Help - our structural engineer doesn't get it

[cj_follmer]

I'm sorry this is more of a LONG rant than anything and parts may not make sense so please bear with me. If it needs to be moved elsewhere, please do so.

RANTMODE=1

Now let me say that this structural engineering firm is top notch, we have worked with them for some time now and have great respect for them...

...but when it comes to Revit and the changes that it (or any BIM type program) requires in workflow, scheduling, etc., they don't get it.

We just recently printed our DD set of drawings and while our work certainly had some mistakes, their mistakes made our wall sections, in particular, look awful. If you check their details, they are generally spot on and there lies the problem. Their details are completely 2D (at least they are done in Revit) but they don't always coordinate their 2D details with the model. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the perks of Revit that you don't have to draw so many 2D details anymore - at least not when you have stuff modeled.

The structural model is missing portions of the foundations, roof decks extent into and through our walls, floor slabs and beams go through floor openings. We have continually asked them to correct many of the problems for sometime and since they are and have always been a good firm, we assumed they would work out some on their own. Many issues were picked up when asked but many were not.

We talked with them about it today. We asked them why they are doing details entirely 2D instead of cutting them directly from the model and why their model was not updated to match. Their response, while it can be in some instances valid, appalled me. For one they responded that at the end of DD's, they "historically" (read 'In-The-AutoCAD-World') would only put enough information so sizing and cost estimating could be done.:shock::banghead: Second and this can be valid but it bugged me anyway, they try to keep their details as generic as possible so one detail can cover multiple locations. OK I get that but the model was still wrong and that's what we're trying to design from. Plus you can still cut a detail from the model and keep it generic enough to cover multiple locations. They also said that in the past they have gotten burned by arch firms constantly making changes to the design causing a lot of rework. OK I get that but now we're the ones getting burned. Obviously those firms need some education too but come on.

Now to be more fair to them, they are wanting to setup some standards and expectations for themselves and those that they work with. That is great, I'm glad they are thinking about it. I wish we all would. They are looking to some of the BIM standards that have been recently released as a guide, in particular the Indiana University one and I find it ironic that in it, at SD, prelim collision reports are required, which would mean...

wait for it...

that their model has to be correct and accurate (perhaps matching the details). By DD, the model has to be even more correct and accurate (perhaps really matching the details). So basically what we are asking them to do is what the BIM standards they are looking to are asking which is have the model correct and all the basics there (slabs, foundation, steel, roof decks). Actually the IU one asks for more stuff by the end of DD. Does that change how they work? of course it does. Revit (or rather BIM) has changed how we all work.

RANTMODE=0

Ok i'm sorry if i'm not being fair. I will say again that they are a great firm and we have always held them high for top notch work. We always compare the short comings of other struct firms to how well these guys do it. They believe they are doing what's in the best interest for their firm, but their method leaves a lot to desire when it comes to us working with them in Revit.

CJ

[dhurtubise]

ahahah Hope it made you feel better bro.
Don't worry, we all feel your pain.

[jsnyder.68308]

Uh huh. In response to a recent question among friends and colleagues about why an MEP engineer might be asking for more fee to do a BIM project, the following response came up:

"The design scope of work for MEP engineers for the last 50+ years with AutoCAD, and before that manual drafting, has been to provide the client with a set of 2D contract documents providing the level of detail and coordination necessary for contractors to accurately bid the work, create shop drawings and install the systems.

To clarify further, the typical coordination due diligence and standard of care MEP engineers are currently expected to deliver are documents with systems designed to fit in the spaces (i.e. shafts, plenums, mechanical rooms, etc.) provided. This is achieved by cutting sections through critical spaces and verifying the ducts, pipes, conduit, cable tray, etc. all fit.

The 2D contract documents provided by the MEP engineers today are not intended to find every clash between a duct and the structure, sprinkler pipe or conduit. This final level of coordination typically occurs when the contractors create their shop drawings and even then not all clashes are detected until things are installed on site.

When an MEP engineering firm is asked by the client to produce a 3D set of documents with all clashes resolved, the contractors are receiving a set of contract documents that have a higher level of coordination already built in due to the extra effort in the design process. This allows the mechanical and electrical contractors to spend less time coordinating and producing their shop drawings.

At the end of the day, we agree that the client see little to no increase in cost. This is because there is a shift in effort from the contractors to the engineers as described above and is especially true if the client has hired a design/build mechanical contractor since they are handling both the engineering and contractor side of the process.

What the client will benefit from in a more traditional plan and spec delivery model with a coordinated 3D set of contract documents is less risk for change orders.

Taking this issue a step further, when MEP engineers deliver a true BIM model with all the duct and pipe information, there is even more value being provided beyond just a 3D model in that the contractors and cost estimators are being provided with a 4D model (4th dimension being information) that they can easily extract all the equipment and material data for cost estimating and bidding.

In summary, there is more work involved to produce a 3D set of contract documents and even more work to produce a true 4D/BIM project from the perspective of the MEP engineers. However, there should be minimal to no additional cost from the owner's perspective since the contractor's costs to deliver coordinated shop drawings and cost estimates should come down proportionally. Since all this transitioning of effort is still taking shape and maturing it may take several years and many projects before all the costs are balanced out again with contractors realizing the savings and competitively bidding 3D and BIM projects."

It's not that I dispute or disagree with what he said, but it was news to me, and something similar might be interpolated upon our structural engineering colleagues. The standard of care is evolving - heady times, eh?

[cj_follmer]

:shock: wow..

well that answers why the MEP engineers we use haven't hopped on board the Revit train yet...

:shock: I think...


thanks

[m20roxxers]

So your going to tell a contractor that he has to lower his fee's simply because the consultant has provided a model and he can use that?

I definately see where you are going but the reality is services should charge more because they are now solving issues earlier that cost alot more onsite. Especially if this model is used during construction and FM stage you are effectively saving the client hundreds of thousands if not more.

I am aware of Independant firms who provide full co-ordinated models at costs starting around $50,000 up can head over a million for smaller jobs and this is dependant on receiving all the drawings from arch's,struct's and services regardless of 2D or 3D. All they are is a digital project manager, but the savings they provide through construction and life cycle are tiny compared to upfront fee's.

The fact is all consultants should charge more to provide this information if you are going to take responsibility for it both legally and as a firm. The reality is the extra fee costs should be easily soaked up by less issues on site and the client can still save money.

This money pinching and low fee exercises are a detriment to our business.
If you are providing more information then before regardless of time involved it should be charged. This is why a firm can charge $50,000 fee's for a house and still guy work while another guy will charge 5,000 for documentation and go the cheapy quickly rushed option.

[djn]

I personally like the idea of cutting from the model, but I can understand why they don't. At our firm we have gone with the methodology that we cut details from the model, we will then use the model as a underlay and draw over the top of them. We then turn the model off just showing the detail components/Lines.
I think one of the issues especially with steel construction is that Revit doesn't model steel details very well, so by the time you get all your copes, connection plates, stiffener plates, gusset plates, ect... There is very little that you can salvage from the model.
Another issue is lets say you have cut a couple details of a column/ beam connection, placed annotation and detail components. The architect then decides move the column over by the 3". From a structural stand point the detail is exactly that same. The problem is that if you left the model on all you details are now screwed up, because the annotation and detail components won't move when the column/beam move. So you have to do a constant back check of details making sure that annotation and weld symbols are pointing to the right spots.

[cdatechguy]

There are people in the ArchiCAD world that will still "explode" their 3D model after DD to create their CD's. This used to be the usual practice so that one can manipulate the elevations, sections and details to do what they wanted them to do. Since then Graphisoft has gotten wise and gave one the ability to "Unlink" a view so that the customary "exploding" doesn't have to happen. When I confronted someone who "Exploded" my model he said that was the normal practice....:evil: I then showed him the unlink feature...."Oh...when did that get there?".....

Thank goodness for backups :roll:

[cliff collins]

I think the issue becomes this:

1. Standard / "boiler plate" Details should be contained in Drafting Views,
and not created for each Project. These can certainly be 2D Revit views.

2. Custom connections/conditions should be generated from the model,
and fully coordinated btwn Arch. and Struct. teams. Even if the actual details
are "traced" over the model, and the model "turned off". Not the ultimate BIM
solution, but better than CJ's current engineer's approach. Try "locking" the lines
to the model, so that when the model changes, the lines catch up automatically.

cheers..........

[greg.mcdowell]

The only person who cares about how hard you work or how long tasks take is you. the client is not interested in paying more for something that, in their eyes, they should have been receiving all along - a well coordinated set of documents. You can't charge more for something the client believes they're already paying for (or rather you might be able to initially but it won't, it can't, last). You can, however, charge more for what the client perceives as added value.

So the question should be; "What more can we provide the clients that they value?" It should not be; "How do I charge more for the tools I choose, or am forced, to use." A framer can't charge more because he uses a nail gun instead of a hammer but he'll still gets a return on his investment since he can now work significantly faster and can choose to spend the saved time in other ways. If the framer wants to be able to charge more for his work he has to figure out how to bring more to the table than a new toy.

Revit is, to architects what a nail gun is to a framer.

If Revit lets us produce well coordinated documents faster and with greater ease the return on invest is ours to realize. If we want to charge our clients more we need to start providing them with services we have not traditionally provided and that they do not think should have been included all along. This last part is tricky.

We might assume that extending the Revit metadata to include information on cost or to assist in energy analysis is adding value. But shouldn't we have been producing buildings that are both affordable (in budget) and are energy effiecient (in code) all along? Just becasue Revit makes these more accurate and allows us to produce them more easily doesn't mean we get more money from the client. Actually, the client could make a pretty compelling argument to reduce our fee since the work is now easier and faster to produce! This is not as crazy as it sounds. When Autocad took the place of hand drafting clients made this very point at the same time we were trying to get more money from them for our added work. It's not a stretch to see how the same arguement could be used now.

[djn]

Try "locking" the lines
to the model, so that when the model changes, the lines catch up automatically.


We do some of that already. The problem is that there no solution of annotation and symbols to move with when the elements move. If we could snap and lock leader lines. That would be great. Multiple times we have had weld symbols pointing to the wrong elements because model shifted slightly but nobody caught that the symbol didn't move.

[cporter.207875]

I agree with most of what has been said, but one thing seems to have been left out of the reasoning. Let's think about 2D CAD for a moment. We pick up our mouse and draw lines around the monitor and Whammo! ...Construction Drawings. Those digital files belong to the Architect (in most cases) and are considered the Architect's Instruments of Service. The client owns the printed set of construction documents.
Now Revit (or BIM if you've made it that far); does our client own the BIM? or just the printed documents? If you want to charge more than your usual fee then you have to hand over the BIM (without disclaimers). The BIM has to be useable and accurate, to the same basic standard as the 2D documents. It is the BIM that the client must be willing to pay extra for, not the time it takes to produce construction documents.

On the MEP side, it takes significantly more time to create a BIM than it does to create 2D documents, especially the plumbing (geez, the plumbing...). But with Revit, you're only hurting yourself if you don't create a BIM. It's just not worth the subscription fee if you're not going to use it as intended. However, in the end our contract still requires 2D construction documents and that's all. Then there is the handshake agreement that we'll do the project in Revit and let the Architect use our model to help coordinate and check for clashes along the way. But the model goes out unsealed and with disclaimers, the same as if we were handing over CAD files to a sub to help them with their shop drawings. It sux that we have to invest all this money in training, develping standards, building content, drawing everything in 3D instead of simply 2D, etc. Eventually, though, we'll make that money back. All it takes is dedication to fine tuning the process, so that Revit will begin to save us time on every project. Kind of like buying solar panels. It takes a while to realize the benefits....

[twiceroadsfool]

I think a few of you are missing an important point. Have you worked WITH Structural engineers, as in... not as consultants, but side by side with them?

Their complaint is that to do the SAME work, its much more effort. Thats because their status quo level of documentation is very very light. Typical details, and some single line plans and elevations/sections are the norm, and they can have something out of house in very short order.

Does Revit/BIM make that faster? No, absolutely not. Does it make it BETTER? Well that depends. Wholistically, they end up with a much better package, thats CAPABLE of dooing much more. They CAN detail more, be more coordinated, show more specifics, have less errors, etc, if they CHOOSE to take advantage. But if they keep looking at using BIM/Revit to provide the SAME level of service... Than of course itll cost more, its a more complicated pencil.

The same is definetely true for MEP drawings. Their one-liners have actually gotten harder, in some respects, now that they have Revit/BIM. Do they get a better deliverable? Absolutely. If they choose to make use of it.

I can give you the most expensive vaccuum in the world. But if all you want to do is sweep the floor, and you dont have electricity in your house, its going to be an assache with little benefit. Now, if you want to invest in electricity and REALLY clean that room... Then lets have a conversation. :)