A while back I attended a Revit Seminar at my office. I was slightly impressed with its capabilities, but it seemed to not be that popular. Now every engineering magazine that I get is talking about how awesome BMI is, but I have still not encountered anyone who is doing it. I have not met one architect that has heard of it. Has anyone had any experience with projects where all the consulants are using a BMI software, and if so is it really all it is cracked up to be?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
BIM - The Craze of Building Information Modeling 7
- Thread starter ash060
- Start date
This was comical, I had read 2 articles today about BIMs and REVIT and I was just about to pose a question about whether anyone had tried REVIT and Viola! There this thread was...
I was majorly intrigued by the claim, in one of the articles, of Revit structural that it could incorporate RISA 3D information. How this is actually done was apparently beyond the scope of the article.
As a side note it was authored by Mr. Gary Wyatt, who is sales/marketing director for RoboBat. RoboBat produces ROBOT, a structural analysis program that functions with REVIT structural. I had never heard of ROBOT.
My main thought is that BIM/structural will be a niche rather than the norm. This niche will be driven by the project scope, needs, and/or client request.
The idea of an interactive and useful 3 dimensional computer model has been around for years. Each discpline or group of disciplines have worked towards a 3d model because of their own needs IMHO.
Architects like 3d because they want to live in 3d to begin with, they are, after all designing spaces. A 3d package is a natural progression for Architects who doodle in 3d already when brainstorming. Plus, having used 3d packages like Archicad it is pretty darn fun! Much more intuitive than vanilla box Autocad 3d, which has always been just too non-specific, and thus, very difficult to develop an efficient tool out of.
MEP people like 3d because when you have a slew of pipes and such like flying around a project, it makes sense to model that spaghetti. I don't think their pipes have any need for linking to analysis software though (correct me here, i don't have much experience with Piping). It seems to me, an 8 inch steam pipe is really okay to be a "dumb" piece except for maybe size, material, length and fittings.
Then there are equipment manufacturers who make 3d models of their equipment. Not sure about this, but that may be due to the ability to send those 3d models out to vendors who supply parts and such...(really fuzzy on this part). What I do know is I would sometimes get a 3d model of a piece of equipment and it supplied all I needed to know as far as bolt locations, height, length, footprint, etc. They rarely seem to know how much the darn things WEIGH though.
So where does this leave a structural team? Is a series of bays consisting of beams, girders and columns that difficult to visualize? Of course not. Thus not much driving force behind 3d from structural standpoint. Typically the parts structurals input are pretty basic in terms of 3d geometry. On top of that the analysis models for calculations are even more simplified. Is there a point to having each bolt, washer, and misc. angle accounted for? That gets done at the fabricators. Will the structural team now have to ask the fabricator to send back a BIM model for re-insertion in the 3d model?
What I think may happen is there will be the advent of a new CAD person. This will be the person that is trained on this new software and acts as a liason between 3d and non 3d team members. Will there still be be traditional 2d plans to be sealed? I believe this will remain. I foresee the 3d team member "trimming" these 2d plans down for insertion in the 3d model. Link these roof, floor, and foundation plans together with vertical elements and you begin to have a 3d model. Now, most structural engineers are probaly still thinking "So what?".
Possibly the early work on the model from the architects' model will mean a complete digital structural analysis model that only needs loads and combinations? If the model handed to me by a 3d person allows me to apply wind, seismic, gravity, etc. to said model AND analyze all in one integrated package, then I might start to get excited. If that package also delivers code compliant calculations that are consistent looking and "work", now they really have my attention. Now if that model flags changes made by other disciplines and gives me a report on everything that has changed-then we are getting somewhere.
This is sort of what REVIT is claiming, but maybe too good to be true?
I was kind of wondering whether anyone thought it would be worth investing time in this, to, in essence become the BIM structural person? I have seen CH2M is pushing towards it...for some it will be a fad, for others a lifestyle. I doubt it will make or break anyone or any company. Like others have pointed out. Once you are handed a "cookie cutter" CVS building, you are really just checking what has already been researched and developed by CVS corporate, or any other of those type companies with strong corporate design teams.
One last note:
The Tool should fit your style, the Tool should not dictate the style or implementation. In this age of technological wonders and marketing we are being bombarded by Tools that are supposed to make our lives easier, faster, more efficient, etc. When in actuality, we have to decide if we want to become a slave to this new Tool or not. When is the last time you did not access a computer for instance, or email, or use your PDA phone? Do these Tools make us better Engineers and problem solvers?
I was majorly intrigued by the claim, in one of the articles, of Revit structural that it could incorporate RISA 3D information. How this is actually done was apparently beyond the scope of the article.
As a side note it was authored by Mr. Gary Wyatt, who is sales/marketing director for RoboBat. RoboBat produces ROBOT, a structural analysis program that functions with REVIT structural. I had never heard of ROBOT.
My main thought is that BIM/structural will be a niche rather than the norm. This niche will be driven by the project scope, needs, and/or client request.
The idea of an interactive and useful 3 dimensional computer model has been around for years. Each discpline or group of disciplines have worked towards a 3d model because of their own needs IMHO.
Architects like 3d because they want to live in 3d to begin with, they are, after all designing spaces. A 3d package is a natural progression for Architects who doodle in 3d already when brainstorming. Plus, having used 3d packages like Archicad it is pretty darn fun! Much more intuitive than vanilla box Autocad 3d, which has always been just too non-specific, and thus, very difficult to develop an efficient tool out of.
MEP people like 3d because when you have a slew of pipes and such like flying around a project, it makes sense to model that spaghetti. I don't think their pipes have any need for linking to analysis software though (correct me here, i don't have much experience with Piping). It seems to me, an 8 inch steam pipe is really okay to be a "dumb" piece except for maybe size, material, length and fittings.
Then there are equipment manufacturers who make 3d models of their equipment. Not sure about this, but that may be due to the ability to send those 3d models out to vendors who supply parts and such...(really fuzzy on this part). What I do know is I would sometimes get a 3d model of a piece of equipment and it supplied all I needed to know as far as bolt locations, height, length, footprint, etc. They rarely seem to know how much the darn things WEIGH though.
So where does this leave a structural team? Is a series of bays consisting of beams, girders and columns that difficult to visualize? Of course not. Thus not much driving force behind 3d from structural standpoint. Typically the parts structurals input are pretty basic in terms of 3d geometry. On top of that the analysis models for calculations are even more simplified. Is there a point to having each bolt, washer, and misc. angle accounted for? That gets done at the fabricators. Will the structural team now have to ask the fabricator to send back a BIM model for re-insertion in the 3d model?
What I think may happen is there will be the advent of a new CAD person. This will be the person that is trained on this new software and acts as a liason between 3d and non 3d team members. Will there still be be traditional 2d plans to be sealed? I believe this will remain. I foresee the 3d team member "trimming" these 2d plans down for insertion in the 3d model. Link these roof, floor, and foundation plans together with vertical elements and you begin to have a 3d model. Now, most structural engineers are probaly still thinking "So what?".
Possibly the early work on the model from the architects' model will mean a complete digital structural analysis model that only needs loads and combinations? If the model handed to me by a 3d person allows me to apply wind, seismic, gravity, etc. to said model AND analyze all in one integrated package, then I might start to get excited. If that package also delivers code compliant calculations that are consistent looking and "work", now they really have my attention. Now if that model flags changes made by other disciplines and gives me a report on everything that has changed-then we are getting somewhere.
This is sort of what REVIT is claiming, but maybe too good to be true?
I was kind of wondering whether anyone thought it would be worth investing time in this, to, in essence become the BIM structural person? I have seen CH2M is pushing towards it...for some it will be a fad, for others a lifestyle. I doubt it will make or break anyone or any company. Like others have pointed out. Once you are handed a "cookie cutter" CVS building, you are really just checking what has already been researched and developed by CVS corporate, or any other of those type companies with strong corporate design teams.
One last note:
The Tool should fit your style, the Tool should not dictate the style or implementation. In this age of technological wonders and marketing we are being bombarded by Tools that are supposed to make our lives easier, faster, more efficient, etc. When in actuality, we have to decide if we want to become a slave to this new Tool or not. When is the last time you did not access a computer for instance, or email, or use your PDA phone? Do these Tools make us better Engineers and problem solvers?
DaveVikingPE,
Correct, I do not think that a tilt-up structure with metal deck on steel joists needs a full blown BIM model, like a Home Depot or warehouse. Neither does a block and bar joist building, like a Wal-Mart or a Target or a Steel Frame with light gage metal studs similar to a CVS or strip mall.
Now would the Experience Music Project in Seattle that I worked on benefit from a BIM model, yes it would. But we did have a 3D model of that structure, but I wouldn’t call it a BIM model.
Would using Revit decrease your CAD time on any of these projects, yes to all of them. But Revit is a tool to accelerate our structural drafting just as Civil 3D accelerates our Civil technicians. Both programs work better and faster then AutoCAD alone.
I support using Revit to create our 2D drawings. I just don’t support BIM models for your typical everyday structures that account for the majority of buildings Structural Engineers do.
Correct, I do not think that a tilt-up structure with metal deck on steel joists needs a full blown BIM model, like a Home Depot or warehouse. Neither does a block and bar joist building, like a Wal-Mart or a Target or a Steel Frame with light gage metal studs similar to a CVS or strip mall.
Now would the Experience Music Project in Seattle that I worked on benefit from a BIM model, yes it would. But we did have a 3D model of that structure, but I wouldn’t call it a BIM model.
Would using Revit decrease your CAD time on any of these projects, yes to all of them. But Revit is a tool to accelerate our structural drafting just as Civil 3D accelerates our Civil technicians. Both programs work better and faster then AutoCAD alone.
I support using Revit to create our 2D drawings. I just don’t support BIM models for your typical everyday structures that account for the majority of buildings Structural Engineers do.
- Thread starter
- #43
This is one of the better articles I have read regarding BIM from a practical fee and contractual perspective (note that it is written by a lawyer). The way I see it - as touched on by this article - is that the biggest hurdles to structural implementation of BIM will be getting enough fee to justify the expense and agreeing upon a distribution of liability:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question
