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 Run quality control on this file once in a while for organization and weeding out outdated details.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.

 

[bookowski]

@MSL - Thanks for putting that together. It's given me a couple of ideas and motivated me to get my act together.

The thread seems to have sidetracked into revit vs cad which is a different topic. It sounds like you're completely cad based and my 2 cents is that you should stay that way. For things like the soe and site safety plans that you referenced I see zero value in revit. Personally, I'm not even convinced it's that much better for buildings. I definitely see that it's much better in some ways but I also think it's a massive time suck for others so not a clear winner to me.

A few other thoughts on your outline:
- The save every detail thing can get messy. I've done the same off and on but at some point you have so many variations that finding what you need becomes problematic. Ideally you'd have an interface where you plug in "concrete job, on rock, etc etc" and it would retrieve the 20 typical details you need. I worked briefly at a small firm that would print a hard copy of the detail library in book form every so often with each detail having a library #. The interchangeable top and bottom details area a great idea.
- You seem to rely heavily on drafters. You must be finding much more intelligent drafters than I encounter if you're letting them do simple designs. I worked at a big firm that was the complete opposite of this - we had probably 1 drafter per 10 engineers if that and we drafted 90% of our own work. I've carried this over into my own work for better or worse. When you look at the financials of it does it make sense? Around here a new grad engineer would make mid 60's, a drafter isn't much cheaper - maybe mid 50's. You have to pay both benefits. To me the new grad engineer, made to draft as well, is going to make up that salary difference and more. At some level of engineers this falls apart and you need dedicated drafters for production but I'm surprised at your scale you have enough to keep them busy and profitable 24/7.
- SAFE designs directly or near directly into a drawing are a huge battle and big time suck. I've seen that some of the big firms have developed slick tools that allow this but there's nothing out there for the rest of us. The lack of in-program design straight to drawing is a major flaw in SAFE.
- 100% agree on dedicated excel tools. That's the software I would take to a deserted island.

 

[milkshakelake]

@driftLimiter & dold I downloaded the Revit trial and will put it through its paces, and see how it stacks up against AutoCAD. Definitely doesn't seem hard to use at first glance.


@bookowski Yes I am completely CAD based at the moment. I'll try Revit and see how it works out. Even if AutoCAD is the better option, I'd be remiss if I didn't give Revit a shot. I agree that things like SOE and site safety plans might need to stick to CAD.

About the large number of details getting messy, it does, but I monitor the standards and get rid of details that I never think I'd need. And I separate them by material and use. There's also a few sheets of standard details that will always be on a job of a certain type, like cold-formed steel. This is a tiny snippet of the non-standard details:

About drafters, for me, it's about taking intelligence out of the equation (which also applies for engineers) by having strict standards. And it does financially make sense, because drafters are closer to 40's and 50's while engineers are in the 70's and 80's, not separated by about 10k like you said. Might be a different job market where I am. I tend not to use new grads for engineers; they cost a lot and aren't any better than a trained drafter. The simple calculations drafters do are very simple, like routine load calculations (just pulling things from a spreadsheet) and entering spans. It's more like data entry than engineering. My scale is not large, but I hope this method scales as the company grows. I worked in companies where the lines were blurred between drafting and engineering, and it just didn't seem all that efficient. Lomarandil did push back on that idea, so there's probably merit to both approaches, and it's dependent on management style.

I agree that translating SAFE designs to drawings are generally a nightmare. The SAFE output is pretty much useless in its native form. I wish I had the resources to develop a tool to directly translate it into AutoCAD. Actually, I wish I had the resources for a lot of programming things, but the cost-benefit doesn't work out at my scale.

 

[phamENG]

I'll try Revit and see how it works out.

I'll be honest, didn't read the whole the thread. But this statement jumped out at me. Revit isn't something you just 'try out'. It's a completely different beast than autocad. Yes, it ultimately performs the same function (produce construction/permit drawings), but it does it in a very different way.

I'd suggest watching a bunch of videos on using revit for structures. See if you see a benefit. If a lot of your architects and the MEP teams are using it, there can be big benefits. On big jobs, clash detection can be wonderful. Because the the W18 is an actual 18" deep steel beam in the model rather than a line in 2d model space, the program can compare it to the MEP model and you know that a 16" duct is scheduled to pass through the same place - before the mechanical contractor is firing up his torch.

Revit is something to jump into and don't look back. Try to hold on to CAD a little bit (details are easier, so I'll just draw those in CAD; we'll just use dummy elements in the model and draw over them in CAD; etc.), and you'll be drowning in inefficiencies. Make the leap, work through the pains of the transition, and you'll be set. I started by using Revit LT with a couple clients that are Revit only. It's been great and those projects are a lot smoother. So I'll be making my complete switch here in the next week or so when my LT subscription runs out.

 

[dold]

Ideally you'd have an interface where you plug in "concrete job, on rock, etc etc" and it would retrieve the 20 typical details you need.

I worked at a ~80 person firm for a few years. This is exactly how our standards were implemented in project startups. All details were drawn in autocad but then exported/linked/somthing... into the revit sheets (if using revit). The designer simply enter a command like "setup sheet > steel > floor > typicals" (or something like that) which would populate the "typical sheets" (via LISP) with a predefined selection of details. I'd assume the "typical sheets" were defined in a .txt file somewhere that the program would reference when populating the sheets. I believe the command would actually copy the needed details from the "master file" into a new project specific folder so you can edit. Each detail was it's own .dwg, which (I think) would be xref'd into the details sheet. Then once the initial setup was completed the engineer would just cross out any unneeded details and modify others as needed. Each detail had a unique identifier (file name like 8-379247 or whatever) that the LISP program would use to manage the typical sheets, etc. Also a command to just pull in a detail by starting a command and entering the identifier - it would then insert/xref the detail into the next open position on the sheet. The identifier was also included in the actual detail underneath the detail number/title/symbol in very small/light font, so you could track down that specific detail later on, or if it was used in a previous project and wanted to pull those details you'd know what/where it is. Lots of the details would also include "engineer notes" in red text (it'd be deleted before printing a final set) that would give capacities of certain elements in the detail (i.e., capacity of a double top plate splice, or the vertical capacity of a ledger connection, or shear capacity of a blocking detail, etc)

Similar process for all typical plan notes and legends.

It was a very efficient process and a LOT of effort was put into creating the system. I'd assume there were well over 1000 typical details in the library. Each detail would have been reviewed/vetted/approved by the "expert" for that material. There were huge .pdfs that would include all the details of each material so you could just give the designer the detail number and the detail would be added. The library was so big and thorough that it was rare to have to draw up custom details from scratch. We'd do big wood-on-podium apartment buildings and 90% of the detailing would already be captured by the standards. Maybe some one-off details for some silly architectural elements but those are pretty quick to button up.

Edit to add that General Notes and Special Inspections were always managed through a word .docx, exported as an image and inserted/xref'd into the .dwg or .rvt sheet. That way the engineer could modify the notes in the word doc and then just tell the drafter "reload general notes". Most engineers didn't even have autocad or revit on our computers, just viewers.

 

[milkshakelake]

@phamENG I know that Revit is a big shift. The "trying out" thing is taking a few days, probably will need more. It'll also need training, training materials, standards, etc. I'm probably going to try it for a few projects to see if it's viable in the long term. I'm thinking of trying the non-LT version because it purports to do concrete shop drawings. I have no idea yet if that actually works, but it's advertised and might be worth it. If I'm making the models anyway, might as well get some shop drawings out of it and charge for it.

@dold I dream of that fancy LISP stuff all the time. I think it would solve lots of inefficiencies. I don't have the means to do it myself; it makes sense for an 80 person company. I'll see if there are any off-the-shelf routines or add-ons, paid or not, that could do this kind of thing. In terms of special inspection lists and general notes, the engineers do have CAD so they can do it themselves. Engineers need it anyway for placing columns. Though the price of the licenses add up, but it's a necessary evil.

 

[RPGs]

The "trying out" thing is taking a few days, probably will need more.

Same here. On my free time w/ trial version. Are you using a training course or a tutorial?

 

[milkshakelake]

@RPGs Sorry, I haven't been here for a while. I just dove into the trial without tutorials or training courses, trying a real project. Some of it is intuitive, and when it's not, I just Google the issue I'm having. There's a random clip on Youtube for pretty much any random little thing, like if you want to unpin an element or add a column size. I found that it's more like finite element analysis programs than AutoCAD.

So far, I'm not getting any value from it. It takes forever, but I can see the value in the future. Might speed things up once I get good at it.

 

[phamENG]

MSL - I'm finding that, if you model it correctly, it saves a lot of rework. If I model a floor system, I can cut a section through it and most of the necessary pieces are there. You can define view settings so lineweights of cut elements will look right. Then it's a matter of dropping in some detail elements, adding notes, and it's done. Pull the view from the project browser and drop it on a sheet and everything is ready to go. I'm starting to play around with instance parameters and building custom families. For wood construction, I'm trying to get to a point where I put a family in the wall that puts a header in that will show up on plan, and when I put it in I can define jack/trimmer studs, king studs, sill size, connections, whatever, and give it a type mark. Then I can select all instances at once, apply a type mark tag to them automatically, and then create a dynamic schedule with all of that information. Haven't gotten it working yet, but I know it's possible...a little at a time. (I even found a Dynamo script that will automatically seek out all wall openings in a linked architectural model and place a structural header over them. Haven't played with that....baby steps....)

The annotation and tracking of all the little things that don't usually get drawn but are scheduled, etc. always turns into a huge time suck for me. I think it has to do with my aversion to monotony.

 

[dold]

@dold I dream of that fancy LISP stuff all the time. I think it would solve lots of inefficiencies. I don't have the means to do it myself; it makes sense for an 80 person company.

Now might be the time to get our good buddy ChatGPT to help you out with some LISP programming?!

 

[milkshakelake]

@phamENG I'm not quite there yet, I'm still struggling with the basics of how to draw and move around stuff. But I'll keep that in mind when I get to that point. I do have a little wood project I can experiment with that on.

@dold The hope is that if Revit turns out to be awesome, there will be no need for LISP in my life anymore. But yeah, ChatGPT might be pretty helpful.

 

[phamENG]

One lesson learned this morning - architectural changes can hurt in Revit. I imagine that if I had set my constraints a bit more intelligently, things would have been better. But as it is, a bunch of little shifts jack up a bunch of stuff in those smart sections. Yikes.