercial, and industrial) Most of our projects would be considered small to medium sized - we avoid large projects because we simply don't have the resources to be stuck on projects for lengthy periods of time. We work in all types of materials, wood, steel, concrete, masonry, steel stud, etc.
We are starting to see more and more architects and designers using REVIT, and want to be sure that we aren't being left behind. We also feel that it could provide a superior drawing package for some of our projects, due to the fact that we could incorporate 3D views into our drawings. The main drawback is that the initial cost of purchasing everyone a license is huge - between 40-50k for our office. That's a lot of drafting time! For your information, we currently use AutoCAD LT for all of our drafting. We occasionally use the services of a contract draftsman when we need some Revit work done, such as extracting 2D drawings from the architectural Revit model, preparing a drawing for import in ETABS, etc.

I would like to hear from other structural firms who have taken this step in the last few years, or are maybe weighing the decision to do so in the near future.
Do you find that the quality of your drawings has improved? Do you find that the drafting / design process has become more efficient? How long did it take for your drafting team to become fairly proficient with the program? Did you have/do you still have any frustrations with the program and/or the drawings produced with it? Any feedback from clients indicating whether or not they appreciate the new drawings, etc?
When you did a cost analysis before implementing Revit, did the numbers show that it was worth taking the step? Have the numbers born that out?
For those who are weighing the idea, what other concerns or expectations do you have?

I would really appreciate any feedback from other engineers, managers, and draftspeople on this topic!

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I work in a small firm (<10 in the building division) and we are in the infancy of Revit Architecture implementation. While we are just getting going, I will say, it is a HUGE learning curve for our draftsmen/engineers that have done a lot of projects in CAD. We have dabbled in it for several years, but are finally committing to full implementation. Also, it is quite costly (in our area) to find someone with Revit experience that will work for what an experienced drafter would make. Another drawback is the amount of time to draft an accurate representation of existing buildings for retrofit is significantly higher than with CAD programs. Even new projects take a huge amount of time on the front end.

With that said, I can see huge advantages to working with a BIM product. Even though the legwork has to be thorough and accurate in the beginning, the ability to modify and make changes down the road is much less labor intensive. There is a significant reduction in missed dimensions and things not being modified from sheet to sheet as in CAD drawings. We haven't got to a point where we are coordinating our drawings with other trades so I can't comment on that aspect of the program. The ability to move quickly through the plans sets and the ability to see what changes are being made to the plans as our drafters are working on them, are two great advantages to Revit over CAD.

Ultimately, I think it is going to be a great step forward for our company once we get up to full operating speed.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

X2 for Badger's comments. Revit implementation summary:

- my drawings actually look worse.
- I have a much harder time turning a profit.
- previous comments are exacerbated for wood frame and reno.
- not much luck integrating with FEM packages yet.
- backwards incompatibility issues are a pain.
- shows great promise for a future that I hope to see actually come to pass.
- no brainer for taller buildings.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

We tried it with some other consultants but everybody had to have the same version of the same product. Then some subs had add-on packages that didn't work with everybody else's. Some had hardware that had to be updated. We were never able to decide on who had rights to update the "Model". It (Revit) was abandoned and we went conventional.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

3
It is a great tool for the architects. They can make pretty drawings and put on a great dog and pony show once they have trained their staff to work in Revit. When you get into the nuts and bolts of the project like we tend to do, that is where the software shows its weakness. Most use detail components for the more complex features. These are simple dumb 2D drawings that you place over the polygon objects that define the basic geometry. Within those most use the various tricks such as cover ups or masking regions to hide model errors or software short comings. Revit is really good with simple polygon objects, but beyond that you may need to create a lot of your own families if you want to show things correctly and you cannot find them on Revit City or another site.

There are some projects that it works very well for, but if you work with a lot of unique aspects it can be extremely frustrating. We had a flat roof shop with a mono-sloped office area. The shop was incredibly easy to model and detail, but we spent a ridiculous number of hours on the office area and in the end I was not happy about the quality of the information we generated. Another project that was a simple two storey office building went very well because all of the elements were quite simple. We even created a short video when the modeling was done that went over fairly well.

To get around some of the problems Buggar mentioned, the Arch has set out some of the parameters at the beginning. That will not solve the architect control issue, but that is another story. If subs like the mechanical trades are working with other more advanced software they may not play well with Revit. Software like Inventor has tools to dumb down models for Revit, but many of the other popular 3D software packages do not. Going back and forth between software packages can be difficult if any of your providers do not have sufficient resources to keep up with updates.

Do not underestimate the time to train your staff. This is one of the bigger problems with Revit right now. It is a very intuitive package for many structural guys that do 3D modeling, but this is not the case some draftsman. Like so many other packages the best method to learn is thru trail and error. You can go to endless training sessions, but at the end of the day the best way for each to learn is to struggle thru the process. Not all are willing to do that so make sure you have one or two keeners that may be interested in doing this. If not, you could end up being the one doing it, and it is a time killer. If you think you can just hire a new person, that is not easy either. Revit is not being taught that much in college yet, so they are not the easiest to come by.

I attached an excerpt from a Harvard article where they were interviewing a client about BIM and the subject of fees.

At this point I have mixed feelings about Revit. I hope some aspects improve in time.

We too are a small firm.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Very well said, Brad and the link was a good caveat. We frequently bring in product sales guys to talk to our clients about products they want to use for the client's project, has anyone had a Revit sales person meet with the owner and make firm commitments on what was going to happen with his design? And attend project design meetings?

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I used to work in a medium sized firm that used both AutoCAD and Revit. The revit drawings looked much worse than the CAD. We had a full-time CAD guru too that was also a revit guru. He had trouble making Revit look good.

Since going out on my own, I don't use Revit and won't, unless I am asked to, and then I might turn the client away. My opinion of revit is the same as my opinion of structural FEA programs, a great tool, but ultimately doesn't cover it. For example, there will never be a program you can build a building in, hit one button and spit out the design for everything. Judgment is required for so much, from connections, to diaphragms, to assumptions, etc. In the similar vein Revit is great for simple things, but once you get outside that, which every project does to some extent, you create more work for yourself.

Two Revit examples:

1. An arch had a "flat roof area" on their plans. Of course, it had 1/4" slopes, but they modeled it as flat and then their roof plan added lines for the slopes, etc. Well, when you model the roof joists...it doesn't quite work out very well. They didn't want to model the actual slope.

2. An arch had a barrel roof shown. They created their sections in AutoCAD and imported them into revit. The working points were not close, the radius was vastly different, and it was just a picture.

Basically, you put yourself at the mercy of the others you're coordinating with. That can cost $$$ if they aren't doing it right.

Ultimately, I think Revit is a good attempt to solve a problem. But it tries to do too much of the work for you, and in my opinion, ends up creating more problems than it solves. AutoCAD gives full flexibility to draw whatever you want. It makes you think as you draw out the details. It serves for me as a check, because as I draw, I go back through the design in my head. Maybe Revit will get there, but I don't think it's there yet. And again, you're at the mercy of the least qualified Revit design team member. Or so is my experience.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I get to review tons of big box arch. and engineering drawings doing metal stud shop drawings. I have seen a trend where the quality of section details is just awful. I assume they are now being created with some sort of BIM package such as Revit. They used to be a alot better.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (XR250)

I have seen a trend where the quality of section details is just awful.

I can't ever seem to get a project specific BIM section to look as clean as my old non-project specific section. And if I suggest that we go with something other than a "live" section cut, my BIM guys look at me as though I have either soiled myself or fundamentally challenged their right to exist.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I'm no expert in Revit (we have some CAD people we hired specifically as experts, but I haven't seen results yet), but what I've noticed for CAD is you have to factor in personalities. Older CAD personnel might tend to resist everything new (or different). We changed from AutoCAD to Microstation and it was, in short, difficult. Some of the CAD people took it in stride, but others complained and slow walked the whole procedure to this day. Same issues when we started to use 3D. And before you say, "just get rid of the problem..." these are our most knowledgeable designers. They're stubborn or older or just set in their ways. It's not just an age issue, but our expert designers tend to be on the higher side of 50.
I'm saying, if you have a small group, are you going to get the buy in? Are these curious people who like to learn?

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

The way I see it, the decision has little to do with what we prefer as engineers. What clients want, ultimately clients get. If you see a strong client demand for Revit in the future, then that's probably the way to go. And it's best to be out in front when it comes to addressing the needs of our client.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

On the subject of training I forgot to mention the real racket for the software re-sellers is training. When you start to look at this you may want to hire them to setup your base templates and create some of the families you will need. Be prepared for quotes in the realm of $195/hr (CAN$) for a tech. We even looked at options in the US and found it was not that different. Not in a million years will I pay that for a tech. We found Lynda.com to be a very good online training tool and one can use it as and when you need.

Add-ons are another pet peeve. The number of these on the market now continues to grow. Initially some are not too costly, but the long term costs tend to add up. We find that many times we only need a small part of the add-on to detail the aspects we need to and that is annoying.

XR, we see many projects in our specialty design role as well. I think many are implementing Revit to satisfy the Arch's request, but then do the detailing using good ol CAD. That can be a problem if the teams are not working closely. So many times we are told to "look at the model," yet it does not match the details.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Not sure how 6 software costs $50-60k, pricing it out from Autodesk it is not that much, our company does not pay that much. You should also consider Revit LT less features but less cost. You do not need a license if you are only going to view the model, so if engineers dont draft they get the Revit Viewer.

I have worked at three firms which used Revit as primary document creation tool. The first place I was there when the transition occurred, second was an A/E firm, and last company I came after the transition.

The A/E having used it on the Arch side and with quality people in the structural department had no issues, when they transferred to all Revit. Limited training was provided 2 day class which consisted of the basics which you can learn from youtube. No issues with drawing presentation or coordination.

The first firm was 15 people and no training was given, with a mix of those who were dedicated to moving forward and those that were not. Those who did not dedicate themselves are no longer employed at the company.

The last company had a Revit guru, someone who was published etc., when reviewing the work it was subpar, trying to use CAD ideas in a 3d environment. The remaining staff were not dedicated to moving forward with the program and wanted to keep doing things the same way. They have many of the problems mentioned above and no project with Revit will stay when in budget. They want to keep doing the way things have been done for 30 years.

The issue is two fold, if engineers are saying the program is horrible etc. personal will not vest themselves in it and it gives them an out for inferior work or blown budgets. I was not around for the transition from hand to CAD, but I bet it was the same issues and the same talk back then. Current staff who are proficient in both CAD and Revit will pick Revit over CAD when given the choice.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

The costs mentioned above are steep. Our stand-alone license was 7K, our networked ones were about 10K. If you don't need more than 3 seats at a time then maybe go with the networked key...

The small firm (10 employee) I am at is transitioning. I am the point person for the transition and it is hard. The Senior Staff hate the program and only see it's faults. I see it has many benefits but is complicated. In my opinion, you can teach a new employee how to draft in Autocad in a day and they will get better fast, Not that way in Revit. Revit is difficult to start, and one can spend hours trying to get window openings to show up on a roof framing plan or similar "simple" task.

Revit has some great benefits but you must conform to Revit, you cannot bend Revit. An example would be that my firm used to state TOF on our foundation plans, in Revit it is pre-set to do BOF; Now i state BOF but had a long debate about this change in the office.

Also, work-sharing is amazing when on a short deadline!

EDIT: Work-Sharing = Amazing Good was my intention

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

>>>Also, work-sharing is amazing when on a short deadline!<<<

Amazing-good or amazing-bad?

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

amazing good. It allows multiple people to work on the same set of documents at the same time.

You can have a drafter drawing and someone else reviewing and annotating. or as big of a team as you have.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (EngEric)

An example would be that my firm used to state TOF on our foundation plans, in Revit it is pre-set to do BOF;

This topic is near and dear to my heart. I hate showing bottom of footing. More precisely, I hate not showing top of footing. My guys were able to develop a footing tag, however, where both top and bottom are shown. I find that pretty ideal as the only issue that I had with doing so before was that it was another opportunity to screw something up. With both values being "live" however, that issue goes away. I find top of footing more useful for planning but bottom of footing is nice sometimes for excavation and utilities coordination.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

>>>amazing good. It allows multiple people to work on the same set of documents at the same time.<<<

Ok, thanks, good to know.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Revit LT keeps the costs down, but its limitations can be a problem if you are trying to work share or use a point clouds from a 3D laser scanner. Pay careful attention to the aspects included/excluded in the LT option. Personally, I think Autodesk was targeting the residential market with the LT version.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (KootK)

Revit can make all kinds of tags, they just have to be made (time and $$$). Personally i try to adjust my standards to fit theirs when theirs works.... My footings now show "width x depth /n Elevation tag " I agree that it is worth providing all the info to help alleviate problems.

I think as long as one can be a little flexible Revit works, but again, i can stress enough it has a learning curve like no other program i have used... Partially because the deliverable is so important and one cannot fake it. When learning something like RISA/E-tabs you cannot cheat it but if things look ugly it isn't the end of the world... sealed construction documents i am not ok with being sub-standard and that is the hardship of Revit.


On major drawback, is notes on plans! that is a PITA!

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (EngEric)

On major drawback, is notes on plans! that is a PITA!

Do tell...

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

5
Having used Revit for 10 years, I will say I love it and could not ever go back to using 2D Cad. Working in Revit can be extremely fast, but doing so takes commitment and forethought - you have to think about how you build the model to avoid headaches down the road and build in the shortcuts that make changes very quick. I'll address a few of the comments here with what I've experienced:

I feel like the producing consistent drawings out of Revit is easier to do than with 2D Autocad, but that does not mean that producing quality drawings is necessarily easier. Because everything in Revit (both the 2D and 3D parts of it) are all tied to a central database, you can make big changes to drawings all at once (you want all steel things to show up with lineweight 3 on every sheet - done in 15 seconds..) and ensure that the appearance of things remains consistent between views, but you will either be consistently good or consistently bad. Revit out-of-the-box does not produce great quality drawings that meet your standards - I guarantee it. That's where i feel most people start bashing Revit - they get sold something by a reseller that's the greatest thing ever, then when they actually try to do something with it, it is super hard to use and they get frustrated and bail back to CAD. Learning Revit is a commitment, and it takes 4-6 months to actually turn the corner to proficiency on your own (and probably a year to turn a profit based on all the customizable timesaving capabilities). That's where having an expert helps (and the expert will likely cost more than a CAD drafter). Rather than figuring out on your own all the ways that Revit works differently, being frustrated to no end for months, and knowing that you still have a lot of legwork to do to move from the out of the box product to a customized template that both produces good drawings and speeds up your workflow, an "expert" can be there to hold hands through the growing pains and can set up all the customizations to help your entire office move from miserable to profitable much quicker. Hiring an expert rather than growing an expert internally is a big decision and not right for everyone, but it is definitely something that should be considered.

I do think that there is some truth to the "drawings look worse" comments, and not all of that is due to improper use of Revit. Some of it is also possibly attributed to the decreasing dependence on drawings. When the whole team is working in BIM, most of the team is relying on the model for 80-90% of their day-to-day interaction with each other's designs and not even looking at each other's drawings. So "progress" drawings often look REALLY bad. Also, construction teams are also looking at more than just drawings, they are depending on the model more and more and less on the printed plans. So taken by themselves, printed drawings may not be as beneficial as they were 10 years ago. But taken in conjunction with an entire database of information that comes packaged as a 3d model, that can be handed downstream to fabricators who further refine the model instead of starting from scratch, a model that can have pricing exercises and live takeoffs done in a matter of minutes - that's got to be light-years ahead of what paper drawing alone could deliver. Having a good set of plans is still important - and Revit can do that. But approaching the tool as just a more fancy way of producing 2d plans is bound to disappoint - moving to BIM should really be an entire change of mindset regarding what the deliverable is.

Add-ons are another thing entirely. While valuable, most of them really are just crutches for not know the way to do something correctly in Revit. Once you do that, you probably don't need the add-on (though there are a few out there that are worth it..). Now that Dynamo is available (a visual programming interface for Revit), most of the functionality of the add-ons can be done by just about anyone willing to invest a few days learning the tool.

Some of the issues brought up here are really non-issues once you know what you are doing with Revit. For instance, the BOF/TOF problem can be easily solved by modifiying your footing family and setting up a custom schedule to check top and bottom of footing values, or it can be handled using a spot elevation to read the top of the footing, or (and this is the best) in Revit 2015 the top and bottom values were both hard coded into the program for easy tagging. And that is a big difference between Autocad and Revit - Autocad is basically the same tool with the same capabilities it had 10 years ago. The major changes it has experienced (point cloud support, etc) have all been pushed by the BIM movement. Revit is still a fairly young product, and the development is still ongoing. The development team does listen to the customers and headaches we had workarounds for for years (like the TOF issue) get fixed over time. Even with the workarounds I had in Revit 5 years ago I could annotate the TOF of every footing in my model in less than 5 minutes (and tell you what strength concrete each was made with, and do a concrete takeoff, and clash the footings with the rain leaders). The backward compatibility issue is the product of continual Revit advancement - Autocad is backward compatible, because it's basically still doing exactly what it did 10 years ago, but Revit and it's capabilities today cannot be backward compatible with the functionality it lacked yesterday.

Lastly - look back on a lot of what is being said here in this thread and think back to when the Drawing Board to CAD transition was happening. Substitute "CAD" for every time "Revit" or "BIM" is mentioned, and substitute "hand-drafting" for every time "CAD" is mentioned. Where are the hand-drafters today..... I fully expect to be having this same conversation in 10 years regarding BIM and whatever comes next. Change is inevitable...we either change with it or we don't.

If you do choose to move to Revit, here's a few things to consider:
1. The people building the model really need to know how to build a building - it's a virtual jobsite, treat it as such. Just because a guy can transfer redlines fast does not mean he will be good at building a BIM.
2. Top-down buy-in is important, top-down training is even more important. At least some of the firm leadership needs to jump in and get trained in at least the basics of Revit. This will not only help with morale and complainers, but it will help in the setting of expectations internally and with clients, schedule planning, marketing, etc. Being able to have the principals sit in client meetings and discuss BIM sometimes requires having gotten your hands dirty - those who have not used the software but try to talk about it get exposed often.
3. Invest time/effort in creating a good template/content library. You can build your own or purchase it from a consultant or have your trainer help you, but it all needs to be customized to work together. That means downloading things off the internet is not going to work, because when your tag is looking for "Member Depth" and your beam family has the parameter "BEAM DEPTH", it's not going to work.. having a good purpose built template and content built around that template is perhaps the most important tool for success after having a good attitude towards learing. To that end, see this link:Link
4. Do not fight Revit - learn the how/why it wants you do do something a certain way. you can accomplish the same modeling task 10 different ways, but only two of those ways won't result in headaches later on..
5. Revit education is not a one-time thing. Someone in your firm should be tasked to continually be looking for ways to do it better/faster/more accurately. In CAD, you can only draw lines so fast, and that's the end of efficiency gains. In Revit, just when you think you have got it as fast as you can do it, you can read how some expert just did it in 1/10th the time. Staying abreast of the technology is much more valuable in Revit than in CAD.
6. Plan (accounting-wise) on losing money in the short term. Until everyone has a couple of jobs under the belt, things will take longer. But as KootK pointed out, the transition may have to happen to survive, so you might as well rip the band-aid off and get it over with sooner rather than later - otherwise you might end up losing clients (and money).

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Thanks for that enginerdz. I think that your comments go a long way towards balancing out the conversation here.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

The additional front end work required to create a good Revit model pays dividends when it comes to the pointy end of the project. On very complex projects, it's a great tool for coordination and clash detection.

However, it can hurt your budget when the Architect requires you to adjust your model to millimetre perfect every time they issue a revised model. Thus placing some setout onus and responsibility onto the structural engineer, which traditionally is rarely in our scope or budget.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

(OP)
I appreciate all of the feedback. Thank you.
After the first few replies it was starting to look pretty bad, but there were some later posts with some positives.
The takeaways that I have are:
-It is expensive and time consuming to implement
-It won't work exactly how you want it to.
-Your drawings will look different
-Customizing is possible but it won't happen immediately
-All of this will lead to frustration
-A good attitude is important (as with most things)
-Full buy-in, including that of management, is essential
-Eventually you will love the program

FYI, the pricing I was quoting is accurate but it is in Canadian dollars, which these days makes a significant difference.

We are going to give it a try. I will let you know how it goes.



RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (jmatk)

-Eventually you will love the program

How about:

- There will be one or more pros to help balance out the cons.
- Given time, you'll learn to cope, emotionally and financially.

As a consensus based conclusion, "love" seems a little strong.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

And bill all BIM related services on an hourly with no limit basis. After all, it benefits the client, too.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Love might be a strong term....how about the term "preference"? I don't know of many (any) firms that have gone back to using CAD after committing to using Revit for at least a year (those who stick with it and don't bail to CAD the first time it gets hard).

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (enginerdz)

don't know of many (any) firms that have gone back to using CAD after committing to using Revit for at least a year (those who stick with it and don't bail to CAD the first time it gets hard).

You may be reading too much into that trend. I'd submit that most firms stick with revit for the same reason that they adopt it in the first place: clients want it. That's only love in the Stockholm syndrome sense of the word.

Other than the case of tall buildings with lots of repetition, I still see most firms struggling with the economics of revit. Even now that my group is proficient at it, I'm still spending 25 - 50% more on drafting than I used to without much of a corresponding fee increase.

Drafters love Revit. And they should. It makes their work more interesting and more valuable.

Another interesting trend is, to my knowledge, a near zero percent adoption of revit in bride work. That would seem to be because:

1) Revit's pretty impotent for complex bridge geometry.
2) No architect clients driving the bus.

Clearly though, building folks are Revit's target audience.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Several folks have likened the transition from CAD to BIM to the transition from hand drafting to CAD. I'd like to hear more from the engineers who were around for that first transition as I question the comparison.

I was around for the tail end of the CAD adoption process and it seemed very different to me at the time.

- as always, some dogs were unhappy about having to learn new tricks.
- people complained that good hand drafting would always look better (it does).
- no one seemed to have any doubt that CAD represented a productivity improvement.
- firms were adopting CAD primarily to keep production costs down relative to their competitors rather than because it was as client mandated value added service. Sometimes it was both of course.

BIM seems like a fundamentally different transition to me. With CAD, graphical production technology changed but the information being communicated really didn't. With BIM, there has been a tectonic shift in the actual content of our product.

Like I said, I was only around for the tail end of the CAD transition. It's entirely possible that my impression of that is inaccurate.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

KootK -

I was with a small structural consulting firm with lots of Architects as clients. We had 5 drafters (2 were part-time Architectural students) when CAD was introduced. It was touted as being a time-saver. Our head drafter and one of the part-time people were the first two trained and the part-timer was asked to come in later in the afternoon and work later so as to maximize the use of the one license that we had purchased.

There was a learning curve that I was only a distant observer to. Our boss chose which projects were to be done with CAD. We had a group discussion about how we should use it. My recommendation was to develop the detail sheets on the first project in CAD and still do the plan drawings by hand. The boss shot down that idea. About 4 or 5 projects in, he suggested that on the next project we would do the detail drawings in CAD as they could then be re-used (and modified if necessary) for any subsequent projects.

Eventually, we bought additional license seats and got the whole group using CAD - so that all of the drawings would then be CAD drawings.

Two things that were part of that transition: 1) We used to have a CAD charge that was added to the billing to help offset the CAD costs. As most of our projects were "fixed fees" it did not affect the client directly, but did get accounted for when bidding on future work. On hourly jobs the client was billed for the CAD time used.

and 2) The printing of the CAD drawings required one of the drafters to stand and watch the printing so that if one of the 8 different pens dried up, he could stop the process and refill the pen. Then when the drawing came off of the printer, he would fill in the gaps that were missed by hand. This time was also billed to the project.

At my last job they were making a transition to Revit, but again I was only an observer. This past June (when I was last there) they were using Revit on client requested projects and the drafting staff was split as to those still using CAD and those being trained in and using Revit.

gjc

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I don't use any automated packages for design or drafting so I am not that familiar with using them but am familiar with the end product. (I use CAD of course) It seems to me that the more automated the design and drafting process becomes, the less hands on engineering occurs and the less drawings are checked. I think at some point we will all just become software operators and not even have to remember our basic statics.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I remember the days of billing for CAD time and I recommend the same for BIM.
Hourly with no not-to-exceeds.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I do not think it is quite the same as the CAD/hand drafting transition. During that change we were merely changing the delivery method from a manual method to a computerized system. The fundamental deliverable remained basically the same. BIM adds a huge number of other risks to our plate if we are so inclined to get involved. We now provide survey coordinates for pile layouts, concrete volumes, and for some clients we have provided rebar quantities. We have even kicked our Tekla Structural models downstream for detailer's to use on a few occasions. We are now trying to charge for those models, but the trades do not see enough value in them, so that is not working great. In the not too distant future I foresee the BIM models being used for a great number of other things to save trades time, but there needs to be some changes in the mindset regarding fees. That will be a monumental change since extra's are big business, and not all are interested in change.

Buggar has mentioned charging extra for BIM. Our experience has been that when offered two fee options very rarely do the clients decide to pay the extra for a BIM project. Municipal and Government clients will because BIM is a great catch phrase, but many others do not see the value. On one small project the difference was a mere $3k and they still did not go for BIM. The problem we have now is our clients do not really understand much of the details of BIM and frankly few of them really care that much about our role until there is a discussion about costs for re-works. It would be really easy to sell BIM if we had a way to prove the savings, but technically, one can deliver a perfect project using BIM or CAD if the team is proficient at their job. The only method to prove the savings would be to build the exact building twice, but even that might not work. Sure there are savings for the trades, but do the GC's really care about their sub's? Will the sub's pass on the savings? Can the sub's trust the models? We have heard stories from steel detailers of Revit models where columns were incorrect in 3D views, but fine in plans. That senior detailer said they would never pay for an engineers model because they had seen too many errors.

We have been using BIM since 2007, and there is a ways to go to make it more efficient. I see some doing a dis-service to the concept by using a lot of 2D techniques in the models. While that may allow them to get the job done fast and put on a good show to the people that understand little about the details, it does not help move BIM forward if the same errors occur using the BIM methodology. Those errors in BIM usage have led some to sour on the concept primarily due to a lack of understanding of the system. Even today some of our long standing clients do not really get the fact that none of the lines, callouts or tables are drawn by a person.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

In my experience if you offer two fees they will go the cheaper route 9 out of 10 times. Just submit one option and don't give them the choice. If BIM makes sense then give them a fee for the project with BIM included.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

@mtu: thanks for that. Your description makes the two transitions sound considerably more similar than I was thinking.

Quote (XR250)

It seems to me that the more automated the design and drafting process becomes, the less hands on engineering occurs and the less drawings are checked.

Yeah. Folks always tout the clash detection / coordination advantages. My experience is that:

1) I've now basically got a bunch of junior folks clash detecting and, very infrequently, senior folks actually reviewing. There'a a lot of trust involved. In theory, senior engineers could simply review whatever they want, whenever they want. In practice, there never seems to be a current set of that printed model conveniently on hand.

2) Sometimes clash detection ends up being an excuse for people not to talk. Johnny pipe run just throws his stuff in there and relies on Joany floor joist to "catch the clash".

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Sorry i didn't show back up for a while. Kootk asked earlier about Annotation...

Writing General notes are difficult to make look pretty, like you cannot have an extra space between note number items, the font slightly changes based on level you are zoomed into the font (moves words down or up a line), annotation arrows do not really 'snap' to model/details, when you make a make a new text it wants to be one long line, then you resize (this might be me missing a step).

I used to have my general notes as schedules because Revit did not have the ability to number notes like CAD/Word. They added this feature in i think 2012? SO if you think they just added the feature to number text notes then you can imagine how much further they have until it is perfect.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I did a quick internet search and found companies specializing in BIM services exclusively. I would go that direction until I knew better. I have to explore how to contract with this service in connection with all the subconsultants and the owner. It would be nice if I could just do Structural Engineering and pass the fancy modeling to appropriate "experts".

After all, it took California 200 years to make good wine. Someday someone will make good BIM.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I am a structural engineer who has used AutoCAD since 1991. I bought Revit Structure in 2008, spent a lot of time learning the program (still learning!), and implemented it into my workflow about 5 years ago. I create plans with Revit, use my ACAD library for typical details and then use Revit for project specific details. I mostly do small, wood framed buildings.

I have come to the conclusion that I cannot afford to use Revit and still be competitive when my competitors are using ACAD LT throwing lines, text and detail bubbles on an XREF'd floor plan. Sure, it helps to visualize complex projects, but, to me, that has not justified the bloat in my workflow.

As of the first of the year, I will be returning to ACAD 100% and I'm going to take the money I save to take myself to Europe for a vacation!

Good luck with your decision.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I have some thoughts on BIM implementation and a few questions for those that have already done it.

In reading the tea leaves, I think that within 10 years anyone who is not using a 3-D modeling software will be considered a dinosaur. I left my last firm because they were recalcitrant to change even though the clients were demanding BIM and they refused to deploy the software to any but the most junior of engineers in the office. They also refused to train the folks in the office that were interested in the transition. I am now at a firm that primarily works in Revit. We are still built on the separation of engineering staff from production staff. Currently, I lean in the direction that this model is a liability and it hurts our bottom line. We have one firm partner that is the production manager (he is not an engineer) and he is simply amazing, but the other production staff require at least one iteration of red lines to get correct results (and I emphasize just plans and details with correct information not plans that are "pleasing to the eye"). Given the importance that the model behind the plans and details is as correct as the information on paper, it makes more sense to me that engineer's should be developing the model and the plans and details. I think this would also help us increase our ability to "round-trip" models into analysis software and back out, but this also is fraught with problems. We use RAM to analyze most buildings and there are/were dimensional round-off errors when we passed the model back and forth. For detailing we also rely on the method of having live section marks to dead sections that we pull from a Revit detail library. With the separate production staff, the engineer's workload is increased. Now not only do you have to check the plans and the sections, you have to crawl the model to make sure the drafter didn't screw the pooch on some aspect. I have gotten chewed by an architect because a beam was not modeled with the correct elevation, and I didn't catch it because it showed up on plan correctly. My firm does not include the BIM as a contract document and we try to deflect any requirements or requests to the contrary. We provide the BIM as "an aid to construction" with the caveat that the user beware. More and more architects are using our model as the backbone to place their elements, and I expect we will get a lot more push-back on this in the future. In working on number of concrete jobs lately, I have also gotten into conflicts with the architect about who controls the edge of slab, and we as a firm are doing some soul searching about how much liability we are willing to take with this issue. It seems the ease of modeling and cutting sections has led most of the Architect’s in my area to greatly expand the number of edge of slab conditions. While it is quite important for us, structurally, if we take responsibility for it we end up either making countless revisions to slab edge during design to satisfy the architect’s needs/wants or we get calls about our model not being coordinated with the building envelope. However if we push it back onto the architect, we end up with conflicts in spandrel beam schedules. It is a lose-lose situation from our perspective.

All in all, I think the benefits from BIM are geared primarily toward the Architect and the contractor. A good BIM does not require the Architect to be fastidious in coordinating the construction documents. They tend to run clash detection and declare Bob's your uncle. Or worse yet, they tell us as consultants to run clash detection and work out any problems with the other consultants. In my mind, they are getting paid by the owner for something they are not doing, and they are not willing to pass that money down the chain. Contractors tend to take the BIM as gospel truth that everything is fully coordinated and they don't engage in any thinking about the building. They will just consult the model and ignore things like plan notes that reflect things that are not fully modeled. In my experience they also like to think that everything is modeled and they can do a material takeoff and expect to account for everything. When it doesn't, they raise all kinds of hell about the deficiencies of the documents and pair that complaint with a change order. It chaffs at me that both parties (architect and contractor) get benefits out of BIM that improve their profitability but that push more work on the SEOR without any compensation.

There are some really good things that people have touched on, moving gridlines and changing elevations are not the hassle that they used to be, and if you incorporate the models correctly you can even get the software to alert you to a change. I like that you can reorganize the details and get the numbering to propagate throughout the model. It is an absolutely great tool for visualization, and I have had a number of configurations that I would have been completely lost on had it not been for the ability to view the area in 3D.

There are also some glaring shortcomings (and I will admit that some of these shortcomings likely stem from the current workflow my company is using). I despise the annotation tools. I thought that MLEADER in ACAD was the bee's knees and I do not understand why I cannot get the same level of control on leaders and notes in Revit. I do not like that you cannot link a word document. We currently keep our general notes in MSWord and in order to incorporate them with the formatting we have to make a PDF then make an image then link the image to the Revit document. We have the same problem with schedules. While some of the schedules we use are likely abrogated by including parameters in elements (such as beam reinforcing and post-tensioning), there are some that I use on wood projects that I don't know how to incorporate as a "schedule" in the Revit sense. Also with the separate production staff I really don't want to trust the entry of all the reinforcing and ordinates to a Revit operator that doesn't have a firm grasp of what I am defining in the beam. BIM increases the back check time required. I also think the revision cloud tool is terrible compared with that of ACAD, although it is getting better.

Venturing into Revit, I think it is important to understand the LOD the client is requiring. We aim for LOD 300 and push back on anything above that level. I think we as a company feel that pushing for higher LOD just helps the bottom line of the contractors and the detailing subs. It has also been my experience that the traditional scheme of SD’s, DD’s, & CD’s is radically upset by the introduction of BIM. The client architect tries to get us as Structural to give an entire structural frame during the SD and DD phase. They seem to have very little concept of the design and analysis requirements to validate the framing design. They also seem to feel that the frame provided in these early phases should be able to handle any contingency loadings (I think this is really pushed by the architect passing off the early models to the contractors as a “costing tool” – see my previous comments above). Additionally the architects still operate in a charrette mentality that means the scheme will change 5 times before DD. If you are not very explicit with the Architect about what will be delivered and when that could mean designing the building 5 times over. The upside to this is that the CD’s tend to be a little less painful than with a CAD job. Although my firm does not use the central model and worksharing, I think this is a great thing that can increase the ability to add manpower to get a job done.

Now for my questions:
  1. Have any of you changed the fee schedule (in terms of percentages for different phases – SD, DD, CD, etc)?
  2. How do you handle things like concrete and post-tensioned beam reinforcing?
  3. How are you documenting/delivering wood framed projects?
  4. Do you cut “live” sections, use a detail library, or something else entirely?

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I just read the instructions for AIA Forms E203, G201 and G202 regarding use of BIM. This is good but boring information about how BIM could/should be implemented in the real world. I see lots of room for contract disputes but that is true in anything new. I didn't see any instructions on who actually maintains the model but I suppose the Architects want this control. That sounds O.K.; every evening I download my RISA model and some hand sketches to the architect and go home. Next day I see a finished model with clash detection and everything I need(?!). These contracts are set up to write in whatever provisions you think are necessary and I would write a whole lot of CYA into them. There is a lot of legal unknowns here.
I presume big companies like Boeing have (or will have) their own BIM and you will have to deal with their model.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Lots of good stuff by enginerdZ in this thread.

We're still transitioning to Revit, have been over a period of several years. Would say a majority of our jobs are 100% Revit now, though we still have some that stick in CAD. Makes sense for some jobs, doesn't for others. Renovations and smaller jobs often times don't make sense in Revit, just easier to bang out in CAD. Varies by client too.

I agree that Revit can seem like a time sink and a lot of jobs it would be much quicker for us to just use CAD. But the way I think of it is our using Revit isn't really even for us. It's for the architect and contractor because where it really beats traditional CAD is in coordination and quantities. Seems like architects and other trades (and we're guilty too, though I like to think less guilty than most others) aren't looking at each others' drawings any more. A lot of architects will tell the trades to coordinate with each other but then step away. Many that we work with have actually started subbing out of traditional architectural items to other consultants (interior design, lighting, acoustics, building envelope, waterproofing, etc.) to the point that they're almost functioning more as PMs or even CMs rather than architects. Seems like as that's happened, they've stopped doing a lot of the coordination that they used to be forced in to when they actually had to look at all these design items themselves and make sure they were coming up with a workable solution. Revit forces the issue with clash detection. Nobody's looking at each others' drawings, but they will look at each others' models.

We've also worked with contractors that get attached early (either design-build or design-assist) and even some developers on a lot of larger jobs and done our own quantity takeoffs on our models for them to compare with their own. Helps give a greater confidence in their pricing, though have to be careful with protecting yourself and having lots of caveats and disclaimers so it's clear you're not guaranteeing or warranting any of the numbers you're providing.

Like any tool, important to recognize what it's good at and what it's bad at and adjust your workflow and expectations accordingly. I'm not sure I see a day yet where Revit completely replaces CAD. But we're a lot closer than we used to be. Instead of our drafters spending all day in CAD and using Revit for the occasional specialty item, they're spending all day in Revit instead.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

@RH:

1) Yes. More front loaded for the reasons that you mentioned. I've had some interesting discussions with electrical folks on this. Apparently, it makes little sense for them to even start their BIM modelling until the ceiling plan is established for some reason. So now they insist that the reflected ceiling plan be created at the beginning of the project rather than the end. Weird stuff like that seems to crop up all over.

2) 2D elements that are not truly modeled. That said, I saw a presentation by Tipping Mar where they showed their accurate rebar modelling of some very congested connections. It looked wonderful and useful and they claim that, once you've got your first batch of standard hooks etc, modeled, it goes pretty fast.

3) Haven't done it but will be trying it in the new year. My wife's firm does nothing but and they seem to have it worked out such that they make money somehow. And their drawings look great, truth be told. A 3D isometric of a well modeled wood building is pretty sexy.

4) Detail library for most construction details. Live for whole building sections etc.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Paragraph 3.5.3 of AIA E203 makes the Architect responsible for the building model. Like the song Hotel California says, this could be heaven or this could be hell.

Do you need your own copy of Revit or can you just rely on the model by others.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Finished reading AIA G202. This is the contract you would sign with an Architect that defines everything about the Model and what everybody agrees to do. It looks to be set up for the Architect (or agreed designee) to establish and maintain the model, with the consultants merely supplying their pieces of the model.
This contract is where you would exercise business strategy.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

@RH
Good point about the tea leaves...do you think a reluctance to move to BIM will also influence recruiting of talent in the near future (either because the talent learned BIM in school or because the talent sees ACAD as prosaic?)

Regard the annotation tools in Revit - there is definite room for improvement, but the more you use tags and schedules (reflecting embedded data), the less you have to type and use text leaders, so less total pain is felt by using the less than ideal text tools less often. Though MSWord linking is still not enabled, you can link Excel and Notepad(.txt or .csv) to Revit pretty easily via Dynamo.

Your questions:
1. I believe our billing is more front-loaded...
2. We do some 3d rebar modeling (congestion areas as needed and tilt panels) but for beams/columns it is all scheduled via parameters in the elements themselves and the data is fed into the elements via a link with a master beam/column schedule in Excel for that particular project (the engineers fill out the excel, the modelers build the model,the script populates the Excel data into the model elements) PT modeling is still not there, primarily because the geometry is a bit too complex for Revit's modeling engine at this time.
3. All load bearing walls are modeled as walls (not as studs), only major stud packs are modeled for Coord with trades. Floor framing can be modeled using groups for each typical unit to save work. Tell all trades to not read too much into model coordination as floor joists at max spacing could really be located just about anywhere (but it does look really cool...) But I will say that wood jobs in general seem to be harder (Revit or Cad) to make a good profit on (my opinion). There just seems to be less $ available in general for design on wood multifamily jobs, so if someone chose to use BIM on steel and concrete but CAD for wood because they felt they could save money, it would be hard to argue with that since the teams building that job would also be less likely to leverage the BIM downstream.
4. We use live sections to show project specific conditions, typical details from detail library for the usual stuff (big Revit file full of all standard details).

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

BIM is a dream for us here, it never work. The architects get paid enough to tweak the building 200x every week and no consultant can keep up with them. So we end up with multiple models.

The architects model is to elaborate and not good enough for the structural detailer, the structural detailer model on the other hand cannot be imported to structural design package and is not acceptable to structural steel detailers who use Tekla or alike.

With all the above the building is modeled 4x in 3D, but the contractor want 2D hard copy printed on A0.

I think there is disconnect between program developers and the industry. One example is 3D rebar detailing in Revit structures. Nobody on his right mind will detail slab using this tool and AutoDesk know this, but they advertise the feature just for marketing hype.

Revit is here to stay it’s loved by those on the top-of-the-food-chain (Architects).

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Here's my experience. I started out of college (2008) with absolutely no CAD/Revit experience. I began my second job with only Microstation experience that I picked up at my first job. We currently use Revit on our building projects and CAD for our smaller projects. We had a technician who did all the Revit work and, as was mentioned above, he was a much more integral part of the team than the draftsmen I used to work with. Well, he left, but I have been able to pick up the program from no experience and produce decent drawings within a year. The learning curve isn't that difficult, but definitely takes commitment.

I will echo the sentiment about efficiency noted above. There are more pieces to Revit than CAD, so when you are doing something one way, chances are there is a much better and faster way. The knowledge is out there and you just have to find it. As an example, I've been drawing rebar ties in 2D details using a few built-in components (rebar sections, and elevations). I figured out how to create families (think autoCad block) and have created one for rebar ties. Now I can draw them in a fraction of the time and they look much nicer than they did before.

I have found, in the course of a project, that seeing the architectural model has allowed me to see design or modeling errors and bring them up on the spot. QC takes more of a continuous role in the project.

Another thing I like about the program is the ability to cut live sections to see what things look like immediately. If I want to make sure that my wall profile is drawn correctly, I can simply look at a section or elevation to make sure that wall depressions at doors, or holes at openings are placed correctly.

Personally, I find the program fun to use. It helps me better visualize the building I'm designing. Sure there are kinks and hair pulling frustrating things about the program (text editor!!!!!!!!!), but overall it has helped me bring more to a project than I otherwise would have.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (enginerdZ)

Good point about the tea leaves...do you think a reluctance to move to BIM will also influence recruiting of talent in the near future (either because the talent learned BIM in school or because the talent sees ACAD as prosaic?)

I think that will really depend on a few things.

First if we are talking about new Grads, then I think the exposure to production methods (for lack of a better term) will influence recruiting. I went to a highly ranked school for undergrad and graduate school and the exposure to document production was extremely limited. Had it not been for one prof, who started his career in NAVFAC, my only exposure would have been one course more geared toward mechanical documentation. My impression is that the vast majority of graduates today are completely oblivious to the documentation side of practice and it isn't going to sway them either way. Those that are exposed to it, will either be developing a progressive or conservative bias and that bias will inform them in the predictable way. I think the "production" and documentation side of engineering is sorely lacking in the education system. When you boil engineering down to it's basics, drawings and documents are what we sell.

For recruiting talent that is already experienced, I think as we get deeper in the decade more and more will see BIM adoption as a prerequisite for moving to a firm. There will still be those folks that are either coming off a terrible BIM experience or are too conservative to change that will see BIM adoption as evil. I hope that answers what you were asking.

Quote (enginerdZ)

But I will say that wood jobs in general seem to be harder (Revit or Cad) to make a good profit on (my opinion). There just seems to be less $ available in general for design on wood multifamily jobs, so if someone chose to use BIM on steel and concrete but CAD for wood because they felt they could save money, it would be hard to argue with that since the teams building that job would also be less likely to leverage the BIM downstream.

I think that all wood jobs are exceedingly difficult to make profitable. Most contractors, Architects, and Owners think that WOOD=SIMPLE=CHEAP. I hold that pound-for-pound a wood job is one of the most detail intensive jobs to be had. In addition to the main structural elements there are just so many connections to be designed and then specified or detailed.

Quote (KootK)

2) 2D elements that are not truly modeled. That said, I saw a presentation by Tipping Mar where they showed their accurate rebar modelling of some very congested connections. It looked wonderful and useful and they claim that, once you've got your first batch of standard hooks etc, modeled, it goes pretty fast.

I know it looks great but when I see that I have to think "well there's a freebie for the rebar detailer". If contractors were more apt to divide up that chuck of the budget between the rebar detailer and the structural engineer, I would be a little more enthusiastic, but I know it will either break one of two ways, the rebar detailer keeps the fee the same and keeps the profit, or the rebar detailer comes off money and the contractor pads their bottom line. Plus any problems end up being the SE's fault.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Quote (RH)

I know it looks great but when I see that I have to think "well there's a freebie for the rebar detailer"

I'm a little rosier on this one. I think "there's a query that I won't have to answer or a field fix that I won't have to come up with.". Judicious implementation of such technology is, of course, a big part of the challenge.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I've been reading the AIA Contracts. This is where you cya and include charges as you see fit. I haven't checked but I suppose CASE has BIM contracts too.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I've used both 2D CAD, 3D CAD, and Revit extensively. From an MEP perspective, it's not even close; Revit outshines all else with its efficiency and collaboration.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Sorry, I'm joining this party late, so excuse me if this has already been covered. Our office has struggled with many of the things I've already seen mentioned about the transition.

One thing I would DEFINITELY get clarified on every single job is the level of modeling that's expected. Nothing like humming away on a project doing a simple model like you've always done and then finding out the architect/ownership wants a higher level of detail. (I think AIA refers to it as LOD). It can literally get insane what some people expect their models to show...such that a job we used to be able to draft in CAD in <30 hours would suddenly take hundreds... even if we had the learning curve figured out. Some people just haven't figured out that just because Revit CAN theoretically do something doesn't mean it that it can do it well or that it should/needs to be done.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

BIM projects should only be taken on an hourly basis. Who is writing your contracts?

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Very few of our projects are hourly and we do BIM for most projects now. If we only did hourly jobs we wouldn't have much to do, clients want the guaranteed fee even if it's higher than it may need to be. Just need to make it clear in your scope what you're doing and what you're not.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Every single day I lean more towards my manager's opinion "This would all be a lot faster and look better in CAD."

I haven't quite got my head around the importance of the 'model' when what we sell as engineers is a set of drawings. I'm yet to look at a set of drawings produced using Revit and think "wow, that looks good!"

It's almost refreshing getting those 60's and 70's structural drawings out and basking in their glory.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I love working in Revit producing new family types and trying to figure out all of the permutations that may be required for each design situation. We've been working with Revit for about 5 years and we've produced some medium sized projects entirely in Revit.

We only use Revit where our clients specifically require it. When we bid on those projects, we double our proposal design cost (we provide ceiling supports for medical equipment so we are at the mercy of the excellent or garbage model that has already been produced for the building).

Having come from a small engineering firm, I argued and continue to argue that Revit, like precast, shines when you have lots of repetition. If you design steel frame buildings with similar details all the time, then putting together families for that system is worth it. If you jump around from one type of structure to another, wood to CMU to concrete, then Revit is prohibitive for the first time you develop families for each system.

Yes, there are projects we would not get if we didn't offer 3D and I do see more projects requiring 3D. Recently, we have had success providing a 3D model for coordination and then providing CAD drawings for our formal submission.

The biggest reason for us to provide 3D is to give the MEP designers something to coordinate around. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the MEP system is modeled right through our system which completely invalidates any advantage we see to this additional effort in the first place.

My verdict, learn it if you need it for a specific project that pays well. Otherwise, wait another 5 years until the licensing/backwards compatibility issues are worked out.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

I've been encountering a new problem lately. I've got some projects where the architect is Revit but I'm not. We have aggressive schedules and clearly defined 30/60/90 milestones. Come the deadlines, I ask where the goods are. The answer: "oh, it's in the model". Problems with that:

1) often it's bs. Not having to deliver 2d seems to fool architects into thinking that they can fool me about the state of the union.

2) my team wastes a lot of time figuring out what's missing with each issue.

3) because I'm not delivering a model, the architects seem to have given up on coordinating with me at all.

I'm starting to think that my working is Revit is a functional must if the Architect is working in Revit.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

Alternately, make clear in the contract documents that the deliverables must be delivered in 2d drawings and not just "in the model".

RE: Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office

We did exactly that. Clients have a funny habit of doing as they please however. The process seems to be going something like this:

1) Can we get the 2D CAD?
2) Eh, it's all in the model.
3) But you said we could have the 2D CAD?
4) Okay, here's a CAD export we did in 15 min where nothing stacks and the units of measure are incorrect.
5) Golly, thanks.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources