Structural Desktop

[Steve_Bennett]

Why not do a Structural Desktop version of ADT? I'm thinking something along the lines of the rumored revit structure that is supposed to come out sometime in the near future. You could have full control over framing objects such as beams, joists, purlins, posts, studs, etc. & have the ability to run calculations on wether or not the will support given design loads.

Even if Autodesk won't do this, it would be nice to know their position. I know this is probably water under the bridge, but thought I would post anyway.

[david_peterson]

I'd settle for a program that can do the kinds of things us structural types do all day long.
Draw concrete, rebar and Steel. Concrete is a free form thing and I should not be restricted to using walls, slabs and one off mass elements. Also the basic use of cut planes gets thrown out the window on most foundations I do. I may have a footing 20' below the slab on grade.
There are so many things that ADT can't do faster than a 2-d drawing when it comes to the structural side. I have to spend way to much time creating the model and put in so much detail that it becomes more work than what I need to do to complete my task.
Putting the concept of how the building goes together on a piece of paper.
As for doing calcs and what not look at a program called Ram Cad Studio and or ADT Link. ADT link will pull all the info from a RAM model into ADT as ADT objects.
This way of thinking keeps the engineers working on their model and the drafters on their drawings.

[Scott D Davis]

At AU 2004, it was demostrated that ADT and Revit were to 'work together' for the first time, beginning with Revit Structures. ADT users will import their model into Revit Structures for analysis. When a member of the audience asked if anything was planned for an "ADT Structures" program, the response was "Why? You'll use Revit Structures."

[am_l_e]

How can we use Revit Structures?...we'll must buy Revit?...or only Structures?

[arcadia_x27]

Revit structures isnt a production software program. Its still being developed. I believe it will be a vertical program meaning you wont have to buy both Revit and then an add on to get structures. You will probably have a chioce to get either regular Revit or Revit Structures just like you can get AutoCAD and Architectural Desktop.

[hand471037]

Revit structures isnt a production software program. Its still being developed. I believe it will be a vertical program meaning you wont have to buy both Revit and then an add on to get structures. You will probably have a chioce to get either regular Revit or Revit Structures just like you can get AutoCAD and Architectural Desktop.

I totally agree with this.

From looking at the 'hooks' present in Revit 7 Family Parameters, you can see that what they probably will get with 'Revit Structural' is a different version of Revit, that looks like Revit, acts like Revit, can communicate with Revit Building, but is it's own application that also has additional tools for Structural tasks, not Revit + something else, like ADT is in regards to Building Systems. Same thing I think for the rumored Revit Mechanical, for there are 'dead' parameters present in Revit 7 that allow you to spec the kind of required connection a plumbing fixture needs and such that currently don't do anything within Revit now (other than show up on a schedule).

Also, keep in mind, that Revit's future API is rumored to be .NET based (at least from what I've heard about from people that went to AU this year and here on AUGI). This is something that will be new to a lot of AutoCAD/ADT folks. In AutoCAD/ADT, at least as I understand it, the 'API' is really a whole programming environment ala LISP or ObjectARX, where AutoCAD/ADT is almost a whole OS or Virtual Machine for running very specific AutoCAD/ADT-only code. This, actually, is a very old way of doing software development IMHO. The whole .Net thing is very different in many ways, more like doing VBA addons for AutoCAD/ADT, only much more in line with 'modern' software ideas, much more about having programs work together better, and I think we'll really see this in the future of how Revit gets added onto and how tools interact with Revit- it will be fundamentally different, conceptually, than what you've experanced with ADT. I personally think when they (Autodesk) talk about Revit being a 'future' platform, they are talking about it at a much deeper level than I think we're thinking. Instead of 'Revit + something else' it will be special-built versions of Revit, and outside applications that can talk to Revit, but that are able to talk to each other via .net and other more modern things...

And as for the above posts about what you'd like for it to do, well, some of that was being done in Softdesk and was dropped when they got bought out and rolled into ADT. Several Structural guys I know are still bitter about that, or they keep a copy of R14 with Softdesk 8 around, or just switched to another application for modeling & calcs and just use AutoCAD/ADT for 2D drafting. So I think the forthcoming Revit Structural will be the first real offering Autodesk has had for the Structural folks out there, and I think that's a big thing. I think it's being done in Revit for several reasons, but mainly because (IMHO) it was probably easier to make Revit Structurally aware, yet be able to pull in ADT models too, than it was to do it the other way around (make ADT structurally aware, yet be able to read Revit models).

And as for a 'Structural ADT', I kinda shutter at the thought when I think of how complex ABS came out to be. It could be a great tool, it could have potential to be way better than the forthcoming Revit Structural, but if it's not accessible to it's market you have to wonder just how far it will go...

But this is all just rumor, and from things I've seen in Revit 7 and heard from the grapevine mind you. Who knows what's really going to happen.

[dkoch]

FWIW, at AU they pretty much stated that Revit Structural was going to be the Autodesk structural package, period. They stated that it would be able to play nice with ADT, for those architects using that package.

AutoCAD and ADT both also making .NET customization available. Not that I have time to learn that. :-(

[hand471037]

AutoCAD and ADT both also making .NET customization available. Not that I have time to learn that. :-(

so that makes what? eight? nine different APIs within AutoCAD now? ;)

I kid because I love.

[dkoch]

I will take your word for it; I have never tried to count them all, myself. I taught myself basic AutoLISP, but never had the time to get into the VLISP functions. I have had enough exposure to VBA to do some harm, but probably little good. As much as I enjoy the occasional programming project to make a given task easier, at the end of the day my paycheck is based on what architectural skills I have [and how fast I can crank out "perfect" documents], not on my programming skills.

[david_peterson]

I still haven't seen ANY product out there yet that will make my life that much easier.
While some applications can do some of the plan work for you, I still haven't seen any details from time. Revit can make nice plans, ADT can make nice plans. But from where I sit, that only makes up about 25% of a drawing set. And from what I can gain with plans and generic sections, the amount of hoops you have to jump through to get anything that looks good negates that.
Details are where it's at. The faster, and more accurate, you can detail a building the better.

[jeffh]

David,

Have you ever used the detail module in ADT? It was totally revamped in ADT 2005 and works great. Many more detail components were added to ADT 2006 (I am still awaiting my copy). If you are so inclined there are even ways to create XML "recipies" to create custom detail components. All the detail components are also able to be linked to a keynote databate to make annotation as easy as possible. If you have not checked it out give it a try.

Jeff Hanson

[david_peterson]

We have a symbol manager that runs as a 3rd party app over ADT.
We already have most of our standard details all done so I just have to insert them and make slight changes.
For the most part I have to detail a lot of steel connections and rebar placement. I also don't have the time to fix all of the out o the box details to look correct.
I would like to find out more about the .xml approach. Where can one find the good info about that.
Thanks

[jeffh]

The XML stuff is just a little out of my range as well, but I know it can be done. I have seen posts at the autodesk discussion groups from a couple of people there who have used the XML process to make their own "detail components". Perhaps post a question over there and you might get someone to bite.

Jeff

[Steve_Bennett]

ADT 2006 can use regular excel sheets as databases without having to have them be ms access files. Maybe this will do what you want?

[tatriest]

I was involved in a webcast about Revit Structure (also signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement-can get to specific). Revit Structure will NOT do structural design. It with 'communicate' with a structural design package, (Etabs, etc.) to design the members. The webcast I attended demonstrated the ability to draw the structure in Revit, then easily export to Etabs, Run the analysis, import the designs back into Revit.

This is what ADTlink (Advanced Microsystems, Inc.) does with ADT and Ram Structural Systems.

[cholmes]

I haven't looked much at 2006 yet, so some of the structural model creation may be better, but in my opinion, the plan work / building model, and the detailing are the two most important factors for me. I could care less if you can do analysis, that's what the engineers do, and we already have programs for that (RAM, Risa, Risa 3d, etc.)
I have been able to do most of what I need to since ADT 3.3, but I have had to create a lot of methods, and a lot of wall styles for footings, etc. It seems like there could be more tools for the structural end of things, I just can't come up with any ideas at the moment!

[david_peterson]

I gave up trying to use walls for foundation parts along time ago.
Concrete is free form (sounds like a mass element to me)
When it comes to having curbs, set backs, bump outs, dips, drops and elevation changes, mass elements are about the best thing I can think of. They are still kind of a pain to modify, but I'm assuming it has to be a lot easier than adding, plan and body modifiers all over the place. Plus you never have to worry wall clean ups.

All of the out of the box stuff seems to be set up for flat foundations. I've never worked on a building that didn't have some kind of step in the footing and or wall, some type of drop in a brick ledge, stepped top of wall, sloping ledges, piers, and plasters......etc.

I've tried with slabs and gave up using those. Too hard to modify.
I can post some examples of mass element foundation systems if you'd like.

On the point of doing analysis; you're correct, I don't care about that either, and that is the job of the engineer. So I'm going to take a guess and say right now you create a drawing, layout some bays and grids, give it to an engineer so he can put the same info in RAM and then give you back a piece of paper with all of the beam sizes on it that you have to place in the drawing somehow. Now with ADT you'd have to change all the beam sizes by changing styles, hope the tag you have will update. Still a lot of work. Or maybe you can import the model from RAM and you still have to place the tags and make some adjustments. So here's the thought. What if, you started a drawing layed out some bays and grids, give rights to your engineer to set up the analysis model in your file, exports that to RAM, In-ports the ram model back to your file and Poof. All off you member sizes are correct, tagged, spaced correctly, dimensioned, and you didn't do anything. Talk about a time saver. Using ADT link, you can import an 8 story building with cols, braces, and beams, set to the correct style (by member size) put at the correct elevation and ready for tagging in about 45sec. or less.

[cholmes]

I know this thread is a bit old, but I have been busy and kind of forgot about it!
I have downloaded ADTLink, but haven't tried it out yet. It looks promising.

As far as foundations, I agree, they are never totally flat. What I have done is create several "wall" styles for all of the foundation elevations. For example, I have a footing style for 99'-0", 98'-0", 97'-0" etc. I don't bother with the actual thickness, because ultimately, it doesn't really matter in the model. All of them are set up as 12" thick.
For grade beams, I have several of the common ones we use, for example one at 99'-0" that is 42" thick. In most cases I just use these. If I have situation where I want to build the exact foundation, I will create new styles, starting with what I have. These then go into a common file, so I am basically building up a library of footing styles.

I have never used any body modifiers for any foundations that I draw. If I have a bump out, I will put in a little piece of wall that interects it. The nice thing about using walls, is that the with can easily be changed. If I have drawn a 24" wide footing and it needs to change to 36" wide, I simply change the width. Everything still cleans up, it updates my schedule, etc. The only place that runs into a problem with cleanups is a spread footing in the corner, interesecting two continuous footings. In this case, I just do a wall merge, and I'm done.

[david_peterson]

Well here's the question of the day for you regarding ADT link.
Can it do footing schedules (with bars) Column schedules, and those types of things that the RAM Cad Studio can do?

[cholmes]

Well, I don't know about ADTLink yet, as I haven't tried it, but I can do footing schedules and column schedules in plain ol ADT.
Not familiar with Ram Cad Studio, what types of things does it do?

[david_peterson]

It takes the info from the ram model ( base pl thickness, size, col size, length, anchor bolt info) and creates a schedule for it. You can do the same thing with footings, size, thickness, reinforcing. ie the schedule can't differ from the Ram model because it's linked.
How were you doing schedules with footings? Just getting size from the property data set or were you able to put the amount of reinf in footing style somehow.

[cholmes]

The size it gets directly from the size of the "wall" , Length, width and height (thickness)
The rebar is simply a cutom property set object. It is an object based property, so it has to be manually input for each individual footing, but it is actually easy when you edit the cell in the schedule. The schedule is set up to do a total for each type of footing, (but then the total column is not displayed)
For example, out footings would be labeled, F4.0 for a 4'-0" square footing, F3.5 for a 3'-6" sq, and so on. The schedule groups all of the F4.0 into one line, and the last column is for reinf. If I edit that cell, it's done.
I also have some other object based properties, such as top of footing, and for columns, base plate size, number and size of anchor bolts, & base plate elevation.

It took a bit of work to get all this initially set up (back in 3.3) but it still works great.

That RAM linking sounds great, and something I will look into. One problem though, we do a lot of small projects that the engineers may not even use RAM for. Also they use Risa for a lot of things.

[david_peterson]

Just by chance (as I basically suck at this whole property set data thing) you wouldn't want to post an example of one these footings whould you?

[cholmes]

Sure, here's a quick little generic drawing I made up. It shows some typical example of things I use on a daily basis. The column grid would typically be a separate drawing xref'd in, but this still shows you how it works. We don't actually ever do a column schedule. Instead, we label each column (I only put one column label in this drawing)

If you have any questions let me know. It has been awile since I actually created a lot of these objects, so I may have to jog my memory a bit!

[david_peterson]

Great.
I have a few misc blocks I've been using on my foundations, as I took the approach to modeling the whole thing with mass elements. I will say they work great. I've never had any real issues with them.
I post a few little examples.
Enjoy

[cholmes]

Sorry, I updated my last post instead of posting a new one! Looks like you posted while I was editing :-)

[david_peterson]

No prob.
Thanks for the example, it gives me a lot to play with.
Thanks again.
When we get the Ram Cad Studio in our office (our sister office is currently the one testing it) I'm sure I'll post some more on this thread, or start a new one some what dedicated to it.

[psustruct.84232]

CADstudio will not directly convert the RAM information into ADT objects. It converts the data into RAM CADstudio entities (Proxy entities.) Which means that anyone who wants to view the entities needs to have the Object Enabler (free to install anywhere) loaded on their computer. The proxy entities are 3D shapes. BOTTOM LINE............ CADstudio is for vanilla ACAD users.

CADstudio has excellent beam tagging. And CADstudio will xref together an OVERALL.DWG that is a 3D building structure. This Overall.dwg can then be converted to ADT objects if you purchase ADTlink. This allows the structural consultant (who is using vanilla ACAD) to give the Architect a structure with ADT entities.

ADTlink can do direct conversion from RAM to ADT objects. Then, anyone with ADT will be able view AND edit the data. You only need the license to do the linking procedure, after that, it's ADT all the way.

I have not had the chance to test the newest version which is developed for ADT 2006. When I last tested it, it had property data for beams - studs and camber (the shape size is also linked.)

Here the PSD items that would be good to extract from RAM:

Beams: Size, Studs, Camber, Reactions, Elevation
Joists: Size, Reactions
Footings: Length, Width, Thickness, Rebar Minor Dir., Rebar Major Dir.,Ftg Number
Columns: Size, Grid Location, Column Number, Baseplate size

[david_peterson]

As a structural type, I've seen the Proxy entities, and frankly I'm not that concerned. I've been able to view all the info I would need to create the model that I would need.
The idea of not being able to edit the proxy entities is OK by me. I've sent out Col grids and plans and such to consultants, and seen them come back with changes I didn't make or want.
I've had Archies move columns and shear walls on me, Without my knowledge. My whole point here is that I don't want to have to buy 2 programs that do just about the same thing.
As I don't currently have either of the programs, (our sister office has a copy of Cad studio) I'm not sure what problems this would cause. I'd like to have the model linked all the time. If I Run the ADT link, do I loose the ability to tag beams, and create schedules directly from Ram.
Or is all this data contained within the ADT model in the PSD? Which I could then still create the schedule. And I would only need 1 license of each because it's all ADT after you run the link.
I know this is getting a little off topic, but I'd like to find out others are doing, and this seems to be about the best place.