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!

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[MrHershey]

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.

 

[KootK]

@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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[enginerdZ]

@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).

 

[hetgen]

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).

 

[WiSEiwish]

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.

 

[RobertHale]

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.

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.

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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.

 

[ME27272727]

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.

 

[ARKeng]

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.

 

[BUGGAR]

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

 

[MrHershey]

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.

 

[Trenno]

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.

 

[Teguci]

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.

 

[KootK]

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.

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

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

 

[KootK]

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.