Implementing Revit Structure into Structural Design Office 9

[jmatk]

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!

 

[BadgerPE]

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[Brad805]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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?

 

[Guastavino]

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.

 

[XR250]

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[JedClampett]

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?

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[Brad805]

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.

 

[sandman21]

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.

 

[EngineeringEric]

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

 

[Archie264]

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

Amazing-good or amazing-bad?

 

[EngineeringEric]

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[Archie264]

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

Ok, thanks, good to know.

 

[Brad805]

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.

 

[EngineeringEric]

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!