beating a dead horse - working with Revit Structure

[Justin Marchiel]

We are embarking on a large job with our engineer that is in RS. We have worked together before, but due to training and implementation on there they just copy monitored our model. I reviewed everything manually and made changes to my model as required.

Now due to the size of the job and that they are now more proficient in RS i want to start leveraging the 2 platforms. please correct me if i am wrong but this is how i see working together.

structural model will be linked into arch and vise versa. i will only show arch objects and struct shows structure. because the files are linked together the 2 project come together to create 1. since i have linked the structure i, i dont need to worry about showing the correct size beams, column, braces, etc becasue hopefully structure will show it correctly. We will need to copy monitor things like girds and levels to make sure these items are the same (so that constraints and dimensions are not referencing a linked drawings).

Does this sound right? the only thing i can't get my head around is reveals in structure concrete walls. in that case, both arch and struct will need to show (and use CM)?

To add a another level of complication we are also getting MEP involved. I now do i link there toilets and tubs into my model and delete mine? Or use the CM to make sure they are always in the same place?

Thanks

Justin

[cphubb]

First, you are pretty close to what you need.

Any object that you need control over will need to be CM. However you can only CM Grids, Levels, Columns, Floors and Walls. (Rooms with RMEP can be copied)

so within hte limits of this any walls that need reveals should be CM, floors where holes and edges will be added or moved need CM.

You get the picture. But do not make the mistake of "Window" CM where you try to grab everything. Makes lots of coordination dialogs and wastes your time over a column moved 1" in the middle of your parking garage. (Or maybe it does matter.)

[dbaldacchino]

Personally, I have never used C/M on a project. I played around with it, but never saw any use for the building type we do. I know lots disagree with me, but hey...to each his own :) I still listen to other's workflows. As long as you don't need control over any elements that can be C/M'd, then I wouldn't even bother. We have structural in-house, so things might be a bit different. What we have typically done is to link in the structural model and use their grids, framing, columns, etc. Obvisouly, architects have a first run with grids after discussions with the engineer in light of the soils report; the engineer then copis the grids to their file and we remove them from ours. If we're lucky and the engineer starts early, they link our Architectural model and start laying the grid down after discussing it with the architect. We have had Structural place their levels on a different workset and we don't load it. That eliminates seeing a bunch of extra levels from their project file.

We have been creating an "architectural view" in the structural project, which contains just the grids, columns and bracing. We adjust the grid bubbles there so they're nice and legible (this is particularly important for grids needing to jog due to being too close) and we use this for "By Linked View". Recently we have been experimenting with doing away with this view and just use any other overall structural view that is properly formatted and set it to "Custom". Then we would set our View Range to By Host instead and that seems to work just fine too. This requires hardly any maintenance (no need for "Architectural views").

[patricks]

I have an MEP file linked into my current project, and I just turn off plumbing fixtures in the linked file, because their families don't look like our families, and I think ours look better. :p

[Justin Marchiel]

ok so it sounds like i am on the right path. being the first major project we will probably come up to some of these issues, but it sounds like we are starting in the right direction (i hope).

I didn't like the idea of CM either, but having the outside consultant would make it hard to have architectural items added to there model. it would be nice if one day we could treat a link more like an element. a guess this is the evolution of software and nothing is perfect the first (or 11th time) thru.

Justin

[cphubb]

Personally, I have never used C/M on a project. I played around with it, but never saw any use for the building type we do. I know lots disagree with me, but hey...to each his own :) I still listen to other's workflows. As long as you don't need control over any elements that can be C/M'd, then I wouldn't even bother. We have structural in-house, so things might be a bit different. What we have typically done is to link in the structural model and use their grids, framing, columns, etc. Obvisouly, architects have a first run with grids after discussions with the engineer in light of the soils report; the engineer then copis the grids to their file and we remove them from ours. If we're lucky and the engineer starts early, they link our Architectural model and start laying the grid down after discussing it with the architect. We have had Structural place their levels on a different workset and we don't load it. That eliminates seeing a bunch of extra levels from their project file.

We have been creating an "architectural view" in the structural project, which contains just the grids, columns and bracing. We adjust the grid bubbles there so they're nice and legible (this is particularly important for grids needing to jog due to being too close) and we use this for "By Linked View". Recently we have been experimenting with doing away with this view and just use any other overall structural view that is properly formatted and set it to "Custom". Then we would set our View Range to By Host instead and that seems to work just fine too. This requires hardly any maintenance (no need for "Architectural views").

So if your grids are not in your project how do you aling walls etc to the grids? I also do not CM levels I just have structural use their own which are different elevations than ours and use a view template to turn them off. I also am mixed on the floor thing. More and more we are putting a finish floor over the structutral so haveing the structural floor live is not much of a requirement. However we really need to convey where shafts and stairs are located pretty precisely so CM'ing the floor works very well for that exercise. I think you would feel differenty if structural was out of the office

[dbaldacchino]

So if your grids are not in your project how do you aling walls etc to the grids?

Our exterior walls are shown at a certain distance from the grids. In fact as a rule, we show the grids at a certain distance from the outside face of wall, depending on wall thickness (ex: 1'-6"). In other words, we don't align walls to grids but dimension them to a certain distance from the grids.


I think you would feel differenty if structural was out of the office

Probably, but I think my choice would be to try work with a consultant as if we're in the same office. I've done that in the past under Autocad....wasn't easy, but once they were on board, it worked well and anything structural was in their files. That way it was evident when there was mis-coordination. Again, I'm sure there are things that work well with C/M, but I typically choose to go a different route and communicate more directly what needs changed. In between meetings, I "live" with mis-coordination, knowing that in the next update (a day, a week?) the problem will be solved.

[twiceroadsfool]

We use Copy Monitor alot in situations like this, and it works great. Especially with Grids. One major (major in my humble opinion) shortcoming is that you can obviously only CM something that is already there, and you have to tell it too.

I would love the ability to tell "project 2" that it should CM EVERY grid FOREVER from "project 1." Why? Well, I get my model from Structural, or them from us, and so on, and one of us drives the grids and the other uses CM. Then the grid dictator adds a new Grid. well, when they reload, they get no impending warning of such a thing. If theyre using CM so they can shut off our Grid visibility and use theirs, then theyre missing that grid unless we tell them.

OBVIOUSLY, its our responsibility to tel them all of the changes, but doesnt that negate the purpose of CM alltogether?

Regardless, it works very well as a tool, for what it is. We use it in house for models that are seperate files for different phases of projects (when for some reason, we elect to not use phasing), we use it with consultants (mainly structural), and we use it for constraining Linked Models, so to speak.

For instance, a tower sitting on top of a building where they are modeled seperately, will have the levels copy monitored, so that we can maintain the towers relationship to the building below. Makes life very easy when FTF heights change. :)

[cphubb]

I also wish it would track deletions better. We had a consultant delete a floor to re-sketch it. CM flagged it as being deleted and if we had accepted (we almost did) it would have deleted the floor and all floor based objects wall attachments room bounding etc. We had to accept the difference and start monitoring the new floor. New and deleted items need to be handled differntly that they are now.

One other pitfall to using CM. We had a contractor tell us they had QT'ed 2 of all the CM items because they did not realize that that was happening. It was a number of floors, columns and walls. Make sure to clean out the CM stuff when you do a QT, or you will need to heavly filter your QT.

[twiceroadsfool]

I also wish it would track deletions better. We had a consultant delete a floor to re-sketch it. CM flagged it as being deleted and if we had accepted (we almost did) it would have deleted the floor and all floor based objects wall attachments room bounding etc. We had to accept the difference and start monitoring the new floor. New and deleted items need to be handled differntly that they are now.

One other pitfall to using CM. We had a contractor tell us they had QT'ed 2 of all the CM items because they did not realize that that was happening. It was a number of floors, columns and walls. Make sure to clean out the CM stuff when you do a QT, or you will need to heavly filter your QT.


CM is one of those tools that has similar fallout to things like "wall by face" of a mass family. If you go in and EDIT, itll retain knowledge of the element and notice a difference. But if someone eradticates the gemometry and starts over, it doesnt like that.

I try to explain that to the users when theyre playing with mass families,(cause and effect) but its hard to get consultants to not do things like that, LOL.

I guess, if you are QT'ing items, are you getting take offs from both models? Otherwise, why would there be 2 of everything? But youre right, i can see where that could become an issue. That one though, i could see being handled with a good project strategy session...