Clash Reporting - Best Practices?

[hkossila]

The glitch, and it is a glitch, with the html including the full image path is one that Autodesk is aware of. I am told they are still working on a fix for this. One thing you can do in the meantime is open the HTML file with notepad. Then use the Replace command, enter the full path, such as Crojects\xxx\xxx or whatever, that it's looking for the image. Then in the "replace with" field don't put anything. This will get rid of the path for every image. Then save. Still not ideal, but it's better than viewing the source code and deleting the path one line at a time. I"m disgusted at how long it's taking Autodesk to fix this. If you look at the html code from a report generated from 2009, you'll see that the path isn't there. Hello! doesn't seem that hard a fix to me.

We group like items as well, then have a meeting to discuss who will do what, we add comments, approve things that aren't really clashes, and then print an HTML report with only active or new clashes. We use the report mainly as a to-do list and a record of where we are. Everyone gets a copy, mainly serves to remind people what we agreed on so things are fixed for the next clash detection. I would like to find a better way to export the report though, as it is cumbersome to zip and email all that junk. Does anyone have experience setting page breaks when printing to pdf? Also, does anyone know a way to customize the xml output. We like the spreadsheet itdea, just way to much junk to get rid of each time. Seriously, I don't need to know in 10 different columns the username of the person who approved a clash!
thanks,

[cjehly]

The best-run clash detections I've seen did not need to bother with separate level-by-level clash runs since each level was a separate model name already. So we only had to run Mech vs. Arch once for the whole building. This is because the clashing items' level could be determined by its model name.

I'm curious if this was done at the construction level, or if it was prior to issuing CD's.

I've never heard of a project doing coordination on an entire building at once, without a floor-by-floor coordination happened ahead of time. I'd LOVE to hear that there are projects like that happening "some where" though...

[RobertB]

Could you please elaborate on this process? I'm not sure I follow you, but it sounds like a promising workflow methodology. Thanks.

Each level was a separate DWG model for all trades with the level name as part of the filename, e.g. 3D-E-Level-01. The Revit model was "sliced" by the architect at DWG export (we are the electrical consultant). Although this meant more models to add initially when setting up the Navisworks model, now when a clash occurs the level can be determined by which model in which the clash occurs.

[RobertB]

I'm curious if this was done at the construction level, or if it was prior to issuing CD's.

I've never heard of a project doing coordination on an entire building at once, without a floor-by-floor coordination happened ahead of time. I'd LOVE to hear that there are projects like that happening "some where" though...

We have had jobs that went either way. I have seen that larger jobs tend to concentrate on batches of levels whereas medium-sized projects will "bite the bullet" on the initially large clash results but go for the entire building. The key is to clash early and often in-house before clash meetings on these whole building clashes.

This is being done in the VDC phase.

[cjehly]

We have had jobs that went either way. I have seen that larger jobs tend to concentrate on batches of levels whereas medium-sized projects will "bite the bullet" on the initially large clash results but go for the entire building. The key is to clash early and often in-house before clash meetings on these whole building clashes.

This is being done in the VDC phase.

ah, VDC. That explains a lot. Thanks for clarifying....

[RobertB]

ah, VDC. That explains a lot. Thanks for clarifying....

Don't read too much into that... I'm doing my little bit for BIM by trying to get the architects to stop using SD/DD/CD phase terminology. So I'm really referring to the design BIM, not the construction BIM.

[Aaron.Wright]

Is there a way to save the visibility settings for the clash reports to be opened in Freedom so the subs will see where the highlighted clash is? This is a problem I've seen with saving the clashes as viewpoints because Saved Attributes are lost in Freedom.

[crawfords]

One thing that I have tried with this is to "report out" the clashes as viewpoints in Manage, then override the colors or transparencies of the conflicting items to highlight them. Then I right-click the viewpoint and click the "edit" button and make sure the Override Material checkbox is checked before exporting the NWD file out for Freedom.

Obviously, this is very labor-intensive, and perhaps best used for later stages in the project when the number of clashes has been reduced.

-Crawford

[cjehly]

Don't read too much into that... I'm doing my little bit for BIM by trying to get the architects to stop using SD/DD/CD phase terminology. So I'm really referring to the design BIM, not the construction BIM.

I've read enough of your posts to realize you're one of the "good guys". I always appreciate your candid comments.

[RobertB]

Is there a way to save the visibility settings for the clash reports to be opened in Freedom so the subs will see where the highlighted clash is? This is a problem I've seen with saving the clashes as viewpoints because Saved Attributes are lost in Freedom.

One thing that I have tried with this is to "report out" the clashes as viewpoints in Manage, then override the colors or transparencies of the conflicting items to highlight them. Then I right-click the viewpoint and click the "edit" button and make sure the Override Material checkbox is checked before exporting the NWD file out for Freedom.

Obviously, this is very labor-intensive, and perhaps best used for later stages in the project when the number of clashes has been reduced.

Yikes! That is too much work for me. <shudder> I simply wish that the clash would remain highlighted. I can understand why it isn't, from a programmer's perspective, but that does not make me happy.

I think the programmers ought to create a Publish to NWD option that turns on the highlighting for all clash items (at the least). Although the model would be "littered" with highlighted items, at least the saved viewpoints would now have context for the clash. This would not be a perfect approach but it is better than what we currently have.