Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Revit Structure[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Revit Structure
- From: Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:23:20 +0000
Jim is correct in his determination. We have focused too much on the cool 3D model and not to BIM's ultimate potential as a resource for operations for a facility. My company developed it's own BIM many years ago (mid 1980's) primarily for the energy sector. It was intended to compress construction and to serve as a platform for Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) control of the facility once it was constructed. The construction savings and schedule compression were not where the big bucks lived. The big bucks were in O&M of the facilty. |
Back in the old days (early 1990's), I created the structural model using a PC linked to the main frame and had to view the interfaced 3D model on a special graphics viewing station to check collisions with MEP. Damn that was a long time ago in computer time.
As the costs of creating the BIM models have come down, the "buildings" people are just now catching up with the realization that they can operate and control a facility much more efficiently. They can also monitor energy utilization much more efficiently.
A recent example is that a large governmental organization found that there was a recall on a fire sprinkler head. They have to do a field survey of everything under construction during that time period. This applied to new and renovated facilities. If the BIM models were created and properly populated, they would know where each head was and be able to replace them. That is one small example.
Regards, Harold Sprague
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:26:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Revit Structure
BIM “is the wave of the future,” not just REVIT. You should still catch it. As stated: The learning curve is steep; a lot of information has to be put in at the beginning; and it can be a long time before an individual modeler learns to be faster than CAD.
And when it is done right, those changes from the architect that Gerard mentions are a lot easier and quicker than in CAD. I just saw it on a project where we were making pieces before the architect was done designing (and responding to the owner and another architect who was looking over his shoulder). We did part of the project in AutoCAD, but most in Tekla. Despite problems with erecting the AutoCAD part, our field crew finished over two weeks (about 20%) early because the Tekla part went so well. Since we’re integrated, a little field time makes up for a lot of modeling time, though we aim to model more quickly than we could draw.
Used right, the bill of materials falls out, there is no counting. Not much there for design engineers, but good for contractors.
Finally, there is a premium on knowing how a building fits together (how Jeremy started this whole discussion). A rookie just out of technical school may have the technical skills, but there is less opportunity to learn the 3D skills and construction knowledge with modeling than there was with drafting or CAD. Not a big deal for a sole practitioner – he would not have survived without both in any mode, but a challenge for a larger shop.
Not for the faint of heart, but is just right for the far-sighted. You must answer the question whether that means loony visionary or the essential tool for the third project from now so skill needs to be developed now.
Precast Concrete Engineer
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more.
- Re: Revit Structure
- From: Jim Getaz
- Re: Revit Structure
- Prev by Subject: Re: Revit Structure
- Next by Subject: Revit Structure (was Re: Concrete Reinf Diagram)
- Previous by thread: Re: Revit Structure
- Next by thread: re: computer stuff