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: 

Do Structural Engineers Use Revit

24 REPLIES 24
Reply
Message 1 of 25
bward
11970 Views, 24 Replies

Do Structural Engineers Use Revit

I am an architect and use Revit. Our structural engineers do not. They use RAM Steel to perform their structural analysis (Gravity only) and then give the work to CAD operators to document in AutoCAD or Revit. The problem is that since the structural engieers are not ativly working in Revit because they cannot use it for design and only documentation, they are detacted from the process and slowing us down with constant requests for 2D CAD exports or PDF files. Can Revit Structure be used for structural analysis?

24 REPLIES 24
Message 2 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: bward

Yes. We are finally beginning to do just that after many years of half-**** experiments. Our engineers use STAAD, and we have had good results using Structural Integrators' SI Xchange to translate from Revit to STAAD.  Bentley has their own Revit plug in to create a "Repository" that can be imported into various Bentley products but we've not had good results with that. We are also starting to use Revit to model buildings and produce the 2D prints. Revit Structure does a great job at making the 'usual' 2D structural stick drawings from the models.  We can model a structure in just a day or two that would take the structural engineers two weeks to model in STAAD. We've still not added loads in Revit to export. The engineers still like to add the loads on their own in STAAD.  I'm not sure if this helps you with RAM, but it's a start.

 

Message 3 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: LyleHardin

Oh, of course if you get Autodesk's Building Design Suite Ultimate, you get the Robot Millineum (sp?) structural analysis program that works directly with Revit Structure.  You're engineers would have to learn a different analysis program, but I think the younger ones would not object. I think the price tag would be worth it in the long run if you do a lot of analysis.

Message 4 of 25
bward
in reply to: LyleHardin

Yes that does help. My purpose for the post was just to solicate opinions from structural engineers and try to determine if it is a software limitation or them just not wanting to change or adapt. I know initially the software was very imature from a structural perspective. I would not push someone to use a tool that did not make their life easier.

 

In the analitical model, are all of hte 3D sticks manipulated in Revit and exported to STAAD for analysis, i.e. one way direction, or to you have two seperate models in two seperate software packages?

Message 5 of 25
bward
in reply to: LyleHardin

My company does have the Ultimate Suite and has access to Robot (sp?). Is that a valid software package. I imagine it would have better integration.  I have heard of RAM Steel and STAAD, but Robot seems a little on the fringe. I can image reaction I would get from architects if a structrural engineer told them they should use Vectorworks 😉

 

Message 6 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: bward

With SI Xchange it is a one way transfer from Revit to STAAD.  The Revit plugin actually starts up STAAD and builds the model in STAAD. I'm not sure about updating the STAAD model from  afterwards. You can go back to Revit from STAAD too but we've not tried that yet.  You can update both ways with the Bentley plug in through the repository which is kind of a third model used as a 'middle man' kinda thing.

Message 7 of 25
bog
Contributor
in reply to: bward

I am a Structural Technologist in a small Structural Engineering firm. We are starting our first projects in Revit and it is bumpy but I am staying positive. Our Engineers use a number of analysis programs; Ram, ILevel ect. lets say 5-8 diferent programs. Revit needs a definitive system to prove and explain how Robot can cover all the different analysis types reliably in order to sway our Engineers to start learing a new program. Our Engineers had not heard of Robot untill I brought it up in a meeting - it does not seem to be on their radar. I do see potential benifits with integrated analysis and modeling, as the engineers and existing programs are generally not as efficient as the Technologists in modeling. The problem is liability, they are using proven software that while slow, can be trusted to output reliable structural design. I think Revit should seperate the visual model from the analytical model in order to have a more controlled analysis with fewer variables.

Message 8 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: bward

Robot is a full fledged structural analysis package.  I've not used Robot, but absolutely... if you have it, give it a shot! Autodesk bought Robot a few years ago and has integrated it into the Revit suite. I suggest you get together with one of the more 'forward' thinking* structural engineers and watch some YouTube videos and work out a plan to experiment with Revit and Robot. Let your supervisor/boss know what you're doing and how much time it will take. Also let him/her know how much time and money it can potentially save by doing away with the architects and engineers duplicating work all the time.

 

Tip:  Don't ask the boss if you can SPEND time and money experimenting, let him/her know that you want to experiment to see how much time and money can be SAVED.

 

* I know some of our older engineers are reluctant to change while the younger ones who are more familiar with computers in general are more willing to try new things.

 

 

Message 9 of 25
bjur
in reply to: bward

I own a small structural engineering firm.  Our whole workflow is based on Revit.  We only hire engineers, no drafters.  There is no need for a drafter as it's quicker for the engineer to generate the drawings from the model than redline printed drawings and have a drafter do them, only to have to check them over again.  I can't remember the last time we used Autocad to draw something (probably close to 10 years).

 

Bear in mind that Revit doesn't do any engineering calculations.  Revit provides an easy way to generate an analytical model for your structure.  You can even apply most of the loading inside Revit.  You then export to your favorite analysis software.  Once exported, you setup your load combinations, and verify the member design parameters, materials, boundary conditions...etc and run it.  I spend more time checking the results than actually running the models.  The whole process is much quicker than if you had to generate it from scratch.  You can sync back to Revit any of the sizes that changed.

 

We use the analytical model that Revit provides to export models to a few different structural engineering software packages.  We mainly use Risa 3d and Robot (part of our subscription package).  Each has it's strengths and weaknesses.  At this point, if I have a simple structure that has a lot of wood members, I'll use Risa.  Otherwise, I'll use Robot for everything else.  If Robot had US based wood design, I would have no need for Risa.

 

This works great for syncing with architects as all of the members are sized correctly and in the correct location.  It's much easier to coordinate than with 2d cad drawings.  If we had to go back to autocad, I'd quit and find something else to do.  Plus having the 3d structural model opens the doors to other services that just arn't available to firms that only use 2d drawings.

 

There are a few engineers in our area experimenting with Revit.  I would call around your area and ask.  I bet there are a few, most likely younger firms that don't resist change so much.  Worst case, tell the firms you use that you will look else where if they don't start using Revit.  I guarentee that will get things moving.

Message 10 of 25
bjur
in reply to: bjur

Here are some screen shots on how it looks going from Revit to Robot for example.

 

Message 11 of 25
bward
in reply to: bjur

 Thank you for your input as well as everyone else. I hope this tread gets a few more hits because I'm interested in a sample cross section of firms.

 

I think in the few responses I've gotten, key words are "young", "liability" and "proven". It seems that as the software’s continue to mature, they become less of the issue and people are the only road block. The architecture profession has been and been dealing with this change for the past 5+ years and still is, but slowing the 2D CAD world is dying for us.

 

We don't hire structural engineering firms based on their proficiency in a particular software platform, we hire them for the people and their experience. However; a firm that speaks the same language as us (Spatial workflow / collaborative workflow vs. one directional -> engineer to draftsman to architect repeat) would separate that firm all other things being equal.

 

Thanks again.

Message 12 of 25
kirbybeegles4894
in reply to: bward

My company only uses REVIT.  We use other analysis programs and are doing what we can to transfer the models we build in REVIT out for analysis, but we haven't had great success re-importing the results.  Either way, REVIT has been the best platform for coordination, especially when working with architects and MEP engineers who are doing the same.

Message 13 of 25

Another item to note...we no longer have dedicated drafters.  All of our engineers are proficient in REVIT and do their own modeling and detailing work.

Message 14 of 25

I see this as a trend with lots of things. The software is becoming a good design tool for the engineers as well as being able to generate the final production drawings. Civil 3D, Inventor, and Revit are all best used by the designer/engineer. It makes for a "top heavy" company. It's getting harder and harder to keep the 'regular' drafters busy. It's good that the engineer can turn his/her ideas into drawings all on their own, but it's a shame they have to deal with the nit-picky final edits of the production drawings. Especially when some of them don't have a good eye for what makes drawings appealing to look at or easy to read. Sure the data is there, but.... 

Message 15 of 25
clairegandee
in reply to: bward

It's becoming increasingly important to "speak BIM" and be able to back it up with efficient workflow.  Robot is a very powerful software for a variety of project materials.  For concrete buildings, I think the best way to to integrate Revit is with ADAPT software.  You can export the analytical model with or without loads, then analyze and design and export design info back into Revit.  For conventionally reinforced and/or post-tensioned buildings, there's nothing better!  The process is much faster and cleaner than Ram's multi-step integrator, and works much better. 

Message 16 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: clairegandee

What a great thread!  I have a question for the Robot users.  I just inquired to our Structural group why we use STAAD.  Answers:  1. Because we always have,  2. It does well with odd angled construction. (We don't just do square structures). and 3. We can build our own custom shapes such as W members with Channels or plates welded to them. So, the question(s) to Robot users is can Robot take care of answers 2 and 3 above? Does Robot do well the the abnormally shaped structure and custom members? Oh, and code checking. Does Robot do AISC code checks?

Message 17 of 25

The answers for points 2 and 3 is yes.

US.PNG

 

For the user defined sections you may also want to look at e.g. :

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Robot-Structural/New-profiles-in-Section-database/m-p/3454604...

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Robot-Structural/Custom-sections/m-p/3331167/

 

In case you have any further questions about Robot you may also consider posting it on its forum:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Robot-Structural/bd-p/351



Artur Kosakowski
Message 18 of 25
Archimedes314
in reply to: bward

STAAD is a terrible program, the only reason I think is so popular is because it is so entrenched in some industries, oil and gas in particular, and where structural engineeing is not the main focus of the company, the engineers are left with this message "we have already paid for this, can't you find some way to use it?".  Thus, from engineers unaware of the history behind software the awful (and telling) responses:  "that's what we've always done" or "that's what everyone else is doing"  RISA 3D is far more friendly and less bugy.  Yes, STAAD may have a few capabilites that other programs don't but I find you rarely need those things, in fact the more complex - the more black box, and the less comfortable I am letting a comptuer do things for me.  The interface with STAAD reminds me so much of MATLAB, you are basically forced to leave the user interface and edit the text file, over things as silly as selecting options out of order.  You are esentially writing an input file for a matrix analysis program from the 80's. 

 

Now on to REVIT.  I have been successfully working with REVIT and RISA 3D for analysis and I think it's awesome.  My next goal is to use SDS/2 connect to begin adding some connection designs to the REVIT model.  In the past I(Structural Engineer) built my projects in REVIT, and analyzed them in any of several analysis packages by re-building them.  With some projects it's just easier to recreate framing and transfer the results.  There is a learning curve to deciding what is, and is not worth round-tripping, but I find myself over time going more and more to doing as much as I can in one central model.  I think this is an eventuality, particularly if AutoDesk makes the right improvements - they will corner the Structural documenation market.

 

I also believe that drafters are on the decline, with better modeling programs it just makes sense that engineers would build models, analyze those models and use the model to generate documentation, and perhaps add fabrication detailing in the future.  After that - and in between - a good drafter/detailer/designer can really help fill in the gaps, but a full blown drafting department is becoming more and more unecessary. 

Message 19 of 25
kjaradat
in reply to: bward

You are right , Only our draftmen use Revit Bentley I'm a structural Engineer and I do not.

 

Message 20 of 25
LyleHardin
in reply to: kjaradat

I'm glad kjaradat "woke up" this thread. I had forgotten all about it.

Now that 3 years have passed, I would like some of the previous posters to post updates.

How are any trials going? Have people been happy with Robot? Have you moved totally from AutoCAD to Revit? Do the engineers do their own drafting with Revit? etc.

As far as my own update: Sadly, not much has changed. We still use AutoCAD mostly and do the analysis in STAAD. There is now a push to move toward Revit and I'm hoping the comments in this thread will help that push.

 

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

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report