BIM Coordinator Program (INT) April 22, 2024

Find the next step in your career as a Graphisoft Certified BIM Coordinator!

Wishes
Post your wishes about Graphisoft products: Archicad, BIMx, BIMcloud, and DDScad.

Structural Design Within ArchiCAD

Anonymous
Not applicable
Wouldn't it be good if ArchiCAD could determine the thickness of structural members from the span from support to support?

Within the tool a parameter could be added which asks for the loading whether it is a residential, commercial, or industrial loading etc. The computer could then calculate the thickness and/or width of the part being placed.

For example a first floor concrete slab could be sized by the computer working out the span with the load required. Another example could be the beam tool which could calculate the size of the beam/joist/bearer required.

Hopefully this isnt too far away. It certainly would give ArchiCAD the edge over other programs.

Just a thought.
14 REPLIES 14
TomWaltz
Participant
I disagree.

It would add a huge liability to Graphisoft, since as a design software, they do not have any responsibility if your building falls down. If they become an engineering software, they could find themselves on the bad end of a lawsuit. A couple of those and we no longer have a CAD software to use.

Knowing people's tendencies to accept default settings, I could easily see lots of residential loading and deflection values assigned (or whatever the default is) to a library (with astronomical floor loads).

Also, structural design software tends to be.... uh... pricey. Most are in the 8 to $12,000 USD range, a little more than I'd like to pay for my software.

I know there is Revit Structure, but I don't know a lot about it.

Between you and me, it's totally possible through GDL, but I cannot imagine anyone willing to take the on liability to write it.
Tom Waltz
__archiben
Booster
Graeme wrote:
Hopefully this isnt too far away. It certainly would give ArchiCAD the edge over other programs.
it would be great, but i suspect it is a lot further away than you imagine: if any 'structural constraints' are introduced GS could potentially be taking on structural design liability . . . something i don't see them doing . . .

oh - looks like tom beat me to it . . .

~/archiben
b e n f r o s t
b f [a t ] p l a n b a r c h i t e c t u r e [d o t] n z
archicad | sketchup! | coffeecup
Anonymous
Not applicable
But a preliminary calculation of sizes would help a lot in avoiding conflicts of elements and knowing what to expect from the eventual Structural designer. Tom I have worked the Label doing the approximate sizing in my mind, just have got the time to put it on paper to send it to you....it could be it is all in my head!
Joseph
Anonymous
Not applicable
What Archicad should be able to do is (wat revit does) create the analytical model of the structure. With this one could export the project to any engineering software and.or receive a much betetr fee structure fro engineers. Also this will let the Architect determine the structure and fins out in time if changes are needed.
Anonymous
Not applicable
Yes. A major part of the wish for this function is the ability to cut back on engineering services.

Engineers in our part of the world are very busy and it is hard to get them to work on projects due to their demand. Having a preliminary design would make it easier for engineers to do their work and make it easier for the architect by not having to change sizes of slabs, beams, etc in the CAD model. It also increases our level and quantity of service, without too much increase in responsibility, which is good when engineers are gaining while we are losing out on the amount of work we do.

The actual steel reinforcing, stress grade of timber, concrete strength etc could be left to the engineer for sizing and specifying. However the basics of the design would be in place.

It would be nice to get some market share back from the engineers and it would make our designs more realistic from the inception.
Anonymous
Not applicable
But not to size members only to generate the analytical model.
gpowless
Advocate
While I think it would be an overall benefit (because then architects would have to think about structure during the design phase), I wonder how many architects really have the savvy to put a structure to their buildings?
Intel i7-6700@3.4GHz 16g
GeForce GTX 745 4g HP Pavilion 25xw
Windows 10 Archicad 26 USA Full
__archiben
Booster
gpowless wrote:
I wonder how many architects really have the savvy to put a structure to their buildings?
i think maybe more than you give credit for . . . however your question might be better posed: "how many architects really want the liability of putting a structure to their buildings?"

~/archiben
b e n f r o s t
b f [a t ] p l a n b a r c h i t e c t u r e [d o t] n z
archicad | sketchup! | coffeecup
Dwight
Newcomer
~/archiben wrote:
gpowless wrote:
I wonder how many architects really have the savvy to put a structure to their buildings?
i think maybe more than you give credit for . . . however your question might be better posed: "how many architects really want the liability of putting a structure to their buildings?"

~/archiben
Well, let me barge in by saying that architects need a fine understanding of structural systems to be effective in their work:

On one hand our users create conventional structures where framing systems and beam sizes are integral to building design - if you don't have a handle on your systems, you'll have inappropriate ceiling bulges all over, for instance. In these cases, the engineering merely serves to point out inappropriate design decisions and assume professional responsibility.

In my public art work, mostly, I'm asking engineers to solve new problems: masts connect to walls in odd situations, sculptural suspensions and intermediate beam spans - weird stuff. And what crap i get back. If i didn't know how to solve the design schematically, the engineer is no help at all. For instance, in Denver, I needed to support a sculpture straddling two pre-cast highway beams. I designed a pair of cradles that would be carried up a ladder, rotated perpendicular to the beams and dropped down onto lower beam flanges.

My Denver engineer [name supplied on request so you can avoid him] designed the assemblies with 3x3 x 1/4" tube.
That's 150# of steel to be lifted on a shoulder climbing a ladder to a point 20 feet in the air.
I said. "That's too heavy to lift on a ladder"
So he sent another design with only 2x2 x 1/4" tubing.
This, i could almost lift.
No explanation why the 3x3 would have been necessary....

Like, what gives? Even the 2x2 solution was way heavy for the task, but you give up arguing after a while.

Engineers! Sheesh.
Dwight Atkinson
Learn and get certified!