For the most part, I've been able to use OOTB framing members.

However, I did need a K-series joist with a top chord extension that showed the extension length in plan. I could have used the work-around of drawing the drafting line over top of the joist, to the extension length that I needed, then locking the drafting line to the joist. Instead, I had the factory help me edit the OOTB k-series joist to help me out.

Speaking of K-series joists, I'd like to see them cleaned up so that, when they are sloped, we can still have a plan representation looking like a joist. ( ___ . . ___ . . ___ . . ___ or similar)

We are using the OOTB framing members and columns. However I have created a few custom framing members. When I do this I use the Structural Framing template. We do not add any additional properties to our framing families as of now.

I have made several truss templates or modeled in place families for clash detection. This area would be the best area for additional development IMO. For instance the ability to add profiles, or actual framings families to all parts of stairs, or the ability to model a complete truss with framing members instead of lines.

We find that our engineers do not trust Revit to perform the task of structural analysis. They make their own model in their program outside of Revit. On several occasions we have imported their model to start the Revit model with relative success and few problems. We have not successfully preformed any form of Revit export to external analysis software or any form of round trip.


If you would like more indepth feedback let me know.

Thanks,

Hi Erik - We use the OOTB content with some extras. We stick with the OOTB for analysis reasons, RamSteel looks for AISC steel sizes. We have added to our framing members a line offset from them member that we turn on when we have a "stacked" beam in plan (2 beams in the same plane @ different elevations), I call it the 0" offset beam line. I've also added a generic size to each family, i.e., WF-BM, HSS-BM, etc., for preliminary stick framing so people know these members have yet to be designed. RamSteel has no problem importing these sizes and can re-design them with real sizes. For columns I've added shared parameters for base plates and anchor rods for scheduling (it would be nice if your graphical column schedule could show them but I won't get into that here). Bar joists we can change seat depths and top chord extensions. Top chord extensions show as dashed lines in plan.

Jon Brazier
O'Donnell & Naccarato
Philadelphia, Pa

Hi Erik

We manipulate the Content Generator Templates in order to make our content fit to our setup. We used to use custom content but found this way much easier to manipulate all our content quickly and allow us to still be compatible. Materials and Sections Properties it really depends on what package. We have some mapped, and some we apply in the appropriate software due to the lack of information in some cases the importing software leaves the field's blank which requires checking of everything by an engineer anyway.

In general, we are using the stock content for both beams and columns. We have added symbolic lines to give the columns "crosshairs" in plan views. We also have parameters added to the concrete members to allow rebar scheduling with the members (text only). I have played around with nesting generic models in the conc members to act as rebar, but have not used that in an analytical model. Our bar joists have been modified to allow joist extensions of both types ( R and S extensions) and we've created parameters to work with our SP joist schedule.

We use RAM and have had no issues with our content moving between the programs (bi-directional). We manually check the material mappings when we get into ram to verify the materials have the same properties as we had in revit. Not a big issue since we don't have more than a handful of properties to check.

Hope the info helps-

Ben Osborne, PE
McVeigh & Mangum Engineering

Could you elaborate on how you "manipulate" the CG? Since you bring it up, I would like to hear hoe the CG fits into your workflow. Do you use it for all of its content? Do you find other analysis packages wanting or needing the Section Properties? Do they even use the data that CG provides?

Any and all input helps. Thank you!

Do you modify the content each year or is it older OOTB content that you upgrade? Do you add the params as Shared Params? In the family or project parameters?

Some follow-up questions...

1. Does anyone add additional geometry to the content? e.g. Cover plates or timber nailers
2. When adding additional parameters, what types do you add? Family, Shared or Project?
3. When parameters are added to the families for analysis, e.g. section properties, these parameters are often not calculated, but provided by the manufacturer. Does providing "non-parametric" data in the family lead to increased management? What if the family was modified with a cover plate and these values did not update?

Thanks for taking the time to help.

Erik

Erik-

We add the parameters as shared parameters in the family. I try not to clutter all my framing or column families with parameters only needed by one or two families.

Although I know many people recommend against it, we keep all our content in 2009 format where possible. As engineers, we don't usually have the luxury of upgrading all of our content because we still have clients using 2009 and 2010. I'd rather sacrifice a little functionality than have to maintain multiple libraries. I do have a 2011 template with some AC content in it in addition to our 2009 template.

I'm glad you mentioned the nailer plates. I haven't used that in a while, but I do have WF and HSS families with nailers. The nailer dimensions are driven by shared parameters with a text parameter for the attachment. I also have an HSS family with a brick angle (nested profile) and a vertical offset dimension parameter.

I typically add parameters as family parameters unless I need to tag or schedule them, in which case I go the shared parameter route.

I don't see any reason that we should still be using the stock values for area, Moment of inertia, weight, etc. The only reason is we haven't had time to mod all the families. It would definitely be more "bim" if the mechanical properties were calculated values. Of most importance would be calculated area to multiply by material density to get weight per ft. Of course adding a cover plate would require changing the area calculations, but that'd be the user's responsibility.