topic Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration in Collaboration with other software

Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:13:01 GMT

I'm trying to figure out what I expect from the ideal structural collaboration process in ArchiCAD.

(I'm not even sure I could convince our structural designers to collaborate with us on a higher level.)

At the moment we always receive 2D drawings back from them (dwg) with a list of changes, what we manually apply to our ArchiCAD modell.

Are there others in the same situation?

I'm dreaming of the following:
-export the structure from ArchiCAD to a file
-send this file to the Structural company
-continue working on the Architectural model
-get back a file from the structural company
-compare the two models and decide on all the changes to accept/deny
-do a second round if necessary... (usually yes)

::paul.co

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Erika Epstein — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:20:02 GMT

There have been a number of discussions about this especially this last year.
Essentially you have an architect's model, a structural model, and HVAC model etc. You are overlaying in 3D models similar to overlaying the 2D drawings. You are not responsible for the other disciplines, but you can check that the different systems work together as they should and need to be.

Each discipline is responsible for and makes changes and corrections to their model.

Model checking software such as Solibri and Navisworks do just this.
They overlay the models and check for collisions. You can do this visually by overlapping the models.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Laszlo Nagy — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:27:43 GMT

smith74 wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what I expect from the ideal structural collaboration process in ArchiCAD.

(I'm not even sure I could convince our structural designers to collaborate with us on a higher level.)

At the moment we always receive 2D drawings back from them (dwg) with a list of changes, what we manually apply to our ArchiCAD modell.

Are there others in the same situation?

I'm dreaming of the following:
-export the structure from ArchiCAD to a file
-send this file to the Structural company
-continue working on the Architectural model
-get back a file from the structural company
-compare the two models and decide on all the changes to accept/deny
-do a second round if necessary... (usually yes)

::paul.co

At the following web address:

http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/training_guides/

you will find free interactive training guides from Graphisoft.
One of them is called Advanced Collaboration.
From it you can find out what GS is suggesting for such scenarios.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Thu, 07 May 2009 09:23:57 GMT

I'm more-less confident on what we can do now, I'm just curious how others imagine an ideal solution.

::paul.co

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:47:35 GMT

Erika wrote:
Model checking software such as Solibri and Navisworks do just this.

Seems to be an interesting idea.
Do you also use Solibri or Navisworks?

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Erika Epstein — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:41:08 GMT

I've had limited experience with Navisworks which relies on the 3D DWG format. It was bought by Autodesk a few(?) years ago.
Solibri is from Finland and uses IFC. Both have free demos on there website.

As construction firms have seen the value of these kinds of problems to identify and resolve clashes before they are built, they have pushed the design firms and the consultants to switch to 3D Virtual Building/BIM programs like Archicad. Graphisoft's previous leader Galello was instrumental in marketing to Contractors and Owners the benefits of BIM. Constructor which used to be part of Graphisoft is now VICO. There are some good webinars here on this subject on their website. You'll see Navisworks in use.Take a look at the demos and Fridays with Vico series.

3D Dwgs are 'dumb', but small in size so easy to navigate in 3D to do visual checks throughout the life of the project.

IFC files are much larger because they retain all the data about the project which you have input. IFC files allow users of many different programs share their work aka interoperability. All team members can work smart in their program of choice.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Laura Yanoviak — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:53:26 GMT

Erika wrote:
I've had limited experience with Navisworks which relies on the 3D DWG format. It was bought by Autodesk a few(?) years ago.
Solibri is from Finland and uses IFC. Both have free demos on there website.

There are also well-written reviews available from AECbytes:
Solibri and Navisworks -- we're considering purchasing Solibri.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Fri, 08 May 2009 09:31:08 GMT

Laura wrote:
There are also well-written reviews available from AECbytes:
Solibri and Navisworks -- we're considering purchasing Solibri.

Great reviews, thanks Erika and Laura.

Solibri looks clever but also very complex. I hope to see some of the basic comparison features in ArchiCAD. Then I could start to negotiate with our structural company to send us back IFC files and check what they have done in ArchiCAD's native environment...

How do you solve this situation in your current practice?

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Laura Yanoviak — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:44:24 GMT

smith74 wrote:
Solibri looks clever but also very complex. I hope to see some of the basic comparison features in ArchiCAD. Then I could start to negotiate with our structural company to send us back IFC files and check what they have done in ArchiCAD's native environment...

How do you solve this situation in your current practice?

According to the review, Solibri is "relatively easy to use."

We save the structural IFC file as a Library Object and bring it into the AC model for manual clash detection, but we model the structure in our model separately (until the current release, Revit 2010, it could not model canted columns!) -- not necessarily the entire structure, but critical areas requiring extra coordination.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:49:32 GMT

Laura wrote:
According to the review, Solibri is "relatively easy to use."

"Relatively" is a very open ended declaration

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

smith74 — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:51:18 GMT

Laura wrote:
manual clash detection

That must take quite a lots of time. How often do you face changes and have to decide ?

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Laura Yanoviak — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:01:56 GMT

smith74 wrote:
Laura wrote:
manual clash detection
That must take quite a lots of time. How often do you face changes and have to decide ?

It's no different from what we did with 2D CAD, and is part of the coordination process as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Ideal Structural Collaboration

Nando Mogollon — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:46:16 GMT

smith74 wrote:
I'm more-less confident on what we can do now, I'm just curious how others imagine an ideal solution.

::paul.co

My 10 cents...
On the project I'm currently working on, a big building (170.000 square meters with no typical floors).There is what we have done:
We send DWGs from our model so the structure and other consultants M.E.P, security, and others can work on their software (mostly Autocad),and receive DWGs. All 2D. Then Some people in our own office is in charge of having the structure model, Services model (MEP) and others up to date according to the consultants latest information. All of those models (structure, services, site, etc...) are teamwork separated files (PLPs). The rest of the office is working on the architectural design, on a different teamwork file.
The way we "share" the different files is trough Hotlinks, which is a little bit tricky, because of the attributes, but it works.
The rest of the process, Documentation, is as follows: Views are created on the PLP files, mostly on the Architectural teamwork file, and exported as PMK files, and then placed on the Layouts in separate PLN files.
Because We do not have solibri or Navisworks, we just have meetings to detect and redline the clashes on the model.
It's far from the ideal solution, but is a practical one.

Best regards!
Nando