High level of detailed const. documents for stairs with Revit

[cadkiller]

Group;

I've been told that most Architects don't go to a high level of detail when producing stair drawings for projects; so Revit won't go to that level either. Also that providing that high level of detail with stair objects you would increase the model size so much that it wouldn't be practical. I find this response to be a negative one and not true for all Architectural firms. For one with ADT you can model a stair case and take the details to the next level with the detail component manager and Revit should be able to do the same if not better.

I have worked on projects from a wide variety of design firms and they drastically vary on how they produce contract drawings. Some firms just give you a basic plan, elevation and a typical detail of the stair and expect the stair fabricator to finish of the design, provide calculations and make it work. On the other hand I have some that produce stair drawings with all the information including engineering and a complete set of detailed documents of how the stair is to be framed and constructed.

I have the following questions.

1- Do you feel this should be the case were you should just produce a generic stair and let the fabricator finish of the design for you?

2- If you wanted to be one that produced a high level of detailed stair documents could you do this with Revit and if so how would that be accomplished?

PS: I feel that the industry is getting worse by the day with regards to providing quality construction documents for projects. I would say more so for the Structural engineering than the Architectural; but with this attitude the Architectural will be on the same page soon. The AISC has addressed the lack of quality in their field and are trying to do something about it and I hope that the AIA will also.

From;
Edward Borg
Precision Drafting LLC
http://precisiondraftingllc.com (http://precisiondraftingllc.com/)

[Scott D Davis]

1- Do you feel this should be the case were you should just produce a generic stair and let the fabricator finish of the design for you?I would produce enough information in the stair drawings so that the manufacturer of that stair could understand the complete intent, and then produce shop drawings accordingly. What I don't want to do is provide his shop drawings for him. If this required a set of 3D models along with 2D details, then that is what I would do.


2- If you wanted to be one that produced a high level of detailed stair documents could you do this with Revit and if so how would that be accomplished?'I would produce the 'geometry' of the stair in Revit, and then produce the details as 2D components. Treat the stair a s a building. If its complicated, produce a model, cut sections through it, provide detail callouts, and provide the 2D details needed so that the fabricator can understand how the stair is designed. It's up to the fabricator to figure out how to build it. His shop drawings will be the construction document set to build the stairs....not my design drawings.


For one with ADT you can model a stair case and take the details to the next level with the detail component manager and Revit should be able to do the same if not better.
You can do the same with Revit. Model the stair to a level that the design is conveyed, and then detail the stair with Revit detail components.

[Chris DiSunno]

I agree. I don't need my stair builder to design my stair! Shop drawings, in my opinion, are to prove the fabricator knows what they are doing and agrees he can build it before they get started. We do detailed stairs, custom balusters rails nosings etc. and yup Revit leaves alot to be desired in that department. I thought they were developing that further.

Like adding a simple gooseneck or blend and better versatility in newel placement.

We do lots of linework on the enlarged details for the stair and detail it as you would an eave detail. It works, it has not really changed anything we drew the bends in 2d before Revit. I wish it would work in Revit.

Choose your 3d battles...

I disagree about the drawings though, we produce more drawings, with more detail now than ever, thanks to the lawyers and less knowledgeable builders

[Scott D Davis]

I don't need my stair builder to design my stair! Shop drawings, in my opinion, are to prove the fabricator knows what they are doing and agrees he can build it before they get started.
The manufacturer is not designing your stair, you have provided that. Shop drawings are not simply "proof"....they are the documents that explain how that piece is maufactured. Shop Drawings are the "constrcution drawings" for the stair, just as your CD's are to the building itself.

This is interesting, because it leads to something that Phil Berstein discussed on his Vision Tour, which is the fact that there is a disconnect in the industry. We, as Architects, detail the heck out of a building, only to have the manufacturers turn around and detail it over again in the Shop Drawing process. He expained that this process is due for reform, whereas Architects will do "Design" drawings and the actual construction drawings will be done as a shop drawing process by the General Contractors and Sub contractors/manufacturers. There is a need to cut out the redundant work.

I really wouldn't mind NOT producing CD's!

[cadkiller]

Scott;

So in your opinion it's up to the fabricator to calculate the stair loads, size all the members and develop all the transitional sections. They aren't the licenced professionals with a stamp and shouldn't be the ones responsible to finish off the design! There use to be Architects and there still are a few that give you a complete finished job with all the sectional details of how the stair is to be constructed. Why doesn't the EOR get involved anymore with the design of the stairs on a project? They just design and size the stair opening framing and put a note in the specs for the fabricator to employ a licenced professional engineer to calculate the stair loads.

The fabricator was hired to fabricate and erect the stair in most cases. They have to submit erection drawings for approval to make sure they understood the design intent. The piece details of all the members is for the shop to fabricate the stair. The erection drawings are to be used by the field guys to erect the stair properly.

I'm not saying that you should produce shop detailed drawings for the fabricator's shop. Just that the contract drawings should show how the stair is to be constructed in detail. That should include all the information, sections, sizes, etc.

If more Architectural firms shared their CAD drawings with the subs it would minimize the redundency. Many Architectural firms won't even share their electronic files and they subs have to recreate everything from scratch.

From;
Ed Borg

[cadkiller]

The manufacturer is not designing your stair, you have provided that. Shop drawings are not simply "proof"....they are the documents that explain how that piece is maufactured. Shop Drawings are the "constrcution drawings" for the stair, just as your CD's are to the building itself.
The fabricator is suppose to detail the stair so the shop and field guys know how to build it and put it up. They shouldn't be used as construction documents for all the other trades that have to work on the stair. All of that information should be put on the contract drawings and they should be shared with the subs and not just the designers.


This is interesting, because it leads to something that Phil Berstein discussed on his Vision Tour, which is the fact that there is a disconnect in the industry. We, as Architects, detail the heck out of a building, only to have the manufacturers turn around and detail it over again in the Shop Drawing process. He expained that this process is due for reform, whereas Architects will do "Design" drawings and the actual construction drawings will be done as a shop drawing process by the General Contractors and Sub contractors/manufacturers. There is a need to cut out the redundant work.
If the electronic files were widely shared then we as subs could use that information and edit it to suit our needs. This would reduce redundency in my opinion.


I really wouldn't mind NOT producing CD's!
Just make one CD and share it with the GC and they can make all the other CD's for the subs to use or upload the design drawings to the web and you won't have to make anymore CD's.

From;
Ed Borg

[Andre Baros]

Doesn't this really depend on the stair. If you're doing a metal stair in a parking garage and don't care about what you get then it's nice to be able to just spec a stair the way you spec a door and let the manufacturer deal with the engineering. If you're doing the all glass stair in the Apple store, you may prefer to leave less up to chance. I think Revit handles both... it's easy to do the first stair, and just a much work as any other software to detail everything on the second.

[Scott D Davis]

Just make one CD and share it with the GC and they can make all the other CD's for the subs to use or upload the design drawings to the web and you won't have to make anymore CD's.By "CDs" I meant "Construction Documents" :mrgreen: The idea that Architects go through the "Design Developement" phase, and then manufacturers and contractors do the construction documents and details through shop drawings sounds appealing to me.


The fabricator is suppose to detail the stair so the shop and field guys know how to build it and put it up. They shouldn't be used as construction documents for all the other trades that have to work on the stair. All of that information should be put on the contract drawings and they should be shared with the subs and not just the designers.Yes, the fabricator must detail the stair, and he has to produce all the parts either in his shop of in the field to assemble the stair according to his plan, so his drawings are Const Docs for the stair. If another trade needs to come in and do additional work on that same stair, then that information should be coordinated by the stair manufacturer, and thise instructions should be passed on by the manufacturer to the other trades.

I guess what I am saying is that there is the "Construction Document" set which is the plans for the building...Arch, Struct, MEP, Civil, etc. Then there are sub-sets of that overall set of plans for manufactured items such as stairs, that need to exist as thier own "construction document' set specifically for that one purpose. The building set of drawings must explain the design of the stair to get it built, but its up to the fabricator to detail how that gets done. Thats why the fabricator submits Shop Drawings back to the Arch. If you don't think the fabricator has captured your design in his shop drawings, you mark it up and send it back.


So in your opinion it's up to the fabricator to calculate the stair loads, size all the members and develop all the transitional sections. They aren't the licenced professionals with a stamp and shouldn't be the ones responsible to finish off the design!
We require them to be licensed engineers. If the stair requires structural calcs, then the fabricator must submit those. We as architects cannot be held liable for engineering someone else's work. (or have our own structural consultants be liable). Just recently, I did plans for a remodel of a house, where part of the roof was changing and required new trusses. I sent the 'design' plans to the truss manufacturer, and they sent back engineered, stamped/signed drawings and calcs for my approval. I had to review them and make sure the trusses were correct as far as the design, but its the same situation as the stair example.

[cadkiller]

We require them to be licensed engineers. If the stair requires structural calcs, then the fabricator must submit those. We as architects cannot be held liable for engineering someone else's work. (or have our own structural consultants be liable). Just recently, I did plans for a remodel of a house, where part of the roof was changing and required new trusses. I sent the 'design' plans to the truss manufacturer, and they sent back engineered, stamped/signed drawings and calcs for my approval. I had to review them and make sure the trusses were correct as far as the design, but its the same situation as the stair example.
Scott;

So why not have all the subs be licenced professionals and you guys have no liability at all for the building that is manufactured. That sounds like a good idea, just pass the buck and let the next guy be responsible. I wish it was that easy; but the government has a say to who is liable for designing buildings and not the designers. Thank goodness! Making a sub hire a licenced engineer doesn't relieve you of responsiblity. Everyone will be sued if the building structure or stair fails.

Imagine a structural steel fabricator being responsible for the structure be fabricates. They are in the business to fabricate steel and not design it. Not to say that there aren't any out there; but those are design and build type companies.

Anyway you answered my initial question about being able to produce highly detailed stairs with Revit and that is what I was looking for.

Thanks;
Ed Borg

[Steve_Stafford]

...So why not have all the subs be licenced professionals and you guys have no liability at all for the building that is manufactured. That sounds like a good idea, just pass the buck and let the next guy be responsible. I wish it was that easy...My take on what Scott is saying is that for manufactured items we select for use in our projects, the burden of engineering proof falls to the manufacturer. Since many of the stair systems in use today are prefabricated in some fashion they have been pre-engineered and as long as we use components in the prescribed manner we don't have to do the engineering, just the selection of the design.

You wouldn't take the effort to "engineer" the winch assembly for the elevator company. You'd just tell them what capacity you require and they work it from there. You take advantage of the expertise of a product specialist to produce the desired result.

I'm sure Scott would agree that you'd need to work out a "one of kind" stair in more detail and in concert with the fabricator to ensure code compliance, structural integrity and design aesthetic.

I suspect you just are misinterpreting what Scott's trying to say.

[rookwood]

I don't know too many 'ARCHITECTS' who are willing to be liable for the structural integrity of any part of the project. If the burden, or scope is given to them, they usually resort to contracting with an engineer.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting they abandon as much liability and responsibility as possible. It just stands to reason that only a certain amount of detailing can be done, beyond the design intent. Too much can go awry during the construction process that will produce a structure not to the dimensions designed. Imagine the glazing contractor ordering the storefront and glazing 'off the drawings' without field measurements.

Often, these 'subs' have a vast amount of experience that can and should be shared by the Almighty Architect God'.

[cadkiller]

All the stairs I work on are fabricated and not manufactured. They are not pre-engineered and require engineering for that particular project. Shouldn't that be done by the EOR? They use to do it and some still do; but many more are just washing their hands of that task and giving it to the sub.

I'm just trying to make a point that Revit should be able to produce highly detailed steel stairs like some architects I work with.

From;
Ed Borg

[Allen Lacy]

My experience lately has been that the stair fabricator has and engineer "under contract" to design stair structure as needed. The cost of the engineer is figured into the cost of the stair. I would think that if the engineer worked with the fabricator on a regular basis, they would know how the stair fabricator would build the stair and ulitmately, would make for a less costly end product.

On a recent project, our EOR did not want to take responsibility for stair structure design, so it fell to the stair fabricator. We as architects had detailed our design intent, but not the structure. As Rookwood said, we can't take the liablility for that.