Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

doing both architectural and structural in one in revit, and 3D

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    doing both architectural and structural in one in revit, and 3D

    We are designing small (example 3' x 14' x 8') prefabricated house components (wiring system in roof, ceiling system) Given the 'smallness' we are hoping to combine architectural and structural in one. It seems to me that for a larger structure, combining arch and structural would get 'confusing' too much information, density of information But for smaller units, somehow it is simpler, cleaner. The structure happens to be steel, that wouldn't seem to make much difference. We are thinking to combine to get the whole picture for the manufacure (where is the soffit, where is the support for the wiring, attached to the beams) It will speed manufacture. My question - does anybody have experience doing this in Revit (or other platforms)? By way of , the individual doing the drafting is keen on Revit (in general, and for this project) We will have plan view, elevation view and 3D. Any insights appreciated.

    #2
    Totally do-able and mangeable but needs some customised view templates to handle the information by discipline.

    I have worked on quite large projects where disciplines were mixed, they key problem is the documentation after and being able to filter your views so they are clean and not polluted by the other disciplines elements (especially furniture, and window elements etc in structural views.)

    Its true that larger projects benefit from seperating things simply from a size management perspective but also other complications - for example large archi models often have their furniture as a seperate model, and their facades as a seperate model but in the end it all comes down to the strategy you want to use.

    Set up some worksets and make sure your technicians stick to them, and you will be much better off for filtering views, and also if you need to later, for seperating the models by worksets.

    Comment


      #3
      What advantages will you get from one model? Or what you want to avoid with separate models?

      Also check this thread https://www.revitforum.org/architect...tructural.html

      Comment


        #4
        I work for a design build construction company and we do everything in one model. We have individual Revit users doing the full architectural and structural model and drawings so there is no point splitting the model, this would actual create more work.

        We do multistory commercial buildings, warehouse, workshop, etc. some with foot prints of 20,000m²+. No issues doing architectural and structural in one model. Most importantly you need a range of view templates as suggested above which makes viewing and working between the disciplines easy. We just have a view template set up for every possible sheet/view we would use on a project as well as a few working views set up in our template.
        Bryce Cromar | Design Team Manager | https://www.calderstewart.co.nz/ | Dunedin, New Zealand

        Comment


          #5
          There arent *issues* with it, as in, things that simply *dont work.* But having said that, i wouldnt do it. Not unless the Structure is simple Steel. Concrete joinery wrecks SWC times on a large complex building, and making EVERYONE in architecture suffer through that is reason enough to keep them in separate models, for me. And thats WITH a Dynamo graph that routinely went in and killed all of the analytical properties of all the beams, all the columns, and all the slabs.
          Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
          @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
            There arent *issues* with it, as in, things that simply *dont work.* But having said that, i wouldnt do it. Not unless the Structure is simple Steel. Concrete joinery wrecks SWC times on a large complex building, and making EVERYONE in architecture suffer through that is reason enough to keep them in separate models, for me. And thats WITH a Dynamo graph that routinely went in and killed all of the analytical properties of all the beams, all the columns, and all the slabs.
            Yeah this is true, the analytical nodes on elements can play havoc even for the structural teams.
            In most cases, unless I need the nodes on (ie running analytical models straight out of revit to analysis packages) then I tend to turn them off as they can give weird errors and other problems

            Comment

            Related Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X