Structural Drafting and Cad 7

[marinaman]

I'm a one-man structural engineering office. I own AutoCad.....but....due to my fear that my clients would begin using Revit (which none of them have) I purchased the Autodesk Building Design Suite that included AutoCad and Revit. I am on subscription.

I know there is a cad forum on this site, but, I want to talk only with structural engineers in my shoes who use AutoCad.

Renewal is close to $1,000 bucks a year for my single seat.....and.....my reseller (Advanced Solutions) wants another $375 for a year's worth of support. I tried to attend a Advanced Solution seminar on Revit and ended up leaving half-way thru the seminar as I had more knowledge of Revit, having never used it, than the instructor. Very disappointing.

That being said, is there a better reseller out there or are they all about the same? Not a single one of my clients use Revit.....and those who have tried it found that it killed their drawing quality. I have found that most who claim to use it actually build a crude model in it, only to do the actual production drawings in normal 2D AutoCad. The 3D work that my clients use to illustrate projects to clients are actually done in Sketch-Up and then we do 2D AutoCad drawings. My questions are:

- Who has had good service from a reseller and who is that reseller.
- Can I get a yearly renewal less expensive than $1,000 for one seat?
- In this specific industry (structural engineering for commercial buildings) is Revit the future or some other program that's better?





[/li][/ul]

 

[civeng80]

kylesite

I have no knowledge of revit apart from viewing youtube and what has been told to me.

I would like to pursue one day (but not today).

Autocad for me is enough and its great for me at this point. I know that it is based on lines rather than true building elements, but it is still a model it produces.

Even paper drawings are models of the structures we build.

 

[TDIengineer]

I agree that drafting in 2D while thinking and designing in 3D is the best way to go, but BIM modeling is here to stay.

Being that the design industry seems to be more and more influenced by contractor's and design build, I repeat, BIM is here to stay.

Right now, Revit seems to have the most traction for BIM modeling of complicated structures. I agree, if the you're designing a storage building with minimal coordination needed, BIM would be a waste of time. But for a complicated, plant or hospital, BIM is very useful for the contractor, and can be useful to the designer.

I also agree 100% that the workflow using Revit is different than CADD. You have to think about managing your model rather than drafting your design. Which parameters will be part of the object and drive your schedules? and which things will simply be a detail line or annotation. This is something we still struggle with... do you model every single parameter in the object and then let your auto tagging bring it to life.. or do you just add the text for some parameters...So many ways to do it, so little time these days.

The cost of the software is significant, and $1000 a seat is about right as someone else noted.

 

[Lesali]

Ok, I think since BIM programs are more complex, cost more, and are harder to learn, there is a place for both 2D & 3D drawing in the future - after all some of us still do hand sketches right? It all depends of the level of complexity and the need for coordination. In building projects as an engineer at a large firm, while the drafting department worked their magic, my use and experience on Revit was limited to extracting information to produce the calculations. So to my ability to be proficient in Revit was limited. But, since the civil department was using Civil 3D, it was natural to produce drawing for their projects - like pump stations - in ACAD. Thus, each has it's place.

Now on my own, I've been using a 2D product called ProgeCAD since 2008 that is very much like ACAD (like my shoes, it's Italian ). I just upgraded to 2013 for very little money. They also have a BIM program called ProgeCAD Architecture that costs quite a bit less than Revit. I don't own it, haven't tried it and for my work in telecom can't justify the expense. So, I don't know if it has all the features of Revit such as: a central file where multiple users can check out portions of it for editing or if it creates a structural model that is forward and backward compatible with a FEM program like RISA. But cost wise, it is worth a look.

 

[ThomasH]

Hi

Interesting discussion. I remember a couple of decades ago I was in a discussion regarding 2d cad and hand drawings. The consensus was that cad would be good for some of the drawings. But for example detailing would be "by hand". Cad could never compete. We now know what happened, the software became better and cheaper as did the computer. And the guy who did the hand drawings retired some years ago, at least where I work.

Where I work everything is cad and a lot of it is 3d. But note, when I say 3d cad I mean 3d modelling, not a 3d model made from lines. 2d cad, like autocad, is (in my experience) often a database for lines. 3d often means objects but inside for example Revit there can be 2d drawings. I have colleagues who model a simple concrete slab in Revit, simply because it is faster.

We also have tools like Tekla Structures where there is no 2d modelling. It is all in 3d including the full detailing.

For us I would say that Revit is part of the future as will Tekla Structures. I am not as sure about AutoCad though.

Personally, I don't use any of them. I work with structural calculations in a general FEM - software. But regardless of what you do and what your software is called you need to know how to use it properly.

I have yet to meet somebody who wants to go back to a "simpler" software after properly learning to use a more advanced. They simply are more efficient. Some of the projects we have had could not have been made in 2d within the timeframe, period. To produce thousands of drawing with no errors in the measurements given, that requires a full 3d approach in my opinion. You can't have "some" 2d drawings attached.

But it is a personal opinion, the future will give us the answer. Anybody who claims that 2d "by hand" is still unbeatable ?

Regards

Thomas

 

[TXStructural]

I was doing 3D on a Mac using Vectorworks for years before AutoCAD became 3D. Once mastered, it makes life easier. We are already seeing 3D in the field on iPads and tablets for ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION work. (I pay about $700/year for Vectorworks, so $1000/year is not out of line.)

I think the use of paper drawings has a really good place: to let me sign something that is simple enough to understand and be built, without ambiguity. But 3D CAD, and by extension "full BIM", have the potential to make things better for all of us, once the tools are available and easy to use. They are not really there yet, and the best ones are very expensive (and Revit is NOT necessarily the best BIM software, it is just ubiquitous.)

Right now, engineers are the ones who suffer BIM, while architects, owners, and contractors get the benefits. But this shouldn't surprise any of us. We don't get paid enough as it is, and asking us to do more, using expensive and complicated tools, for the same or lower fees, is just par for the course. Please embrace BIM, but do so only for commensurate fees.

 

[Archie264]

>>>Anybody who claims that 2d "by hand" is still unbeatable smile?<<<

For a quick sketch issued on site it is.

That aside, one of my issues with a 3-D model vs. a 2-D drawing is that the 3-D model is more of a picture while the 2-D drawing can be schematic. This has some implications. A 2-D drawing pushes the detailing down to the fabricators who issue shop drawings for review. A 3-D model pushes it back up to the designer, at least to some extent. And yes, I realize that there is file-sharing between the two, but the model still originates from the original designer, usually. Maybe that's a good thing, but it will be interesting to keep an eye out for the legal issues related to this that will no-doubt eventually arise.

Another issue is that there is more pressure for a 3-D model/picture to be perfect. In a 2-D schematic drawing a beam can be represented by a simple line. In a 3-D model/picture the flanges show up, which then interfere with the column unless the flange is coped away, the right connection shown, etc. So, the model doesn't look "right" until the bulk of the detailing is performed.

It puts pressure on the generalist to become a specialist in all disciplines and no one can do that very well.

Just my $.02.

 

[ThomasH]

Archie264

I thought we were discussing drawings, not sketches ;-). But I have visited sites that had 3d software and knew how to use it so I would not even consider sketches a sure thing.

But I also think it may be a cultural thing. If I understand you correct you don't usually produce the shop drawings, we do. We usually do everything from the design to the final drawings for the (for example) steel manufacturer. I know that in some countries it is common to produce schematic drawings and than review the fabricators shop drawings. But I also hear that the concept of BIM which is to not redo things in different systems.

We often (usually) do the complete design and the shop drawings. Usually not the same person but within a team. But sometimes one person does the analysis and the 3d modelling as well as the shop drawings for the steel. But that often means a small and uncomplicated project.

Regards

Thomas

 

[TXStructural]

Actually, BIM uses a confederation of models, not a single software. The interaction between the BIM software packages allows different users to use the data they need without the cumbersome accumulation of data they do not need. As pointed out previously, BIM is data-driven, not simply a set of lines or objects. A fabricator may access certain geometry and associated data (steel grade, for instance) without touching the remainder of the information. In this way, many users only read the data and do not write to the file unless and until they have completed their task, if ever. There is usually a version control feature such that users are alerted if something changes (like the location or size of a beam.)

It is truly elegant when properly implemented, and is a nightmare when pieced together from incompatible models and data. The mechanism of interchange is a common set of descriptions for data (i.e., the database structure), and as long as all software is aware of these descriptions and uses them as agreed by the industry, interchange is (usually) flawless.

 

[Archie264]

Does that include reinforced concrete with all the bars and bends shown? If so, my hat's off to you. Producing the drawings plus the detailing for that sounds like an awful lot.

 

[ThomasH]

Archie264

For steel it is in some respects routine for us today. 3D model and all the way to shop drawings is fairly routine with Tekla Structures. When we use Revit we usually export the model to Tekla because Revit is not as strong in the steel detailing. But Revit will improve as will Tekla. And I'm sure there are other software's that I haven't mentioned.

Reinforced concrete is another story. For steel we have done it for perhaps 15+ years but for concrete it younger, perhaps 5 years. We have done it completely for some complicated geometries including bars, bends and so on. It is possible but not "routine" as it is with steel. Usually you end up with a combination of methods. Like a 3d model and then drawing the bars on a 2d cad exported from 3d or 2d inside Revit. But I think that within a few years the use of 2d AutoCad will be significantly smaller. I thing you have to reach some kind of "critical knowledge" and then it changes. If haven't done it before you can't be sure and than you are more careful. If you fell safe you just do it.

You mentioned sketches and we have people who sketch 2d "by hand" but they usually don't use cad at all. As for "2d on site", sure but that is not really a software issue. It's just being practical. I think 2d vs 3d is to some extent a matter of generations but also a matter of how you feel about change. Some embrace it while others don't. But I'm not saying that all change is good.

The discussion that I hear is usually not 2d or 3d, it is 3d or 4d or even 5d. They want to add money and planning (time) to the models. And we have done so in some projects. But that is still a work in progress, we are not there yet.

Regards

Thomas