Detailing not as parametric as it should be

[archlight52]

I have started to create the detail library for our office and am realizing that the BIM nature of Revit doesn't lend itself very well to this process. After reading other AUGI posts, I'm seeing that there are three options when it comes to detailing in Revit:

1. Import CAD details - not a viable option simply because there is no advantage to be gained by using Revit in the first place.
2. Produce 2d details assembled from 2d detail components (that are assigned keynoted values based on a spec system like CSI) in drafting views - This is slightly more parametric in that the detail components can be line based and assigned keynote values. However, this is a fundamentally CAD based system because the contents of the drafting view are completely divorced from the building model. We're afraid that just like in a CAD based system, entropy will set in after a few projects and the quick fix of inserting "standard" details from previous projects into the current one will impact the quality of the con docs etc etc.
3. Produce details by pulling views from the live 3d model, inserting 2d components where needed and note on a per case basis - This is an OK methodology if you work on very few projects and they never change (at which point any design pro reading this is laughing). Changing anything on the model necessitates cleanup in the detail view and exporting the detail for use in future projects is rendered useless as the bits and pieces of the model associated with that detail pop into the new project. Exporting to DWG is similarly useless in terms of line weights and the reason mentioned in Option 1.

I'm at a very small office and have 10 months experience with this program. Ideally, I'd like my details to be linked into the live model to ensure full coordination between project and detail, maintain enough autonomy so that they can be used throughout multiple projects, and be parametric enough so that all the components can be keynoted according to CSI MasterSpec and contain schedulable content such as code, fire, STC, IIC, & assembly ratings.

As an example, consider a sub-grade waterproofing detail against a CMU wall. I can draft a detail with the layers of waterproofing against a detail component of the CMU wall in a drafting view. However, if I change that wall to concrete, the detail component of the CMU won't change to concrete automatically. I either have to change that component manually or create an additional detail with everything the same except for the change from CMU to concrete. If I do the reverse, I can have a view of an actual wall in the model that contains all the code, fire, etc. info but if the wall moves I'm in trouble and I can't export that view with all that parametric content to another project.

Am I guilty of wanting to eat my cake and have it too? Are there more sophisticated, elegant ways of going about this that I don't know about? Can Revit use some improved functionality when it comes to this? Are there others in the same boat?

Any input is greatly appreciated.

[Scott Womack]

2. Produce 2d details assembled from 2d detail components (that are assigned keynoted values based on a spec system like CSI) in drafting views - This is slightly more parametric in that the detail components can be line based and assigned keynote values. However, this is a fundamentally CAD based system because the contents of the drafting view are completely divorced from the building model. We're afraid that just like in a CAD based system, entropy will set in after a few projects and the quick fix of inserting "standard" details from previous projects into the current one will impact the quality of the con docs etc etc.

Although this is not "Live" it is still appropriate to the process. There are numerous items that modeling just do not make sense for, even when doing quantity take-offs from the model. We will probably never reach the point where we are modeling every brick tie/anchor on a building. Yes, "Entropy" can always be an issue. When newer building materials become available we'll have to look at them closely for adoption, etc.

This is the stated workflow, and seems to be one that is beginning to see adoption, at least in the US.


3. Produce details by pulling views from the live 3d model, inserting 2d components where needed and note on a per case basis - This is an OK methodology if you work on very few projects and they never change (at which point any design pro reading this is laughing). Changing anything on the model necessitates cleanup in the detail view and exporting the detail for use in future projects is rendered useless as the bits and pieces of the model associated with that detail pop into the new project. Exporting to DWG is similarly useless in terms of line weights and the reason mentioned in Option 1.

These details can be quickly converted to Drafting details, by turning off the model in the view, selecting the 2D components and text, and copy/pasting them into a drafting view. You can also import 2D components directly from a view in another project, for placement into the same type of view, Detail to Detail, Section to Section, elevation to elevation, etc.


As an example, consider a sub-grade waterproofing detail against a CMU wall. I can draft a detail with the layers of waterproofing against a detail component of the CMU wall in a drafting view. However, if I change that wall to concrete, the detail component of the CMU won't change to concrete automatically. I either have to change that component manually or create an additional detail with everything the same except for the change from CMU to concrete.

True, there is no way to make this "live. We as Architects and Engineers either must accept the issues surrounding our professions more traditional methods of documentation, OR reexamine what is the important information we are trying to call "standard". Depending upon how you draw the drafting view of the sub-grade waterproofing detail, you can draw the substrate as a filled region, and then it is easy to change to concrete, or actually draw the additional substrates in the drafting view and hide them in that view. When the view is imported into the project, it usually becomes visible, and then the detail is checked, and the less appropriate materials/notes get hidden or removed. Other approach is to save the CMU version to another detail, change the substrate, and note(s) and you suddenly have a second detail with a different substrate in the detail.

[Mike Sealander]

Short answer:
You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
The nice thing about a standard detail is that it applies to many different conditions. Instead of calling out the CMU substrate on a waterproofing detail, just refer to it as "substrate". BIM and Revit aren't a brave new world in all respects; only in some.