Revit Structure Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Revit Structure Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular Revit Structure topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

A Revit Architect re-using Revit Structural objects: is this really possible

4 REPLIES 4
Reply
Message 1 of 5
helsinki_dave
630 Views, 4 Replies

A Revit Architect re-using Revit Structural objects: is this really possible

Hi,


How do Revit architects re-use the structural engineers Revit model?

 

For example, do they re-use the .rvt objects that the engineer creates (linking etc), then use face-based architectural families to apply surfaces to structural floors, wall and columns - or not?

 

Do architects just remodel everything after the engineer has updated his Revit model and published - like they say - faster to redraw than modify the existing!


I'm an ACAD veteran, so the thought of re-modelling what the engineer has already modeled is not so appealing!

I suspect the problem is in the layers in compound objects. Simply put, the engineers wall is 'inside' my wall, but Revit doesn't really recognize this parametrically through the linking process (unless I use face-based families right?)

Thanks in advance!
Dav

4 REPLIES 4
Message 2 of 5
alb01
in reply to: helsinki_dave

try exploring the copy/monitor process from within the collaborate menu. instead of re-modelling, you should be able to copy the wall and change the type if needed. i am not entirly sure how the process works but it may be a start.

Message 3 of 5
lashmail
in reply to: alb01

Hi Alb01, many thanks for your reply.

 

Thanks for the thought - Copy / Monitor is the (only) way to keep track of linked data , quite true. What does remain unlcear however is while we may copy through some elements to our architectural model - most we will only reference.

 

The advantage of this is that engineers really don't need to issue Revit files - but could issue IFC's (can't be changed, innovative family objects are protected from further distribution).

 

The only things I can think of that an architect would need from an engineering model would be beams/ joists type elements, but walls, floors etc are major design team agenda items I would have thought and are perhaps better modelled as compound objects (rather than non-hosted or face-based).

 

How does this sound?

Message 4 of 5
alb01
in reply to: lashmail

I always work on the principle (rightly or wrongly) that if an element is load bearing or required for the stability of the structure, then the engineer should take ownership of that element. In the case of a reinforced concrete building, although the architect sets out the desired location of the walls, they would be a structural element as they need to support the building and therefore designed by the engineer. I would expect the architect to initially model the walls and then the engineer would copy/monitor these, make any changes to structure then pass back to the architect. The architect would then monitor the walls to ensure they meet their requirements.

 

Just my opinion and i am sure there are many others

Message 5 of 5
helsinki_dave
in reply to: alb01

Thanks Alb01, great opinion - and fair enough. What's more , you could actually copy monitor the imported IFC or the native Revit file. Either way, it's just geometry that the architect is tracking - material grades, even profile types aren't critical.

 

Where we do seem to end up though is that there is actually precious little shared between the architect and engineer - what's key here is referenceing.

 

I have heard of cases where people have said that the engineers elements are used in architectural documention but to do that, you need to think very long and hard about what happens when those updates come through and how they impact your own work - no?

 

 

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report