Archicad 24. One Building, one team, one model

[GOBA]

Hi, I’m not sure if this topic should be in other section.

I’m structural engineer, user of ArchiCAD. I’m Spanish. I specify this because the most used structural software (two of them) are quite different from other countries. And this is because they generate the analytical model from the physical model. So, users of those software don’t really need the new features to generate the analytical model, in ArchiCAD.

But the reason I am writing this post, is because I am really surprised with the concept of “one team, one model”. I don understand it, I don’t intend to use it. But maybe, I haven’t understood. Let me try to explain myself.

If I have understood the workflow, physical model is responsibility of the architect. Is that it? If the proposed workflow is like that, how can this work? Structural design, before structural analysis should be done by the structural engineer (if there is one). So, do architects and engineers modify the same elements from the physical model? Isn’t this dangerous? I don’t see how engineers could design the structure, modifying slabs that architects are working with. We need to place beams, adapt slabs to those beams, and only then, the analytical model could be generated. Is this proposed to be done, in the same model?

Moreover, how do they manage, architects and engineers, to work with column’s floor plan display, if this configuration depends on the element, instead of the views. For example, If I want to show columns of story 1, and beams and slabs of story 2 (usual structural representation), I need to define “One story up” in “Floor plan display”, but this won’t work for the architect.

Haven’t I understood something?

Thanks!

[GOBA]

Hi Takis and thanks!

Have you tried this?

https://www.graphisoft.com/archicad/partner_solutions/eptar/#eptar-reinforcement

I haven’t. It’s not included in the ArchiCAD license.

[Takis]

Hi Goba, yes I use Eptar's Reinforcement tool for many years but the tool has a lot of problems, it needs powerful improvements regarding efficiency, reinforcement schedules corrections, labels, numbering problems etc. Nobody knows when Eptar will decide to do something about it. Also every year we have to wait for Eptar to make the tool compatible to the Archicad's newer version and this may takes months, so we are stuck in Archicad previous version for some time.

[GOBA]

Thank you for the information!

[GOBA]

Takis wrote:
There is no Reinforcement Tool, there are no steel connections, the roof wizard tool creates objects instdead of beams, so those objects cannot be exported as members to the structural software using SAM. Also there are no specific tools for 2D detailing like anchors, bolts etc.

Hi Takis!

Do you use a steel detailing software? If yes, which one?

Thanks!

[Takis]

Hi Goba, I do not use any steel detailing software because of the expenses for extra software and the annual subscriptions.
For 3D steel detailing I work with objects in Archicad and sometimes I import ifc files from my steel connections design software (Steelcon).

Here is a small sample of my 3D steel detailing in Archicad.

Takis.

[GOBA]

Thank you very much Takis!

I don’t have any steel detaining software, because of the same reason. I didn’t know I could do that in ArchiCAD.

[jl_lt]

GOBA wrote:
Hi jl_lt,

So, can I assume that in other countries architects are responsible of the structural design (physical model with all the structural elements), and engineers are only responsible of the structural analysis (analytical model)?

Hi Mr. GOBA. sorry for the late response. I have encountered 3 main workflows so far. In all 3 cases Architectural and structural elements in the digital model aspire to end up with the same dimensions and elements (after many iterations), but still, structural analysis is the responsibility of the structural engineer with the info provided by the architect and the design intent.

case 1. Mostly for small, low budget projects. Most of the time you get to work with more old school engineers who still work only 2d. They ask you to send the project info in 2d plans, and even if they have people that can handle 3d models, you still get 2d drawings from them. Then you update your project model with the information you received and fight with them on overdimensioned elements until compromise is reached from any or all of the parties involved or time runs out.

case 2. medium sized projects. if you are lucky the engineer already works with 3d models (still asks for 2d cad info). You can either receive 2d cad info, as in case #1, which you then pour into the model (just element dimensions, not rebar, which i strongly oppose). Or, you receive a clumsy 3d model which you then attach to your main file, but its so clumsy and uneditable that your best course of action is to leave it as reference and adjust your own elements in the architectural 3d model.

case 3.bigger projects. Nice budgets for everyone involed. Architectural and engineering models become integrated. The model integration is done either by the Architect or by 3rd parties specialized in BIM modelling. Architect creates the first base design and dimensioning of elements, then the model is refined by the engineers and after some iterations and compromises on both parts, Architecture´s and engineer´s 3d structural model becomes one and the same thing. After this, the architect or the BIM specialist uses the structural engineering model as the reference and base for modeling evething else (non structural architectural elementos and MEP) and its all kept in one database and/or distributed to all the parties involved to use it for their specific work.

Until now, i havent personally seen of EVERYONE working on the same model in real time, but i know of a couple of local megaprojects where it has been at least partially done with Revit, with great costs for everyone.

Maybe the goal is to bring down this process from the high end projects to smaller scale projects.
Personally i would like to always achieve something like case number 3, but i think the separation of the Architects and structural engineer work is still important, so engineers should do their analitical model.

All the aforementioned process is in Mexico and is my personal experience. so, to answer your questions, Here the structure is responsibility of the engineer while the 3d model with the input from structural engineering might or might not be responsability of the architect.
it is my understanding than in Europe and maybe other places the structure is the responsibility of the Architect eventhough it is calculated by an engineer, so it would be interesting to hear about their workflows and how it all integrates with the workflow proposed by graphisoft.

[GOBA]

Hi jl_lt, in Spain, the structure is responsibility of the engineer, but also the architect. Here, architects can design structures, but sometimes they work with engineers (or other architects) that are specialists. But even in those cases, they accept the structural design, and they become responsible of it: we both are.

[jl_lt]

Ok, so that being the case, the workflow proposed by Graphisoft makes more sense, that is, the analitical model starts with the architect with info ready to be applied by the engineer.

[Ahmed_K]

jl_lt , your explanation is just PERFECT
i'm in the case 1, i remodel all the strcutal 3D elements on archciad from 2D CAD sent by engeneer, it's laborious, but efficient in small scale projects,
this workflow promoted archicad for engeneers, as the collaboratio is on structural elements size, modelling quickly and efficiently in archicad made engeneers try to yse is for this task,
Rebar and calculations have their own tools, i don't know why people try to have ALL in one solution,
Revit focused on 10000 things, and he lost quality on almost everything, ArchiCAD focused on little things, with a good quality , that's the point.
One thing, Graphisoft should make the SAF format available for all kind of softwares, and this will KILL the monopole of working on the same software

The SAF format inspired me, this logic could be used in MEP in other sort,
MEP elements are " a block " with connections, inputs and outputs, a common format between all MEP softwares, that scribes theese inputs and outputs and " the block itself"
Inputs : common input parameter ,
Output ; Common output parameter
Block : geometry convertion