Help, I'm in the third or fourth stage of Revit User-hood. Noting a Floor Plan and Sections

[3dway]

Hi all,

I've use Revit a fair bit. I have a decent level of competence modelling.
I'm in the middle of a real, and very very small reno project as my pilot project.
I've modelled it, and I have to get it out the door.

It's modelled. It show up well in elevation, plans, and 3d. (with one area of crazy wall join problems that I'm using LW to get past)

My Section Problems:

I only modeled the roof sheathing. I'm filling in the truss space with detail lines on the section. This was a bail out being a newer user. I wanted to create some 2d truss objects that I could change the height of, but I couldn't figure out how to do a family that you're allowed to put in a section, that uses symbolic lines.

I didn't model beams and joists. I used a "floor" object. I usually show headers, beams, and joists that are cut in the section when I draw in AutoCAD. I'd like to show these in my sections, but again, I draw in some detail lines which feels really loosey goosey, and I have to copy them all around. Is this a use for a repeating detail family?

I'm OK with drawing in the batting lines but would like better representation of the other details.


My plan problems:
A wood frame joist arrow. Again, I can't figure out what family type to use to get a felxible family that isn't going to show in my other views.

I'm drawing in the structural notes, beam centerlines, joist direction etc as detail lines, but by gut tells me this is not how it should be.

Thanks for any help.

[Jmickledesign]

I think you need to discover detail components. I don't want to insult any intelligence but there is a vast library of 2d components that are already created. These save tons of time not having to create tons of 2d lines. Also there is an insulation tool to help streamline things.

[d.stairmand]

3 Way
I use a Heap of Detail Components. Attached is a Framing Plan Image.
Black Walls are Filled Regions, All the Framing is a Line Based Detail Components.

Some 3d things in Revit are very difficult to achieve.
Timber Framing Plans for me are best done by details.

I only Model up the Main Structural Steel (If any)

[cliff collins]

I will jump in here and respectfully offer a different point of view.

Revit is a BIM / MODELING program, not a "drafting" application.
So, best practice is the use it as a modeling program.

Model the structure--place in trusses and framing members as you would actually build the project. Now, anywhere you cut a section, you will aready have the framing in the view.

Make changes to the massing, adjust the framing members, and all the 2D views update.

For large scale ( 1 1/2" or higher ) details, add 2D detail components over the model.

Just my 2 cents worth, after going through these same discussions hundreds of times.

cheers

[3dway]

I think you need to discover detail components. I don't want to insult any intelligence but there is a vast library of 2d components that are already created. These save tons of time not having to create tons of 2d lines. Also there is an insulation tool to help streamline things.

No offense taken. I'm in touch with my level of competence with Revit. Would you call someone who had never been in your house, stupid, because he didn't know where the bathroom was by instinct alone?

[3dway]

I will jump in here and respectfully offer a different point of view.

Revit is a BIM / MODELING program, not a "drafting" application.
So, best practice is the use it as a modeling program.

Model the structure--place in trusses and framing members as you would actually build the project. Now, anywhere you cut a section, you will aready have the framing in the view.

Make changes to the massing, adjust the framing members, and all the 2D views update.

For large scale ( 1 1/2" or higher ) details, add 2D detail components over the model.

Just my 2 cents worth, after going through these same discussions hundreds of times.

cheers

Model everything is a reasonable philosophy.
Computer power, and the time allotted to a project can be limiting factors, yes?
How do you deal with this?

Wouldn't there be a huge amount of time associated with modelling trusses for a hip roof? Couple that with the fact that the layout the truss supplier comes up with often differs from the one we initially provide.

I'd love more discussion on these.

[dgreen.49364]

Model everything? No no no! I don't think that's what Cliff means. Number one rule of Revit is only model what you need to. Yes, model the structure, that includes steel or wood trusses.

I disagree that Revit is not a drafting tool. It is a BIM tool first and foremost but the 2d drafting capabilities have come a long way in recent years. The detail components are part of that.

Part of mastering Revit is mastering the notion that you model and model and model and then know WHEN to draw in 2d. Stick with it, you'll figure it out after a couple of projects.

[mthurnauer]

When I do residential, I will model the floor framing by using a default structural plan template and then model the framing using beam systems, adding additional joists under walls parallel to framing direction, adding steel beams, etc. I then use the framing plans in my drawing set and the structure is coordinated in all other views. If the roof is going to be wood trusses, I would just make my roof system include the roofing material down to the top chord and then the ceiling system includes the bottom chord. I really don't see a point in drafting a bunch of sticks representing the webs, when to your point, the truss manufacturer will likely do it differently. I just put a note in the attic space that indicates it is wood roof trusses designed by truss manufacture and that is it. On enlarged details, such as the roof eave, I may draft a little bit of the truss using detail lines.

[cliff collins]

Let's continue the discussion a bit further:

If you DO NOT model it, then you will be drawing it over and over in 2D, in ALL the views where the object ( like a roof truss ) is located! So which actually takes longer? What happens when major design changes come along? Good luck chasing all those 2D lines and detail components around on multiple sheets of drawings!

With Revit, you can load in a truss, then array it in the correct location, literally in 5 seconds or less.
Now, your entire roof structure is there. With a parametric truss family, if the footprint
or roof geometry ( span and pitch, for example ) changes, edit the family, and ALL the modeled trusses update, in ALL the sections, framing plans, perspectives, elevations, details, etc. How long would it take to update all the 2D details for the roof/structure and walls in all of your 2D views?

THIS is the difference between "BIM" and a "cadd drafting mentality".

What I often find a bit strange is this fact:

Almost ALL new Revit users have NO problem modeling walls, doors and windows--
because they feel like they are "drawing" in a "floor plan" and then just using some fancy
"cad blocks" to insert the doors and windows---when, in fact, they are MODELING!
( Try placing walls, doors and windows in a 3D view instead of Plan. )

They just happen to be stuck in 2D Plan World.

Then, when it comes to roofs and structure--they are SO used to conventional drafting rules, that they balk at the idea of "modeling" structure--because you are taught to "just show it in the details" or "the engineer will show that".

WHY is modeling walls, doors and windows "OK", but not Trusses?????
It's the SAME THING, and you get the SAME benefit from the power of BIM for
automatic views updating, anywhere in the model, schedules updating, quantities available for take-offs with Schedules, etc.

2D Detail components are ONLY for where the current modeling tools can not show enough information to communicate graphically the design intent clearly enough to the Contractor.

Hope this helps clear up the "BIM" vs "Drafting" way of producing architecture.

Great discussion here.

cheers

[gwnelson]

No offense taken. I'm in touch with my level of competence with Revit. Would you call someone who had never been in your house, stupid, because he didn't know where the bathroom was by instinct alone?

Like this:

[3dway]

I'm definately interested in modelling trusses.

I've had nothing but heartache trying.
If I model the top chord with roofing and sheathing, I can't get the fascia detail right. I need the sheathing to hang over the shadow mould, and a fascia board.

I have to model two roofs. One for sheathing, one for top chords. This I do put the bottom chord on the ceiling, but what happens when you need a raised heel truss. Here in Canada, we need insulation above the roof wall intersection plus vent space. I end up either trying to include the wall framing as part of the truss, or making a wall above the real wall. It ends up being more of a mess than 2d lines.

The complexity of a hip roof system with all of the little monos, and girders, valley sets etc. all with unique heights, once you're into the area that is hipped. Unless you have a really flexible truss family, would be a whole lot of work.

I'm dying for any sources of examples of this kind of work.

[Elmo]

I know a lot of people might not agree with me on this but, why would you model 3D trusses inside a project making it heavier than necessary when your not going to giving out cd's that has these 3D trusses in any of the plans? You would be wasting time and effort by doing so. Make a 2D detail component family that you can use for your sections and make truss ends for those places you might see it in 3D. Time and effort not wasted and it allows me to do more projects and focus on getting my drawings for council and building done correctly.

What is even stranger is that you if you wanted to kill your project with trusses you might as well get hold of Truss+ from Tools4Revit and be done with it. They are far better tools that will allow you to make 3D trusses quickly than what you could do with trying to place individual trusses yourself.

[Elmo]

Let's continue the discussion a bit further:

If you DO NOT model it, then you will be drawing it over and over in 2D, in ALL the views where the object ( like a roof truss ) is located! So which actually takes longer? What happens when major design changes come along? Good luck chasing all those 2D lines and detail components around on multiple sheets of drawings!


Cliff as side note, if you have done your 2D detail components correctly you wont need to do much when it come to making adjustments. Take your trusses for example. If you made a truss family that automatically adjusts as it gets bigger you could then lock the sides of the truss to the walls and when you move a wall it should update accordingly. If you change the roof pitch once again if you have locked it correctly, it should adjust automatically.

[cliff collins]

My point is to make a 3D parametric truss, and populate the model with it.

Then cut a section anywhere, and you have it. No 2D detail components to chase around.

The model does not become too heavy by adding trusses--if you have some decent hardware. We have HUGE projects--20 story hotels, casinos, etc. and we model
the structure. ( Our Structural engineers model everything in their RS models.)

How would you do a quantity take-off from your model which doesn't have any framing members?

It's just a more "purist" BIM method that I'm trying to get across, and not a "hybrid"
approach where you model walls, doors, windows, etc.--but not structure--for some odd reason.

Would you ever "not model " your walls, windows, or doors, and instead just show them with 2D detail lines or detail components? Of course not. So WHY do we change our thinking when it comes to modeling structure? It's the same BIM philosophy here.
I'm suggesting to new Revit users that they really need to lose the "2D Drafting" mentality
and produce a true BIM project, so the benfits of it can be fully realized.

cheers........

[dlpdi5b]

Attached is an example of using modeled trusses. This particular image was particularly helpful when introducing the project to carpenters, the SIP panel manufacturer, and explaining to the owner what an attic truss was. This was a combination of exposed steel framing on the porches, attic trusses, and exposed timber rafters. One 3d picture enhances understanding far better than a framing plan. This is why I make the effort to work with Revit.

The converse is also true; you can overmodel things. Judgement and experience help.

[cliff collins]

dlister,

Nice job!

I agree with your comments 100%

cheers

[Elmo]

Well in South Africa an Architect is not required to provide this kind of information. If anything if he provides this kind of information he is liable for any faults that might occur. We would rather leave it up to the people who manufactur the trusses as they are the experts here in SA.

[3dway]

It works similarly in Canada.

What we do provide the truss supplier with is the profile of the truss. Slope, heel height, etc. Everything inside those lines is his problem.

[cliff collins]

In almost all projects, where ever the location, neither the Architect or Structural engineer
actually develop the shop drawings for the trusses. But that is not the point here. The point
is, it is relatively easy to model a 3D parametric truss ( perhaps by just taking and OTB one and modifying it ) and populating the model with it, so that it shows up wherever a view is required--without drawing/drafting anything! Model it once, then extract out the 2D
sections, plans, elevations, schedules, etc. This is the power of BIM in action.

We are not modeling the trusses for shop drawing level of detail--just to give design intent as a starting point for the eventual truss fabricator. Look at dlister's example, and you can see the advantages of modeling.

If you decide NOT to model the trusses, you have an incomplete BIM, and you will end up "drafting" a 2D representation of it in several views--which is, IMO an anti-BIM approach.

I use windows as an example of this quite frequently. Most Revit users would never choose NOT to model windows, and just "draft" them in 2D elevations, sections, plans, etc. We instead drop a 3D window family into the wall, and then the 2D views update automatically, as well as schedules, and even specifications when using E-Specs for Revit.

What I then often ask is WHY do we feel comfortable modeling windows, but not trusses?
It is really the SAME BIM philosophy in both cases.

But, everyone has their own reasons and approaches. I have just found that the more you model, and the less you "draft", the better the outcome.

( sips Kool-aid )

cheers........

[rkitect]

Would you call someone who had never been in your house, stupid, because he didn't know where the bathroom was by instinct alone?

No but I'd go as far as saying the design of the house may be bad ;)


I didn't see anyone mention this so I thought I'd throw it in. My goal in projects is around the 75/25 ratio on 3d/2d. This means I try to model my projects so that every section cut is already 75% done. The only components left are things like brick coursing, insulation and linework and detail components needed to make the view read well.

In regards to modeling trusses. The comment was made "why would you make it heavier than necessary?" Define necessary. In the process of a BIM model I think it's necessary for your trusses to be BIM as well. IE: If I move the truss in a ceiling plan, it should move in section and as necessary in the detail view as well. I should have to move a truss line in a ceiling plan, then move the truss 2d components in a section view and then coordinate those with a detail view as well.

Now, this is different from modeling the truss to detail 100% correctly when you cut a section and elevation. You could have the rough shape of the truss and then go in to a section and detail view and DETAIL as APPROPRIATE to those view scales. This is where my 75/25 rules comes in to play.

hTh, and best of luck!

[leeba]

Hope this helps clear up the "BIM" vs "Drafting" way of producing architecture.

I like to think of the difference between these methods as follows:

In AutoCAD, we draw. In Revit, we build.

It's a simple and intuitive statement, no striking observation there, but it helps me remember how I should be working in Revit.

[cliff collins]

Kool-aid, anyone? (inside joke)

Glad to see some positive replies here about BIM vs Drafting way of using Revit.

cheers

[rkitect]

Kool-aid, anyone? ...

Will it get me a job at Autodesk?

[cliff collins]

You'd have to ask Scott.............

cheers

[DoTheBIM]

...Black Walls are Filled Regions....)Why? Didn't you already "model" the walls? You can use a filter to fill them in black. And if something changes... which it always does... would you not have to touch up those filled regions after adjusting the walls in another view?

[cliff collins]

Do-the BIM,

Good answer,

Have some Kool-aid on me.

cheers

[DoTheBIM]

cliff, No offense.... Thanks but no thanks. Who wants to work for a company that forces a major change upon an end user and wants to take the lashing like 2010 caused. :lol::p

[rkitect]

You'd rather work for the OTHER company making BIM software?

:)

[cliff collins]

The Kool-aid really doesn't mean working for Adesk..........

Scott threw that in earlier.

It's an AUGI Revit thread specific reference---- who's initials are A.R.

just a hint

cheers

[mthurnauer]

I have to throw out there the argument why a person would bother modeling or drafting the trusses. As has been stated, the truss manufacturer is going to engineer them and they are more than likely not going to do it the way you thought. So, modeling the ceiling form properly and modeling the top of the roof properly has all the BIM that is needed, unless you think you are really going to get the truss design spot-on. I see one real use to modeling trusses and it is to determine the location of concentrated point loads in walls below girder trusses so that you provide adequate solid bearing. Otherwise, it is pretty useless information. That said, if it were a very straight forward truss configuration, I can see myself ruinning an array of a 'common truss' family. But when it gets to trusses that are piggy-back, valley sets, girders, modified bottom chords because of varying ceiling shapes, it would be a total waste of time.

[3dway]

Thanks for the input and insight everyone.

I have to put some things back into the mix.

1 - I stopped using Kool-Aid jokes when I read the actual accounts of what happened at jonestown. It disturbed me deeply, being a fairly new father. I know, don't be so serious. Steve Jobs Kool Aid, BIM Kool Aid.... etc. a light way of saying buy into the hype in most contexts. Not sure about the inside joke here.

2 - Someone asked why model window and not trusses. I think, at least for me, it's because getting one truss family to perform parametrically with the roof is a pretty advanced use of the family editor. I'm not sure I'd know where to start. Not only that, it's a much more complex system. No one truss family is going to serve. On top of that I have a lot of uncertainty about what is the best way to to the roof. Right now my roofs are sheathing and shingles. I think I'm setting up to use truss families. I still don't know what to do with the roof, top chord, bottom chord, ceiling, fascia problem.

3 - Three is really the last part of two... still not sure what is the best way to make all of this so it works and sections right. Modelling trusses is a big step to figuring that out. I'd really like to be where the one user is, where my sections are all pretty much done except for notation stuff.

[DoTheBIM]

...still not sure what is the best way to make all of this so it works and sections right..... Welcome to the neverending debate and never answered question (at least not a simple answer) The simple answer is... depends. Which really isn't that simple. My opinion... until your deliverable is a virtual building to the customer and as long as printed paper 2d representation is the standard... it makes no sense to me to tackle the complexities of a roof truss system via a Revit families. Now if your deliverable changes to a 3D view of said part of the building and is required... you might then want to consider an alternative way to get to that point. Not saying revit families is the preferred method though.
...I'd really like to be where the one user is, where my sections are all pretty much done except for notation stuff.Heck I'd like to have all the notation done for me and rather draw in a few lines to represent a truss. ;) Annotating and dimensioning drawings sucks my brain dry of interest and fills it full of monotony.:(

As far as the truss goes we don't model trusses in Revit, but we do design/engineer them in house. We can just export a dxf of the truss and link into Revit if we really feel the need to show web patterns and such. Doesn't make sense to me to draw/model in Revit then design engineer in truss design as well. We can even bring in a 3D dxf link of the truss system if we want. looks cool on screen but printed just looks like a mess of black lines to most people. So I would only try to link in 3D truss systems if someone required it in the model as a delivered product... or for marketing purposes.

[Scott Womack]

.... still not sure what is the best way to make all of this so it works and sections right. Modeling items like trusses is a big step to figuring that out. I'd really like to be where the one user is, where my sections are all pretty much done except for notation stuff.

First the following is my own humble opinion, after working in this field for nearly 30 years, so take it with a grain of salt......

It is interesting to follow this discussion. Each region of the world has it's own issues, and SHOULD have their own opinions on what I'm about to say. I work in a mid-sized firm doing larger college projects, Student Unions. mid to high-rise dormitories, classroom and recreation buildings.

In this segment, the middle I in BIM becomes extremely important. A majority of our projects involve a construction manager (who most often is NOT the contractor who ends up building the structure) who is estimating, value-engineering (completely different discussion for "value") and providing feedback on large, complex buildings. Thus being hired by the Owner, their pricing info affects our design significantly.

I have often been able to adequately "defend" material and portions of our designs by querying the model, and being able to take issue with the quantity take-offs that the construction manager is doing by hand off of hard-copy drawings. I'm not talking about SF of drywall, but roof areas. number of trusses needed, amount of standing seam roofing involved, special areas on plans, SF of various shaft-wall constructions, etc.

Thus, modeling even a place-holder for trusses that others design is critical. If the cm assumes a 4'-0" o.c. spacing, and the spacing is 5'-0" o.c., over a student union, this adds up to a significant number of trusses/structural costs. This is late schematic design, early design development. It also comes into play when trying to get shafts up through from floors below. A note about what is "seen" in the truss in the Architects' model, will still place the liability where it belongs, on the truss manufacturer, but the number of trusses, and location of same are the responsibility of the design professionals in most regions of the world.

Owners are getting tougher and tougher to get detailed design decisions out of in a timely manner. They want to pay less for services, want those services to take less time, and have less and less capacity to pay chage orders in the field, especially for coordination or design related issues discovered by the contractor during shop drawings, etc.

These larger projects are also beginning to carry the requirement that the design team provide 3D data to the constructing contractor (usually via Navisworks) so modeling all of the larger, more major components is critical to the overall process.

I am lucky, in that we will not use a structural engineering consultant who is not in Revit. We have just issued a directive to our MEP consultants that we will not pay as much for MEP work done in 2D, as we will for Revit modeled MEP.

This has just been my two cents worth.....

Scott Womack AIA

[cliff collins]

Amen, Scott!

Agree 100%. This helps emphasize what I have been trying to convey to those on the "2D"
side of the argument. I still find it amazing that 99% of Revit users will gladly model a complicated window, place it in a wall, schedule it, put material parameters and formulas in the family, etc.--but will not apply the same BIM methods to a truss, or a foundation wall, or a computer workstation, as if those elements are "better done in 2D". It just doesn't make any sense. What good does a bunch of lines and filled regions do for anyone who is interested in the things you mention such as quantities, 3D geometric relationships to other objects and systems, etc.

Enough said.

cheers......

[cliff collins]

And check out this video. They actually modelled the trusses and joists, and windows, and doors,....................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05hejVnpve0

cheers

[twiceroadsfool]

Amen, Scott!

Agree 100%. This helps emphasize what I have been trying to convey to those on the "2D"
side of the argument. I still find it amazing that 99% of Revit users will gladly model a complicated window, place it in a wall, schedule it, put material parameters and formulas in the family, etc.--but will not apply the same BIM methods to a truss, or a foundation wall, or a computer workstation, as if those elements are "better done in 2D". It just doesn't make any sense. What good does a bunch of lines and filled regions do for anyone who is interested in the things you mention such as quantities, 3D geometric relationships to other objects and systems, etc.

Enough said.

cheers......

Enough said because you still never addressed the CRUX of the issue in the other thread. YOU DONT HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MODEL THE WORKSTATION, AND YOURE NOT GOING TO GET IT BEFORE DRAWINGS ARE DUE SINCE ITS NOT SELECTED BY YOU.

Now what are you "modeling?"

[cliff collins]

Even though this is way off track in THIS thread, I'll respond by saying we would still model a 3D "placemarker" workstation ( actually we already have them ready to load, with flexible sizes/parameters, etc.) so we would not even be spending time modeling anything,
and we would merely be placing some families into the space as a part of space planning layout and to help determine the impact of the workstations in relationship to other 3D elements which ARE in the scope.

So--we would be doing it FASTER ( no modeling required ) than drawing a bunch of 2D lines, and with greater benefit to the design team, Owner, and the eventual furniture rep.
who could immediately see the placemarkers in 3D context and then make better informed decisions in specifying the "real" workstations. It's not just a bunch of paper drawings we are after as a deliverable--it's a Building Information MODEL.

And actually the philosophy described here DOES apply to this and many other threads.
Did you look at the YouTube video? I'm not the only one who shares this opinion.
The "actual trusses" are not in my scope, but I still model them to provide a more meaningful approximation which is beneficial to a myriad of other team members.
Much more helpful than a bunch of 2D lines on a roof framing plan and a 2D truss elevation
somewhere on sheet A-150.X..........

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. You will never convince me otherwise, and vice versa.

cheers

PS--no need to "yell at me" in all CAPS!! Lighten up, dude!

[twiceroadsfool]

I have generic desks too. But the poster in the thread didnt. At which point, its NOT any faster to model it. And make no mistake about it, i may HAVE generic 3D desks, but deluding yourself in to the fact that theyre "3D generic desks" instead of "symbolic linework in a FAMILY" is more BIM is.... well... yeah.

BTW, you have to compare apples to apples. You either have the family done, or you dont. 2d/3d isnt an issue. Youre comparing your efficiency in having the family made, versus a posted who didnt, which is insane. NO ONE in either thread advocated drawing lines in the PROJECT, but in the OBJECT, which is just as intelligent, except there isnt a useless box where there may be no useless box.

And, i want to make sure i have this right, since (in the other thread you were spewing something about incident light rays and reflection (LOL), and now youre talking about benefitting the Owner and furniture buyer (whom, in my example, you dont even know who they are).... So, you hand over youre entire Revit model to the owner when the project is done, so they can leverage all of that "usefulness" out of it?

And you keep bringing up windows, which just makes me think you dont even know what the term "value adding" means. Windows, in my scope. Furniture (in the case we described)- not.

Hell, i know STRUCTURAL engineers who PREFER to not show internal truss members, if theyre not the Truss designer. Its not even about MODEL versus DRAFTING, its just showing useless non value adding ****, which CAN lead to more MISinformation than VALUED information, which costs peopler time/effort/money.

And youre right, you wont convince me im wrong (im not). And you brought up the other thread, with the "hint hint" in like, every freaking post. So you brought it up. :)

-cheers!

[3dway]

Heated Debate? Maybe. Flame War. NO. Good information? YES. Caps? Hazard of the industry, when answering a post quickly at a coffee break.

Keep it coming guys. The fact that everyone is interested and invested in the topic brings more foreward. I'll try and filter out PROs and CONs from each view.

Thanks, and keep going.