Optimizing workflow 8

[milkshakelake]

What do y'all do to optimize workflow? I'll list my own stuff with my specific setup and software. (Requested by bookowski, but I'm also interested.)

General
-Have several sheets of standard details that applies to almost any situation. For example, steel details that cover bracing, moment connections, base plates, etc. Aggresively reduce any details you need to draw specifically for any project.
-Any time a new detail is created, put it into a gigantic AutoCAD file of standards. I separate it by material, like having one for cold formed steel. The file itself should be organized into lots of different situations, like CFS on existing building, CFS with conc deck, CFS with plywood/Dragonboard, etc. Run quality control on this file once in a while for organization and weeding out outdated details.
-Put things into schedules as much as possible in order to not draw specific details.
-There are lots of things I use Excel for because it's specifically tailored to my typical projects and materials. Minimize the number of inputs. Software is more versatile, but usually it's faster to use a focused, purpose-built tool. Also, document every assumption made and possible "quirks," like something not working below or beyond a certain load because the assumptions will be broken. Make error messages for those quirks whenever possible using conditional formatting, IF statements, or VBA.
-Avoid VBA in spreadsheets unless it's strictly necessary. People can't understand it.
-Fully done, perfect examples of each type of building (CFS, wood, steel, etc) available to drafters as a starting point.
-This is gonna sound Machiavellian. But if you have employees, reduce thinking as much as possible through standardization. It speeds things up and reduces errors, and helps build upon gained knowledge. Almost nothing should be reinventing the wheel.

ETABS
Start every project from a standard ETABS file with:

-Typical sizes of members, slabs, walls, etc.​

-Auto select lists for beams and columns (like W10, W10 col, etc.)​

-Load combinations​

-"Once in a while" combinations like seismic overstrength combinations (it doesn't slow the analysis)​

-Nonlinear load cases switched off (switch on when needed; this will destroy analysis speed by 10 to 100 times when turned on)​

-Separate file for Auto Construction Sequence turned on (slows the analysis; only use when needed)​

-Load combinations for wind (ASCE 7-10+ lower wind speed) and seismic drift (no limit on Cu)​

Steel
-Export beam and column sizes from ETABS as a drawing, and paste into AutoCAD as a separate layer.
-For ETABS, I haven't found a way to easily export shear reactions, but I made a video for drafters on how to get it.
-ETABS will generate elevations with bracing. I delete column sizes so it doesn't get confused with the column schedule.
-Put concrete piers, base plates, anchor bolts, and column sizes all into one column schedule. No need to make separate details for each base plate; have a few typical situations.
-Have base plate standards for maximum axial load of each column size, and another one for a certain amount of moment together with anchor bolt sizes for your typical pier/footing size.
-Room for improvement: I'm experimenting with ETABS column schedule creation.

Foundations
-Have schedules DRAFTED for most cases of isolated and strip footings with different sizes and bearing pressures. I have eccentric with wall, eccentric without wall, different pier and base plate sizes, etc. This takes absurdly long to design, so I automated it with VBA scripts. I have about 100 of these schedules. Drafting them took a few days. This is a huge advantage because the footing can be selected by a drafter when they have the ASD load.
-For standards, I have interchangeable bottom and top details that are separated by a break line. So if you want mat footing supported wall with CFS joists, you can do that. Same thing with steel beams, just change the top part.
-I have a spreadsheet for grade beams. Just enter footing dimensions and loading, and it designs it. This is possible in software, but a focused spreadsheet does it faster with fewer clicks.
-I have a spreadsheet for bearing wall axial loading. It has buttons for different stud spacings (12" for wall, 16" for studs) and fills in most values automatically from a few basic questions, like what is the wall/floor material and usage. Only numbers you need to input is the number of stories, story height, and span.
-Room for improvement: A tool to take foundation loading from ETABS and spit out footing schedules. That part is currently done manually.

CMU
-All long bearing walls will have #5@24", which works for 100% of my building sizes. Shear walls will have rebar in each cell and unfortunately needs to be calculated.
-Steel bearing plate on CMU has a simple to use schedule for max load for W8, W10, W12, etc. up to about 50 kips. Uneconomical, maybe, but it saves design time.
-Room for improvement: A spreadsheet to take forces from ETABS and automatically design shear walls (I don't trust the built-in ETABS design tool too much).

Cold formed steel
-I use CFS software. I've made pretty much every joist and beam size in a standard folder, since it takes time to build them. They get copied when needed.
-I have a spreadsheet for stair beams. You input the dead and live load, span, and stair opening size, and it calculates all the uniform and concentrated loading on the stairs. This gets input into CFS. There's probably room for improvement if I learned the CFS API and linked the program to the spreadsheet, but that would also introduce usability issues with engineers in the office.
-Standard stud schedules for number of stories, joist span, and flooring material. About 30 of them.
-Room for improvement: A spreadsheet where you put beam/joist loading and it automatically picks a section size. CFS can't do this natively.

Wood
-I suck at wood.

Concrete
-Standard procedure made for obtaining results from SAFE using 1' on center design strips, which eliminates thinking.
-Excel file for column size determination using axial only. In my size of buildings, moment+axial never really controls. I'll still do an automatic P-M calculator in the future.
-Forget about direct design method. We never get nice rectangular bays.
-I made a guide on long-term deflection with load cases explained.
-I made guides on transferring between ETABS and SAFE, transfer slabs, soil subgrade calculation for mats, etc.
-Make a drafter lay out the rebar based on rules of thumb. Have an engineer design it.
-Room for improvement: Importing ETABS data for column and shear wall design, exporting schedules into AutoCAD.

 

[jerseyshore]

This is a really great summary. For me working for just myself, my optimized workflow includes how to get my wife and son out of the house more

But seriously, your major theme about simplifying the engineering to drafting to finished drawing process is key regardless of how many employees you have. Pulling in details and schedules and notes that are already good to go with maybe minor tweaks saves enormous amounts of time. I am chief engineer and draftsman. I need to get that drafting done asap so I can get back to more engineering. Worth the time to archive and sort things.

 

[milkshakelake]

@jerseyshore It takes an enormous amount of time upfront, but it does speed things up forever after that. Since you're a one man show, there's also the added benefit of not switching tasks too much. For me, I need to get into a certain headspace to do a calculation, like foundations or bearing plate or something. Then another headspace to draft it or do a different calculation. I don't smoke, but I need a kind of mental "smoke break." I try to cut down on that switching as much as possible.

 

[jerseyshore]

Yes agreed. When I'm working for myself everything is intertwined so engineering and drafting and calcs all blend together. Any time I can save using a previous calc or detail or autocad file is a minute less that I'm awake past midnight.

 

[ggcdn]

@Milkshakelake, curious to know what your ratio of drafting to engineering hours are on typical projects?

I do alot of the same things listed. Having typical details that don't need to be customized for exact project geometry is probably the biggest time saver in overall project hours. Reigning in rounds of coordination with arch also is a challenge. Revit burns enormous amounts of hours.

For slabs, how are you transferring the engineering design back to drafting? Paper markup? PDF markup? Direct in Autocad? We use bluebeam toolsets with predefined items (standard bar lengths, hooked bars, etc) but it gets to the point where it feels like we are drafting it twice. Having the typical bars already drafted might be helpful.

-JA (working on [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url])

 

[milkshakelake]

@ggcdn I didn't take the time to analyze that specifically, but the drafting time seems to be much higher than engineering. Engineering time is fairly low, and some simple calculations are done by drafters as well. That's for everything except concrete. Concrete is very heavy on calculations, and the engineering/drafting time is about equal. Checking concrete shop drawings are another time drain. I'm conflicted about whether to have drafters or engineers check them. Drafters do it much faster (because they don't know as much), while engineers take forever but can find design errors.

I don't use Revit so I don't know much about that, but I agree that coordination is a huge time drain. I've tried things like coordinating all major items at the beginning (col locations, framing composition, major beam locations, etc) and sending an email about it. I've identified most things that could possibly be a coordination issue down the line. It still becomes a time drain when architects start changing things. This wasn't specifically about billing, but sending that initial email also helps when there are change orders.

For slabs, the drafter lays out the rebar with typical sizes/lengths based on span and the engineer changes it in AutoCAD directly. No paper or pdf in the middle.

 

[RPGs]

Milkshake, thank you so much for sharing your workflows.

At the small firm I work at everyone basically does their own thing in terms of taking clients from start to finish. Everyone does their own calcs, drafting (some people do zero drafting at our firm), etc. and we share software subscriptions and our client base. I am one of the more detail oriented people capable of (and willing to do) full drawing sets, so I tend to take on most of the projects with drafting such that engineering is probably 40% and drafting is 60%.

I am trying to work up the courage to ask the owners of the company to invest in a drafter, so seeing your workflows here is so valuable. If I invest the up-front time others are talking about, I am confident I could keep a drafter busy full time so I can do more engineering and/or project management--which is the only way firms can really grow as far as I have learned from these forums. It's a big step up in terms of responsibility--I am used to worrying about myself and only myself.

 

[Tomfh]

Drafters do it much faster (because they don't know as much), while engineers take forever but can find design errors.

Our trend is for drafters to review shop drawings (primarily steel), mainly to save the engineers doing it, but yeah, they don’t catch screw ups. Personally I think the designer should check their own shop drawings, as only they know the design intent.

 

[IceNine]

We've found that Revit has greatly increased our efficiencies. We do mostly commercial work.
There is a learning curve, but once you're there, you'll never go back.
This is especially the case if you link it with an analysis software.

 

[human909]

Question: For additional context. What is the structure of your business? I presume you run it, or at least senior in an org? How many engineers? Are you drafters employees or contract?

What do y'all do to optimize workflow?

Unfortunately I don't and I haven't done much optimisation. I haven't had the time. (I know the irony here, optimisation of workflow should repay in time relatively quickly.) So my response won't help much.

I have two gigs, one salary and one along side another engineer.

The first gig is very niche and has more than 50% not directly design work (assisting project manager and even commissioning work). The variation does keep things interesting. The design work is mostly steel structures and niche steel vessels. I need to optimise my building design by improving my default template to include loads. Good excel spreadsheets to calculate wind and seismic are still needed. This is all design/build work so a direct relationship with the detailers and drafters assist with efficiency. Where I might lack in design efficiency is more than made up for by communication efficiency and specific design work.

The other gig I have I am a junior partner. The design and drafting optimisations are already mostly in place. I'm still getting up to speed and hence need to optimise my communication work flow. As discussed in the other thread I have purchased a Surface Pro for PDF markups, as the current process was unsustainably slow. I use a whole host of excel spreadsheets made by the other partner, lots of standard details too.

I am trying to work up the courage to ask the owners of the company to invest in a drafter, so seeing your workflows here is so valuable. If I invest the up-front time others are talking about, I am confident I could keep a drafter busy full time so I can do more engineering and/or project management--which is the only way firms can really grow as far as I have learned from these forums. It's a big step up in terms of responsibility--I am used to worrying about myself and only myself.

Bite the bullet and do it. An experienced engineer should spend spent very little if any time drafting/drawing. Though I'd argue spending a decent amount of time doing it when less experience can give you highly valuable experience that some engineers never get. I routinely see poor steel engineering because the designers seem to have no idea about connections and steel detailing.

Our trend is for drafters to review shop drawings (primarily steel), mainly to save the engineers doing it, but yeah, they don’t catch screw ups. Personally I think the designer should check their own shop drawings, as only they know the design intent.

Agreed regarding the engineer reviewing to ensure the design intent is achieved. With complex connections it is pretty easy to lose the design intent and drafters or even junior engineers won't pick up the subtle issues that if the loads are high could be quite problematic. I often see steel structure in the field where the design intent of the engineer has clearly not been achieved and has not been picked up.

I generally review the 3D models as I have a wealth of experience in that. I find it faster and more efficient that way, I'll generally try for progressive reviews to avoid wholesale changes once shop drawings are produced.

We've found that Revit has greatly increased our efficiencies. We do mostly commercial work.
There is a learning curve, but once you're there, you'll never go back.
This is especially the case if you link it with an analysis software.

I agree with the use of 3D software. I do industrial work with steel, designing things from 2D plans would be a nightmare.

 

[milkshakelake]

@RPGs No problem, just trying to help others and glean some intel myself. I'm no expert and always looking to improve. I think the delineation of drafters/engineers helps when the upper management want to cut costs. Drafters cost less. Having highly paid engineers do simple drafting is not a good use of money. On the other hand, having drafters do all the drafting isn't efficient either, because some things like column layouts are better handled by an engineer. Same applies for coordination; drafters can do some basic coordination. If 60% of your time is drafting, it sounds like a drafter can take at least 40% of that away from you. But before you dive into it with your management, there should be a clear plan for training the drafter and what to do if you can't feed them enough work. I think this kind of thing has to come from the top down, from people who are willing to make decisions and change stuff with an action plan, and can see the value of front-loading some work (most people don't). The front-loading might have to be done before hiring another person, which isn't possible unless the time is budgeted for that. If you take the burden yourself, you might get burned if it doesn't work out. But if it does work out, there's always the possibility of getting promoted or other stuff like that. Or at least getting some management experience.

@Tomfh I'll probably experiment with drafters checking basic stuff in shop drawings, like slab and column rebars. And then having the engineer check again for design errors.

@IceNine Thanks, I'll check that out. As far as I know, it probably wouldn't help much with things like cold formed steel and wood. Might be nice for concrete and steel. Does it work nicely with messy projects, with things like existing walls, stepped footings, existing footings, and other shenanigans?

@human909 I'm the owner. We have 3 engineers including myself and 3 drafters. I had 2 part time engineers doing side hustle for overflow type situations, but haven't used them for about a year; quality control suffers. Our secretary left after leaving the bookkeeping and taxes in shambles (I admit I should've been keeping an eye on it). I've spent months fixing that, but once that's done, I have grand plans to expand to 10-20 people. No idea if that'll work, but it'll be a journey at least. What do you do in terms of communication efficiency? I haven't figured out that part yet.

 

[IceNine]

milk,
It does fine with wood and cold formed steel, but in my opinion, it really shines with steel and concrete.
Revisions are much easier. For example, if you move a grid line, it moves at all levels. Columns, footings, and girders move automatically. Joists respace automatically, dimensions update, etc.
It's also great for drawing organization as everything is in one file, and multiple people can work on the file at the same time.

One of the best benefits is that in putting the drawings together you're actually putting the building together and you (and the drafters) tend to think more about how it actually goes together instead of just drawing lines.
You can easily view something in 3D to help you solve a trick framing situation.

 

[Lomarandil]

I'm going to push back on the idea of efficiency through specialized drafters -- at least for all market segments.

It works well in repetitive niches (buildings, short span bridges, utilities) and with the right personnel (a balance of experience and personality).

But in other cases, it's very easy to spend more time in the markup and backcheck cycle than the original engineer would have spent drafting it themselves.

 

[milkshakelake]

@Lomarandil I believe that with the right standards and training, drafters can be used effectively for general work. The backchecking time gets reduced with strict enforcement of standards. The advanced drafting tasks that engineers do should be delegated properly, especially at the beginning of a project. But the majority of stuff - like title blocks, layouts, backgrounds, most beam and stud wall placement, rebar placement, shear wall and column schedules (based on calculations), foundations, typical details, general notes, and things like that can be done by a junior drafter. For schedules and general notes, I keep things that need attention on every project in a different color (things like seismic load/system, holdowns, and special inspections).

It also helps to split the drafter and engineer specialties. For example, one of my drafters is good with preconstruction surveys, site safety plans, foundations, support of excavation (including calculations; it's pretty formulaic), and cold formed steel. Another one specializes in demolition, steel, concrete, and cold formed steel. Etcetera.

 

[MacGruber22]

For similar firms as ours (~20 engineers), managing detail libraries/templates with Revit is far easier than in AutoCAD. Not only is it easier to manage and update, it encourages far more uniform drafting and design standards between various engineers, and it reduces errors. Drafting views have designer notes and hyperlinks to important design processes in our MS Teams Onenote wiki. Though it was initially painful standardizing everything and going through years of typical detail auditing, code updates, etc, the effort has paid off. New people don't even want to use AutoCAD....and I agree, I don't use it much any more. Even if my job requires no 3D modeling, the sheet and detail management in Revit is superior.

-Mac

 

[milkshakelake]

@MacGruber22 Thanks for the tip. Someone else mentioned Revit, and with your endorsement, I definitely have to try it out. It might take some adjustment but it's worth it in terms of standardizing things.

 

[driftLimiter]

I am using revit as well, I haven't invested the time into managing a detail Library. But I have lately been trying to leverage revit to assist with the structural design, and finding new ways every project.

For example. You can store information on the revit model structural objects such as, end reactions, design status.
Measuring all the length of walls that are tributary to floor levels for seismic design can be automated and put into a table.
Custom families can take in minimal inputs about loading and select engineered components, like headers and footings.

And getting even more complicated, I have used Revit/Dynamo to spit out a bunch of information into a custom python script to run entire lateral analysis, then export the reactions, chord forces, and wall design back into revit.

I think there is huge and untapped potential in Revit (bim) for structural engineers to improve workflow.

 

[dold]

Enercalc just came out with a really slick add-in for Revit (Enercalc for Revit). I demo'd it a while back. It works similar to what @driftLimiter described - storing design information in object properties. E.g. click on a beam and the program will extract geometry as well as tributary areas, etc, then imports this info into Enercalc where the design is performed. Then it round-trips the design back into revit with the updated beam size. It also stores end reactions that can/will be applied to the next 'down-stream' (supporting) member so that one can be designed. It can also apply V/G filters so you can see code check status of each member in your 3D revit model.

There was a thread somewhere a while back where we discussed this. I really liked the demo. Handy for engineers who get into revit and do modeling themselves.

I'm sure @CConrad would be happy to provide any new info since I demo'd it some months ago.

Edit: Here's the link to that thread [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=497509[/url]

 

[driftLimiter]

Here is a vote for Enercalcs revit addin as well. I used the demo a while back too after @CConrad posted about it here. Really nice to have load linking ability with enercalc. TBH it left me really wanting the load linking feature in Enercalc native SEL.

 

[MacGruber22]

And getting even more complicated, I have used Revit/Dynamo to spit out a bunch of information into a custom python script to run entire lateral analysis, then export the reactions, chord forces, and wall design back into revit.

That is a step beyond us. I have beam families with reactions and other things for scheduling and general organizing, but not actual analysis syncing. The most I have done with Python is create a script to add "+/-" onto the suffix of existing dimension strings. Now, I noticed Revit 22 has suffixes built right into the dim family. Of all the great things about Revit, the things that take forever to improve make my head itchy.

Enercalc just came out with a really slick add-in for Revit (Enercalc for Revit).

Interesting. I will take a look at, though I would be afraid it would be buggy. I am not sure which is more buggy, enercalc or tedds.


Frankly, a lot of the struggle is teaching everyone in the office about the improvements and following up that they are using all the tools that have been developed.

-Mac