Who is Structure targeted at?

[Chad Smith]

I've been playing around with Structure and am finding myself asking who is Structure targeted at.

From what I can tell, it has all the Revit Building structural elements and a couple of extras, but it seems to be aimed at increasing the analytical data rather than helping the drawing process.

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I was expecting to be able to assign connections to haunches and columns and maybe to footings which would help tidy up the ends of structural components.
I was thinking it would be nice to be able to define the common steel section properties in a spreadsheet style interface so that the one definition could be used for columns, braces and beams. Rather than having to waste time defining the same profile in different families depending on it's use.
I thought it would be nice to be able to define portal frames in a table which is broken down into columns haunches and rafters and then draw a portal frame that goes from grid A to grid B and then be able to assign connection details.

I guess what I'm saying is that I was expecting to be able to draw the structural components a lot quicker, easier and with more detail, instead of getting more info off the already existing available tools.

I don't know, maybe these features are there and I'm not looking in the right place.

Our engineer already uses some fantastic structural design software and there are already plenty of products around to do this. What we need is a more efficient and easier way of creating and displaying this in Revit.

I'm not trying to rant, I'm just confused. :?:

[Steve_Bennett]

If these features don't exist (haven't had the time to get real deep into it yet), these sound like excellent items for the wish list. Keep in mind this is only version one of RS. There will definitly be future upgrades as to how it functions.

[Chad Smith]

Yeah, I know it's the first version . :smile:
I was expecting it to be more about drawing rather than data.

I would rather be drawing the structure quickly, and get the limited data, than struggle with the drawing process and not do it to completion because it takes too long and then get data on the items that I have chosen to draw. Drawing the structural items is currently a tedious task.
It makes more sense to have tackled it around the other way, at least to me anyway ;-) .

[Arnel Aguel]

Yeah i do agree with Chad the drawing capabilities to complete the whole structural system is still not up to expectation. It still very far behind the capabilties of tekla structure but as what has been mentioned this is just the first release and we all know that the next few releases will definitely be going to be robust and improvements will surely take place.

Happy revitting to all.

[Scott Davis]

Yeah, I know it's the first version . :smile:
I was expecting it to be more about drawing rather than data..Chad,considering your Revit history, I'm actually shocked at your statement! Revit is all about the Data! Always has been, and always will be....Building Information Modeling. Revit Structures must be, and is, all about the data, and how that data is transported to analysis programs, and round-tripped back into Revit. It's the data that makes the fact that Revit is a database, work!

I have heard statements from those related to the factory, that say something like "Modeling is the 'easy' part to program." They know how to make Revit a 'model building machine', but that's not what it's intended to be. It's not just a modeler! The modeling is such a small part of the big picture, of the relationships, of the parametrics, of the BIM.

[Wes Macaulay]

Revit Structure solves a basic problem in structural engineering firms: they have one platform for drafting, one for modeling, and others for analysis -- like AutoCAD, Tekla and ETABS respectively.

Before RS, for analytical purposes one had to build the model several times in each one of the platforms that you were using for analysis. And the construction drawings were happening in parallel and were a separate task. RS merges these processes.

Our structural engineers are quite excited about the idea that the analytical model can be retained later into the project, even after changes have been made. The plan is to have RS "talk" and "listen" to analysis platforms so that modeling and drafting can be done in RS, and all one has to do in the analysis platform is run the tests.

[Jeffrey McGrew]

Before RS, for analytical purposes one had to build the model several times in each one of the platforms that you were using for analysis.

You know Wes, I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and this is off-topic so I'll keep it short, but I can't wait until Revit Building itself allows for some basic Architectural analysis or can integrate ala RS to an analysis system.

I'd love to run panic exiting / wayfinding studies on my Revit models.

I'd love to run wind, thermal, acoustic, and daylighting studies ala Ecotect on my Revit models.

Why do the Structural engineers get to have all the fun? I want to get that same high-level design feedback based upon real physics too, I just care more about 'will this be a nice building to be in and around' than 'will this building stand up' ;-)

[Wes Macaulay]

Hmm - good point. I guess the problem is that no one has made such programs for the architects huh? I think I see an opporunity here, Jeffrey!

[Jeffrey McGrew]

Hmm - good point. I guess the problem is that no one has made such programs for the architects huh? I think I see an opporunity here, Jeffrey!

Yeah, I wish I had the time to grow my programming skills more! :D

[Roger Evans]

Expanding the thread topic here a little .. and I think I have mentioned this a few years back .. but when I was in college in the 70's computers were very much in their pre- infancy / conception period .. there were only a couple of guys interested in what they could do & what they could be used for in architecture .. the general anticipation was never focused on how computers could be used for drafting ..but how they could be used as design tools in their own right.

I remember being shown how a computer generated a graphic layout of a logical housing site plan based on criteria fed into its program and direct comparisons were then made with a couple of designs produced by architects. The computer layout produced was almost as useful as the architects layouts .. which given 30 years progress in computers means the computer solution should be even better by todays standards.

It seems to me that this aspect of using computers as design tools still has to be addressed.

[Phil Read]

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I was expecting to be able to assign connections to haunches and columns and maybe to footings which would help tidy up the ends of structural components.

Chad/All -

Footings/connections are nice graphically - but not critical in initial development. If it were - they would be there at R1. Really. IF you need to model them, you can. It's just not "automagic". ;)

As you mentioned there are many other modeling application for structural elements. Here's the catch: the engineer models an analytical model which does not concur with the physical model. So the technical staff uses this as a reference, a guide. Not as a literal interpolation.

So here's the completely unique thing with Revit (as in unique in the world): The physical model and the analytical model are integrated - but not dependent on each other. Necessary deviations are allowed - but the relationships are maintained. This allows for extraordinary flexibility and process integration between engineer and technical staff since they're now able to work from the same database for both analysis and documentation - unequaled and compelling advantage.

So connections will come. As architects - we understandably think that not being able to see/model the connections is a glaring omission. But at the same time the vast majority of engineers don't model connections. They draft them. And of those, the vast majority don't engineer the connections - they sub them to the fabricators.

My .02.

-Phil

[FK]

I know the SOM folks are kinda busy, but they might tell us how they've been analysing the Tower...

[Wes Macaulay]

So connections will come. As architects - we understandably think that not being able to see/model the connections is a glaring omission. But at the same time the vast majority of engineers don't model connections. They draft them. And of those, the vast majority don't engineer the connections - they sub them to the fabricators.As usual Phil, it's worth more than two cents ;-)

He's right. A lot of the "glaring omissions" were of no consequence to the engineers who reviewed the initial release of Revit. So up here in Canada, it's the same deal: the model is paramount, and the bits in between can be drafted.

RS users at release 1 of their product get a well-developed back end that the architectural community has helped develop for them :razz:

[Chad Smith]

OK, I think I can see where Structure is coming from. It's about using the extended data to output to other software, and not about making it quick and easy to 'model' the data in the first place. ;)

Footings/connections are nice graphically - but not critical...
Absolutely they are. We need to know if our racking or coving or what ever it may be, is going to miss the base plates. Not all column bases are underground.

So connections will come. As architects - we understandably think that not being able to see/model the connections is a glaring omission.
In our company we do everything in-house, which covers Design, Engineering, Steel Detailing and Fabrication.
As the designers we need to know if our internal fixtures are going to be clear of the steel structure and connections.
But at the same time the vast majority of engineers don't model connections. They draft them.
Isn't Revit supposed to be a Building Information Modelling package.
Being able to clean up the haunches and rafters so that they are not square would definitely go a long way to make the drawings look neat.
It's a nice thing to have the data, but I see that as useless without a graphical representation.
And of those, the vast majority don't engineer the connections - they sub them to the fabricators.
Since we are the fabricators, our engineer designs all the connections too.

[Chad Smith]

He's right. A lot of the "glaring omissions" were of no consequence to the engineers who reviewed the initial release of Revit.
Maybe that's the problem. Was the review group made up of structural design firms only?
Were there any architectural/structural/fabrication firms included?

[Phil Read]

Maybe that's the problem. Was the review group made up of structural design firms only?
Were there any architectural/structural/fabrication firms included? Chad - I don't believe this was the case, but you've made the necessary distinction. At the present (R 1.0) Revit has been targeted toward engineering and analysis - not fabrication. If you need to model 3D connections, this is of certainly possible.

All the best -

Phil

[gkite]

Our firm is in the process of making the leap from AutoCAD to Revit Structure and our initial impressions of the software are very favorable. We consider the ability to share the same model between our engineering and drafting departments as a tremendous advantage as it does away with so much duplication of effort. I have to say in response to one of Chad’s comments that having the data without some of the finer graphical representation is far from useless from our perspective.

However, I would also have to agree that this initial release of RS appears to be more geared toward structural design firms but it only stands to reason that additional features such as connection detailing and shop drawing creation will follow in future releases. During the Beta testing of RS, we were told that Autodesk definitely intends to expand on version 1.0 to include these items. I specifically asked this question using Tekla as an example and was told that this is in the pipeline.

Certainly, we are experiencing some frustration as we use the model to create our framing sections but we are confronting this difficulty by using a combination of the Revit model and AutoCAD drawings to achieve our goals for the time being. I am confident that as we become more proficient with Revit and as the software is developed further, these hurdles will be overcome but in the mean time, we are having a lot of fun creating the necessary families as we encounter the need for them.

[Jeffrey McGrew]

well, and just to round the picture out, as someone who's used Revit for years now, I've always wanted some kind of better detail manager and/or picker.

I mean, you want to be able to pick a connection and have Revit give you all the details you need for it, I want to be able to pick a piece of casework and have Revit give me all the details I need for it... it's the same problem, really.

So whatever solution is done for RS will probably be *the* solution for all of Revit.

The software (Revit itself) is still very new and isn't complete, and has it's share of issues certainly, however it's got the right idea behind it so it's only a matter of time. Other solutions can have every feature and wizz-bag trick you can think of, but if the idea behind it isn't right, it will never really serve the same needs- it will only approximately do what people really need, or never really get used fully.

Buckminster Fuller used to say that the only way that you can really get people to change is to offer them something that's cheaper, easier, and 'cooler'. When you hit that, they change in droves. When you don't, it's uphill all the way. This was why his way of 'saving' the world was to try to come up with better cars rather than getting people to stop driving. :D

[lev.lipkin]

A little note on initial concrete concerns expressed in the first post in the thread: structural framing families could be built using sweep, which allows to change section to another loaded profile using sweep property and resave family with a few clicks. Similarly, structural column family could use same profile family, thus no need to redo same profile several times.

There is also category for Structural Connections and thus ability to design and place families of this category using Family Editor (both in-place or loadable families). There are plans to look on more automation and conveniences in this area.

[Chad Smith]

A little note on initial concrete concerns expressed in the first post in the thread: structural framing families could be built using sweep, which allows to change section to another loaded profile using sweep property and resave family with a few clicks. Similarly, structural column family could use same profile family, thus no need to redo same profile several times.
Actually my point was concerning having to create a framing member, a column member etc. What would be good is to have a STRUCTURAL member (just one) and then use that one defined member as a column, beam, brace etc. It's a long and tedious process to make all the structural families for the one member type and size.
As I said in my first post, it would be even easier to define the more 'standard' types like UB's, UC's, PFC's etc. in a table, rather than drawing them (this would save heaps of time). But then use a family to create the more complex and unusual types.

[GuyR]

Chad,

As I said in my first post, it would be even easier to define the more 'standard' types like UB's, UC's, PFC's

Do type catalogues not help you with this? If you use the same parameter names you can use the same type catalog for different families. Sure you have to create the different families but that's all.

One about create say a UB family then using that as a component in either beam, column etc?

Guy

[Chad Smith]

I'm talking about doing away with family files for these common sections all together, and defining them via a spreadsheet type table from within Revit. Then this one definition (say a 360UB) which is defined in the table could be used for beams, columns etc. No drawing required, and definitely no having to create different families for all the different structural families.

[James.Lupton]

The selection method you describe is very similar to Tekla's Xsteel.

We have used Xsteel in our office for 8 years and find it much quicker to define the structure than Revit Structural.

When building a model in Xsteel we can sketch the frame without worrying too much about the section sizes. These framing layouts are generally produced with over sized members and are used for discussions with the design team at the concept stage.

Once better design information is available we simply select one member or a number of members and change the section size to the correct one.

One object can therefore take on various different predefined shaped including parametric shapes defined by the text string section reference.

Parameters also control the position and rotation of the element relative to the defined axis. The object can also be given a curve about its 2 longitudinal axis.

One object can take on all different shapes available in the system and is one of the main reasons Xsteel is faster to use.

The main drawback of Xsteel is that it is not so good when it comes to presentation of construction documentation. This is where Revit wins hands down. Revit also models much more than the structure which helps produce drawings which show how the structure relates to other elements.

There is no doubt that one structural element with all available profiles included is the way to go. BTW, what is the difference between a brace and a sloping beam. I don't think these is a need to distinguish between them. Similarly columns are beams standing on end.

One object should be able to define all types of member by simply orientating the primary axis in a different direction.

This would be a major improvement.

[Chad Smith]

That's it.
If I remember correctly, back in my ADT days, ADT had a Structural Catalogue where you would define all of your structural members, I think it was XML based, or something similar. Very easy.

If Revit Structure is the analytical side, then these improvements should go into Revit Building too. A lot can be done to the modelling of structural items to catch up with other programs around.

[GuyR]

If I remember correctly, back in my ADT days, ADT had a Structural Catalogue where you would define all of your structural members, I think it was XML based, or something similar. Very easy.

The standard metric library comes with all the standard profiles. Why are you redrawing them?

What you seem to be saying is a graphical type catalog editor would solve a lot of your problems?

There's always that dreaded 3 letter acronym.... API ;-)

Guy

[Scott Davis]

There are already Type catalogs that contain all the normal steel sections and sizes for Imperial and metric.

[Chad Smith]

The standard structural families are inconsistent.

While the Framing steel has a majority of the sections, it's still missing a few, and the Columns are missing even more. And it gets even less once you start isolating out the localised content.
Of the ones that are applicable, the construction of the families differ in how they look and detail. Some families have the base section. Others have the base section plus a simplified section and a stick representation depending of the detail level. Some families have materials assigned with a hatch pattern for viewing in plan when cut, and others don't.
And yes, these are the R8.0 families.

Rather than filtering our and changing the existing families, it's proving easier to start from scratch and make them all consistent.

Ed: I should also add, that there is also missing content from the localised type catalogues too. e.g. WB's only go up to 500 in the type catalogue for columns, but in reality go up to 1200.

[GuyR]

There are already Type catalogs that contain all the normal steel sections and sizes for Imperial and metric.

Trouble is there's standard and there's 'standard'. I've found in the past I've had to alter TC's for the metric sections because some of the numbers aren't the same as the local suppliers.

Now we're getting into analytical calculations based on Revit models....

Where are the suppliers?

Isn't it becoming increasingly important they are supplying the families for the basic structural elements?

Guy

[Chad Smith]

For sure. Definitely the suppliers need to be made aware of Revit and the data they could be supplying.

I remember back in my AutoCAD days, I wrote some LISP programs for drawings steel sections. The data that I used came directly from OneSteel's electronic catalogue which had the sectional properties in a tabulated text file. When they updated their catalogue, all I had to do is get the new catalogue disk and copy the data files over to the LISP program folder. It was always correct and up to date.

This then goes back to the idea of a spreadsheet table interface which I guess you would be able to import manufacturer's data.

[GuyR]

This then goes back to the idea of a spreadsheet table interface which I guess you would be able to import manufacturer's data.

API, you could do that now ;-) The trouble is the whole family->TC-> spreadsheet issue is relevant for all families. It's on the wishlist so all we can do it wait.... or use the API.

Guy

[James.Lupton]

And here we have another great example of the benefits we would get from reading the object parameters directly from an excel spreadsheet.

If we could provide all the section data in an spreadsheet and then use a dropdown bow to select the profile we want to apply to the object, there would only be 1 object to keep up to date not a whole folder full of them.

At present we always add additional shared parameters to the object files such as a text parameter for section name. a concatenated string (eg 203 x133 x 25 UB) this is easy to setup in excel. The problem we have tis that since the system components update with each new release we have to add these additional parameters into every structural family when we receive each new release. This would be much easier if we only needed to update 1 family.

I would be happy to run a web meeting on Xsteel with the developers and show how objects are defined and altered and also how we do profile selection in excel.

[Chad Smith]

...there would only be 1 object to keep up to date not a whole folder full of them.
That's it!!

But I don't necessarily agree with keeping the data in an Excel spreadsheet, but rather a spreadsheet type interface from within Revit.

[James.Lupton]

Does anyone know enough about the API to write a short external command which does the following

Highlight the component to be updated.
Run the external command
Replace the defined value for a parameter (lets keep it easy say Length) with a different value (could be hard coded in for this test).
update the object to take on the new value.

If we can do this then we should be able to do all we need for this functionality using the API.

[GuyR]

At present we always add additional shared parameters to the object files such as a text parameter for section name. a concatenated string (eg 203 x133 x 25 UB) this is easy to setup in excel. The problem we have tis that since the system components update with each new release we have to add these additional parameters into every structural family when we receive each new release. This would be much easier if we only needed to update 1 family.

Now I'm really confused. I agree this whole spreadsheet linking issue needs to be address but James why are you making so much work for yourself!!!

You do not need a shared parameter for section name. You can use your spreasheet to automatically name the section as you desire and save the .xls as a type catalog. The only thing you have to do with each new release is update the family and reload the updated family into your templates.

Am I missing something here?...

Guy

[James.Lupton]

I agree Chad but the spreadsheet is really only a fixed database specific to the object and it could be in many different formats.

such as CSV, text file, Access database, excel spreadsheet etc.

[Chad Smith]

James, I'm not sure where you are headed with this approach.

I'll try explaining this a little differently. To be able to create a family straight into the Project Browser from data in a table, without needing to load families (.rfa files).
So you could create a beam, column etc, from the one data set that has definitions preset for the different standard sections. These preset definitions would have properties for different detail levels, lineweights and the rest of the jazz that goes into making up a family.

Ed: By 'definitions', I mean the properties that make the section's shape.

[James.Lupton]

Guy

I think it needs to be a shared parameter to appear in the schedules but you are probably right about the value coming from a type catalogue file.

I'll check it out.

[GuyR]

Does anyone know enough about the API to write a short external command which does the following

I'll bite, I'm trying to get pyRevit out the door but the accessing of a parameter via the API has been bugging me since it came up on the API list.

Guy

[James.Lupton]

Chad

I see it more as a family object which has a

section type box eg HA, W, UB, PFC etc

and then

a drop down box for the serial size

When you select a different type, the list of serial sizes changes accordingly.

therefore it is really quich to change the type and size of the object

Because the data is standard information it does not need to be updated and therefore can be held outside the model being read only when a change to section size is made.

[James.Lupton]

Guy

It will be great if you got this functionality working

I look forward to seeing it

[GuyR]

It will be great if you got this functionality working

Wait..... I'm going to confirm you can change a parameter value as a test and I'll post the sourcecode but I'm not going to write a complete application you could use in production.

Guy

[GuyR]

James,

Here you go:

http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=22229

HTH,

Guy

[James.Lupton]

Brilliant Guy

It looks like the type of functionality we need may be possible.

BTW I wasn't asking you to write the interface for me but just to see is the family parameters can be changed with an external command.

Thanks for checking it out.

[GuyR]

It looks like the type of functionality we need may be possible.

Lots of possiblities ;-)

I've been playing more tonight and I can't figure out how to add a new type(symbol) to a family from the API. You can create a new instance of a family. If it can be done for a symbol(family type) I can't see it yet.

This might make it harder to do what you want and would certainly effect keynotes. Will play some more.

BTW I wasn't asking you to write the interface for me

I know, I just didn't want to get your hopes up. Especially as you'll be in mourning this weekend after the AB's thrash the Lions.... again ;-)

Guy

[James.Lupton]

I won't be mourning too much - I always said there should be more Scotsmen in the squad anyway.