C/M Columns

[RevitNinja]

I'd like to get a consensus on the best method of using columns in a Revit Architecture-to-Structure project scenario.

We would like to Copy/Monitor columns from the architectural model into the structural model. During this process, Revit detects both "columns" and "structural columns." I know that there are differences as far as what types of parameters each of them can contain, but how do the different types affect the collaboration process? What types should be used by each party?

Thanks in advance.

[m20roxxers]

Seth

The idea behind the Architectural columns is basically for the Architect to box then out or place the coverings around the actual structural element. Architectural columns cannot be scheduled either which can be not useful. There is not problems with placing the Architectural element, but I would recommend that both the Architect and structural files both contain structural columns that you then co-ordinate/monitor. I would also not both about copying the architectural elements in the structural project as their is just no need unless some specific set of circumstances.

[Craig_L]

I'd like to get a consensus on the best method of using columns in a Revit Architecture-to-Structure project scenario.

We would like to Copy/Monitor columns from the architectural model into the structural model. During this process, Revit detects both "columns" and "structural columns." I know that there are differences as far as what types of parameters each of them can contain, but how do the different types affect the collaboration process? What types should be used by each party?

Thanks in advance.

The way we deal with is here, is that we take the architectural model which has gone thru the final stages of design/development. Then simply import/link>revit>[insert file here] & copy monitor the structural elements out of the architectural DD (or their final design) model.

Once you have copied out all the structural elements you then have 2 options. You can either choose to leave the monitor watch switched on, or turn it off for each element. In our model we have chosen to turn it off and take total control of the structure. The idea is that the architect then links back in our structural model and then he/she DELETES the structural elements that we have in ours. Basically they are left with facade and fittings/furnishings etc only. This method gives us total control of the structure and means rather than the architect just moving things at their whim, instead they are forced to communicate the changes to us via direct contact and we have found this method to be preferable as it avoids double handling of structure. It also means the engineers are made aware of any of these changes before they happen and can advise if structurally it can work, and also if the changes to our documentation will be significant as a result of this.

The problem with revit I find, is that sometimes its just too tempting to try a different layout for the architects and they will quickly just try something in a different position without realising the flow on effect. This method eliminates most of that, and forces more open communication outside of the revit environment.

You can of course leave it all on monitor, and this method also works, but we are slight control freaks here and prefer to be responsible for the elements ourselves.

Cheers

[m20roxxers]

I understand that, however I find completely removing items from an Architects file takes away from some of the benefits of auto joins and associativity, that ofcourse doesn't even count into the fact that other Architectural firms may not be so willing to simply hand complete control over to engineers.

I think simple workset options "owned" by the engineer allows a better solution. For while they can override it they can keep you in the loop and they have to make a consious effort to override. Besides the elements remain in their file which makes life a little easier from their point of view.

The real challange is changing end users way of working. Manipulation of items should be carefully considered. I guess the other issue is snap decisions are made columns do move and if they have to wait on you to move items then reissue especially at milestones this could be an issue. But hey each to their own and if it works for you. :)

For columns I can see this might not be an issue, but for walls and slabs the problems would be big from autojoin options not working to correct cleanup. While it is possible I would still got with atleast the Architect monitoring the elements in their own project. Unless ofcourse you do everything in one model which is doable aswell.

[Craig_L]

that ofcourse doesn't even count into the fact that other Architectural firms may not be so willing to simply hand complete control over to engineers.

I guess the other issue is snap decisions are made columns do move and if they have to wait on you to move items then reissue especially at milestones this could be an issue. But hey each to their own and if it works for you.

Unless ofcourse you do everything in one model which is doable aswell.

Yes, I should mention that the architects are part of the same company, so we are not dealing with external architects. I think in this case a straight copy/monitor is probably going to be demanded by your out of house architect.

The second comment about waiting on structural to reissue is well...necessary.
Normally in CAD environment structures operates almost an issue behind the architects.
What I mean by that, is the architect usually gives the engineer some lead time to implement any design changes into their drawings before milestones. If you're changing column locations and major structural layout just a day before your milestone issue I think the problem is not with revit....
Structures is generally behind the architects as the architects drive the layout to a large extent. I think if your architects are expecting an instant turnaround in documentation just because revit can easily move a few portal frames then something is fundamentally wrong. As I mentioned flow on effect of changes really needs to be considered, no matter which method you are using. The architects should plan to be one issue ahead of structures, if you're trying to both be at the same point of documentation at the same time you're going to struggle. This of course depends on the size/scope of your project.

And lastly...
We also did a multidisciplinary model all in one model. If your project is large I wouldnt recommend this method. If you have more than about 3 people working in your model there is alot of problems with borrowed elements, also you need to think about templates for each discipline to filter out elements and items you wont need. This method has alot of pitfalls and whilst from a modelling point of view it can be convenient, again - flow on effect - your documentation is just made that much harder with so much superfluous information in your views....

[m20roxxers]

Agree on all levels, I think however depending on your network setups and agreements with external consultants then periodic reviews of the total project (Arch, struc & services) becomes abit harder in a BIM environment especially reviewing complete up to date models regardless of milestones you dont always get everything done just the essentials.

I agree with you that things shouldn't change at the last minute, not all the time but it happens. Having an internal team does make things easier and I would only recommend shared model use on smaller projects like you said. Even so I think it would be easier to have the structural model contain all major wall elements and then having the Architects just use that file in conjunction with their own.

But I still find each project especially with different consultants alters the workflows of the project considerably and it is best to have alot of this stuff in a co-ordination brief to pass onto consultants if they are not as advanced in Revit or unsure of how to proceed. The expectations are met by all parties the smoother the project is going to run.

[RevitNinja]

Thanks for your insights, guys. I think we are coming up with a good workflow over here.