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!

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[enginerdZ]

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).

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[Trenno]

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.

 

[jmatk]

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.

 

[KootK]

-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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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

 

[enginerdZ]

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).

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[mtu1972]

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

 

[XR250]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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

 

[Brad805]

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.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

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

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[KootK]

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

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.

 

[EngineeringEric]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[SE2607]

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.

 

[RobertHale]

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