The reliance on
linked geometry to host elements really isn't present between Revit
Architecture and Revit Structure. In stead there is the issue of redundant
modeled geometry and the documentation reliance on structural elements in
architecture.
Many firms have
worked through the first of the two issues by defining clearly what elements
the structural engineer will own and which the architect will. Structure might
own the slab, architects might own the floor finishes. Structure might own the
roof deck (usually modeled as a floor) and the architect will own the roofing
above the deck (usually modeled as a roof). It takes a thorough LOD document,
but it can and has been accomplished.
The other issue here
is a little more troublesome, an architect's reliance on structural elements to
complete certain document deliverables. A lot of architectural firms fake in
structure so that they can get documents out the door (e.g. foundation and stoop
conditions, trusses, framing). Significant and detrimental time is lost when
this is necessary to do but sometimes it is necessary.
Architecturally you
have to communicate those shared items that are required and when they are
required. Structurally you have to make modeling accommodations for the
architectural documents.
I can hear the
structural engineers now "easy for him to say". Well it is easy for
me to say and it is easy for them to do. May I be the first person to
say(although probably not really the first): structural engineers have had the
least amount to change and adjust to in a Revit workflow. A little cooperation
will go a long way on this one.
I want to point out
that LOD really solves both of these issues outlined above, but it doesn't have
to be the AIA e202 document. Think about a collaborative requirement, think
about a usable "desktop" standard, think about a logical and timesaving
document that might just save your profit and really set you apart. Ok, horse
officially beaten.
No comments:
Post a Comment