insert trees in civil 3d

[iworks2]

I would like to know how to import intelligent 3d elements (BIM) to civil 3d, such as trees, traffic lights, luminaries, signs, etc. The above to complement my design and road visualization

Thanks you!

[doben]

There are 3d blocks available on the Tool Palettes that come with Civil 3D.

External Works, Landscape (for trees), Building Footprints . . . .

The trees aren't the greatest looking though. Use realistic visual style.

Infraworks might be a better option.

[M_c3d]

In short civil 3d doesn't do BIM. Main reason being that the final issued information is a surface instead of a road etc.

Also others cannot view the information as unless they have civil 3d the wont be able to get relevant information from structures etc. Autodesk is looking at how to integrate civil 3d objects such as surfaces and drainage into civil 3d.

For a tree / traffic lights etc to be BIM compliant it would need to provide a lot more information than a block.

Also the key is in the meaning of BIM  - Building - Information - Modelling. Roads, traffic lights, trees etc aren't buildings.

[fcernst]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYq8syUJQmY

[dgorsman]

Those aren't separate terms - it's "Building information modeling".  It's not limited to specific software, file format, object type, or even what data is available, so it's not limited to buildings.  As long as Civil3D isn't being used in a completely "dumb" fashion (i.e. it has model with data) it qualifies as BIM.

As for the OP, you're looking for visualization.  Head for Infraworks, Navisworks, or 3DSMAX to create pretty presentations.

[M_c3d]

Yea i agree its building information modelling, that was me just defining the term.

The whole aim of BIM is to put all the information into one file for building owners / managers that they can use. I.e. they should be able to zoom in on a pipe or attenuation tank below a building and see who made it, what the model is, when is maintenance due etc

As civil 3d information cannot be included within the same file as revit information and still contain this type of information, civil 3d it is not BIM compatible.

All we can do is export to 3d autocad and bring the surface in as a bad triangulation or the pipes / manholes as a 3d object with no live information

If eventually revit can bring in the civil 3d information such as pipe sizes and flow control references then it still won't be BIM compliant as civil 3d cannot model things such as attenuation tanks.

For civil 3d to be BIM compliant we need for revit or what ever file that will contain all the information to be able to bring in our kerbs identifications, road constructions etc. We will need road constructions to be identifiable as permeable paving etc 

Before civil 3d will ever be BIM compliant it needs to fundimetally change how we do things, we need to be able to model every piece of civil infrastructure such as roads, kerbs, manholes, pipes, manhole covers etc. Not just model a final surface.

Civil 3d / revit is so far away from being able to bring civils into BIM its 10+years away.

[neilyj666]

BIM isn't just about a 3D Model - it's means a whole different process is followed from concept to operation and beyond. I would agree a 3D model is part of it but not the "be all and end all" and Civil 3D is light years behind the capabilities of Revit.

[M_c3d]

Agreed, I dont think Civil 3d will ever get to be BIM compliant, I think we will need a full new product to be able to do it. Something closer to Revit where you can select a specific product rather than modelling a "solution"

[neilyj666]

I think the main factor holding civil back is the need to be able to run within AutoCAD and the restraints/restrictions that go with this. Revit was effectively a third party program unburdened by legacy considerations. I think infraworks will become more of a player in Civil BIM although my view is that it is still very much for concept stage and if you are the sort of user/organisation who refuses to pass models to contractors then the plan production/labelling facilities in Civil will always be required. I find infraworks very useful in tenders to communicate our understanding and methodology to the client

[M_c3d]

I haven't used infraworks really apart from a quick look at it.

I do think thats the way to go once it becomes a design tool rather than a concept tool.

I don't particularly like giving contractors dwg files but the stage will come under BIM when we need to to comply with it.

[neilyj666]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I haven't used infraworks really apart from a quick look at it.

I do think thats the way to go once it becomes a design tool rather than a concept tool.

I don't particularly like giving contractors dwg files but the stage will come under BIM when we need to to comply with it.

---

We are very much driven by digital engineering (rather than BIM) so a request for the dwg files is always our first tender query for the earthworks jobs we do as creating an earthworks model allows us do quantify/price and programme the earthworks.

A few years ago the typical response was "why do you want that as no one else has asked" or "our policy is not to release CAD information" but recently responses have been "what format do you want it in" - which is encouraging; obviously the data comes with a shedload of caveats etc.....!!!! 

[BushW]

Hello @iworks2

What file types of these 3D elements? @fcernst might be on to something if these 3D elements can be converted to AutoCAD multi-view blocks? Can you post sample files so, we can review them. Thanks

Best Regards,

Wendell

[M_c3d]

I take the approach of not issuing dwgs to contractors but members of the design team can have them no problem for design co-ordination etc, but these are heavily caveated (not live design files, subject to change etc...).

Contractors complain that they need manhole schedules, road long sections, cross sections, setting out co-ordinates etc all for setting out and then they ask for dwgs, its our responsibility as civil engineers to provide all the setting out information and if we do then there should be no need to provide them. I also don't understand why they also ask for details in dwg. We take the fundamental approach that our contractual drawings are the pdf files issued.

That's a very different approach to how we do things, our model is our design tool, not a quantification tool. Whilst we do a cut & fill analysis to understand how the site is balancing and to try and provide an optimised cost efficient design for the client, this is normally based on a top soil strip versus average formation level, the quantifications are the responsibility of the QS to measure and quantify our design for contractors. The civil 3d model will never be issued to a contractor, they would never understand how it is built, the work rounds used etc.

On the few occasions were a contractor has insisted contractually to receive a 3d file I have either provided a data shortcut of a triangulation file, 3d faces or 3d contours and they have been lost in what to do with it...they demand a 3d file but have absolutely no way of  reading or understanding it.

What format do you issue civil 3d exports and can they read it ok?

[neilyj666]

As a contractor, I'm not sure if I should be offended by this or not...  ... I would guess our companies have never worked together...!!!!

If the contract is based on remeasurable quantities then there is little risk for the contractor but most of the projects we undertake are fixed price lump sum with the quantities as our risk hence we require a 3D model. This model would typically be an XML of the finished (or formation) surface because , as you correctly say, the way the model is built up can be challenging for a third party to decipher. If we get a finished surface and a cad file with the various areas shown with the construction depths we can use a differential TIN method to derive the formation.

Furthermore, the model can be uploaded to machine control systems and GPS survey kit to control the earthworks more efficiently. We take the view that once data is in a digital format it will never be retyped to be input into another piece of software.  By supplying schedules etc in a usable ( generally not pdf but usually csv) format they can be uploaded to an instrument for setting out purposes. I suppose this could be likened to a COBIE data exchange.

For the record we are fully aware of what to do with a file of 3D faces (in a dwg format obviously) and if we were supplied with a file of contours we would reject it and ask for the 3D faces. This is because to get any sort of accuracy with contours they need to be extracted at a very close spacing ( we have had 50mm in the past) and the number of vertices becomes an issue. The faces are much easier to deal with and they reflect the design intent.

The dwg files are also useful to examine accesibility, temporary works methodology and safety aspects in a 3D environment. All our projects are to National grid coordinates so we can use Infraworks to view the models in the correct geographic location to provide context when demonstrating to the client / project stakeholders.

[M_c3d]

No offence was meant, I do apologise if any came across! It is very interesting to be able to see it from a contractors view point.

Haha yea I doubt we have, but if a contractor was to sit down and explain (as you have just done, then I would be able to see their point more, rather than a contractor demanding a dwg and first words are without this there will be a delay!)

Its interesting that yours is fixed price, ours are more often than not re-measurable.

I wish civil 3d would be able to export manhole schedules to excel format, we are often asked for this.

The biggest problem I have had with contractors were we are from is they never understand the limitations of the software, fox example I had a debate with a contractor about how he couldn't get a level every 0.5m round a bend because the triangulation of the featureline works in straights and no matter how small i make the mid ordinate distance, it won't be able to do it at 0.5m intervals. Also when providing a formation level, they have struggled to understand that unless we actually model the boundaries of each formation to a different level then it doesn't give a truly accurate level, rather an average.

Another reason for not wanting to give cad files is liability, for example, on our drainage plan we show the foul pop ups and rwps, with tails connecting from them into our main lines. Below slab drainage is always a funny issue, it doesn't fall under civil engineering as our scope is normally from the curtilage of the building, but m&e & arch fight over who is responsible. We show the foul pop ups and rwps but it is caveated to say these are by others. We often get calls from contractors to say ours don't tie up with the arch / m&e. I've had a few occasions were contractors have tried to take our dwgs and use it to set out pop ups.

I don't doubt you know what to do with 3d faces (being a very experienced civil 3d person). The contractors I have dealt with have came back numerous times and said we can't use this or this or that and one actually requested the site layout in 3d with the kerb lines etc containing levels. Its normally landscape arch who request 3d contour plans (I don't think they have the software for anything else).

I probably spend an hour each day discussing with architects, m&e and landscape arch over how we need everything co-ordinated to OS. The amount of archs who move a topo survey to overlay on top of their site layout rather than the other around is so frustrating. They then issue us with this topo to a random co-ordinate system (which I immediately reject).

I will actually take your comments on board with how a contractor uses the dwgs and will try to liaise with them more over why they actually need it and if it is for better reasons than to use our drainage plan to set out pop ups etc then I will try and work with them to provide what they need.

The worry we always have is a contractor changes our drawings and replots them. I guess the easy way around this is to remove all title blocks and branding etc and just provide the model file. I assume that would still have the same outcome of what you need. I don't see why contractors also request details in dwg though.

Is triangulation xml or 3d faces the best format for contractors (obviously some will be different)?

[neilyj666]

@M_c3d don't worry no offence taken...

There are potential areas of crossover between disciplines where confusion could occur although the wonderful connected world of BIM is designed to iron out such problems before the contractor downs tools while waiting for a solution and works up his claim for delay and disruption...!!!

Gotta love the architects and their parallel universe where everything is in mm and starts at 0,0,0 - my pet hate as well.

BS1192:2007 provides the mechanism for sharing information both contractual and non contractual although I recognise it could be a potential minefield that could keep lawyers / QS types and claims consultants on the gravy train for months. However,  the whole point of BS1192 is to collaborate and work together to get a common outcome for the benefit of all the parties.

We don't generally ask for details in dwg although it is easier to do take offs from native dwg files than pdfs. The recent upgrades to the PDFIMPORT command means it isn't difficult to convert the pdf back to dwg and scale as required. It isn't perfect but usually will suffice if the dwgs won't be supplied.

In terms of the best format for contractors, XML is pretty good as are 3d faces ( with any boundaries extracted as 3d polylines). We also prefer to have the underlying breaklines if possible. In the UKIE country kit there is an option to export a corridor for machine control which dumps out all the corridor feature lines to a new dwg.

[M_c3d]

I agree, I think there needs to be a more defined scope of who is doing what. I.e. below slab drainage, should this be fully modeled in revit. Civil 3d cant do all the connections without null structures so it isn't practical.

I think there needs to be a better understanding of BS1192 and what it means for projects and team set ups. But it will be daunting to move fully towards it and time consuming. Most companies seem to use bits and pieces of it but not the full thing.

Yea the PDFimport tool is brilliant but so dangerous for intellectual property etc, but I suppose that there has always been the tools online to do this so no harm in autodesk including it (also autodesks is definitely the best one but doesn't try to convert pictures like others do)

I'll have a look at the featureline export, never been asked for this by a contractor but it would be nice to try and use more of civil 3d for more intelligent construction information

[neilyj666]

Although BS1192 has been around for 10 years I've not really seen any great evidence of a push to complying with it. I'm trying to get our procedures up to BIM Level 1 in terms of Layers and file naming as we have no formal CAD procedures.

The methods we've used in the past have worked fine for us so far but we don't want to be left behind by the BIM bus so we are trying to get the basics right.

[BlackBox_]

Interesting thread.

I've worked for contractors (builders), and design firms.. I much prefer the pay of the latter. Haha

That said, most of this thread's discussion is rooted in agreement between design firm and contractor - the one thing I've not read here (perhaps I overlooked it, I did not read every line here), is that a missing driving factor for both parties is the client.

That is to say, if the client started a project off and says they want BIM used (or not used), that would do well to define the scope across the board, rather than the design firm getting the contract for conceptual design, etc. and then later the contractor comes in and adheres to where the design firm is.

Problem is, most Civil clients don't give AF if BIM is used (or not) - they only care about quickly getting a satisfactory design, that design subsequently being awarded construction approval, and a contractor bid to do it all on the cheap. 

Case in point, my Landscape Architect uses R14, my own in-house Surveyor (and VP of the Firm, so you try telling him different!) uses AutoCAD 2000 + Eagle Point daily, most of the Architects & 3rd party Surveyors we get drawings from are still on 2007-2009, and I only have two Surveyors that have provided us Civil 3D drawings (i.e., COGO, Surface, Alignments, etc.) in the correct coordinate system. 

I spend more otherwise billable time Exporting my Civil 3D drawings than plotting plans (which is complete, and total PITA; combine eTransmit? Export to previous version? Actually explode MLeaders? Burst COGO onto COGO entity layer in lieu of Explode on Component 0 layer? Grrr).

Cheers