Copy/Monitor - But don't monitor

[lukekvasnicka]

Looking for anyone to confirm for me that copy/monitor is indeed as useless as it seems.  We have copy/monitored all of our structural columns.  Upon receiving the new structural model from our engineer we linked in the new model and ran a coordination review.  Coordination review indicates no major changes even though the column sizes have been changed in the structural model, and they are still monitored.  Could it be, that among the terribly designed elements of this tool, a "monitored" column does not actually monitor the size of the element or alert the user of changes in the dimensions of a column???  At this point without being able to monitor beams, columns sizes, or structural walls I'm left wondering what is the point of this tool at all?  What possible use case is left?

Attachments show the 24"x24" monitored column selected and the 20x30 column in the linked structural model in red.  Monitor link is still established but no error is shown for the change in size.

[barthbradley]

---

@lukekvasnicka wrote:

 Coordination review indicates no major changes even though the column sizes have been changed in the structural model, and they are still monitored. 

---

I'm not understanding your workflow.  What do you mean "they are still monitored"?  

[lukekvasnicka]

I was checking that the columns I originally copied into the project were still monitored (showing the small monitor icon when the element is selected.)  I am only stating that here because one potential reason a change in column size would not trigger a coordination warning would be if for some reason the column in question was not monitored or had become unmonitored since it was copied into the project.

Our workflow would be that we want the columns in our architectural model to monitor the structural model columns so that when the structural engineer adjusts the sizes of columns we receive a coordination warning and are able to coordinate and match our (architectural model) columns to those in the linked structural model.  

[ToanDN]

Looks like the tool only monitoring the column locations, not types. If the structure model is correct, why not just show them instead of copy/monitoring elements over?

[lukekvasnicka]

That seems to be the workflow for a lot of people.  We don't want to show linked model elements for a variety of reasons. Most importantly we join columns, slabs, beams so that concrete shows as continuous in building and wall sections.  At a more theoretical level, we want to be totally responsible for the elements shown in our drawings and coordinate them with structural.  Just linking in their model creates more opportunities for a coordination miss where we either don't see or aren't informed of a change in the structural model.  At the end of the day, we want to control our slab plans and drawings and any coordination misses can be caught if there is a discrepancy between architectural and structural drawings.

I still don't understand why the 'monitor' tool would not monitor the most critical parameter of a column or at least alert users to a change.

[joe_keogh]

You can use BIM 360 Design/Docs to monitor and report all changes and modifications in an updated Model.

[lukekvasnicka]

That is good to note.  We are using Bim360 on our project but our consultants are not.  They are sending us their model which we then upload to the cloud.  I have not found a workflow to update the model in Bim360.  Would I still be able to monitor changes between their models even if they are not shared in the cloud?

[joe_keogh]

I've just been testing the workflow, and yes it seems you can drag and drop the file into (Desktop Connector) and it will update the file.

I tried placing the original file, which had no worksets created, then dragged and dropped a new version with worksets.  This showed all elements had changed workset.

Then saved as new file, same name, to a new folder location with changed Column type.  The Compare showed the changes to the column only.

I then detached from central, saved as same name to another new folder location with changed Column Type, and got the same result.

[RobDraw]

---

@lukekvasnicka wrote:

Looking for anyone to confirm for me that copy/monitor is indeed as useless as it seems.

---

So you think you have found a problem in one project with a certain type of element and that makes the tool totally useless? That's a mighty big leap.

There are many people using it on a daily basis without any issues. I'm not even going to suggest that it might be a workflow issue on your end, especially since you don't want to show the elements from the linked model.

[lukekvasnicka]

While it is true that I wrote my original post in a red haze of frustration I stand by that sentiment.  The copy/monitor tool according to Autodesk is used to help teams "effectively monitor and coordinate work."  Except, it is unable to COPY structural beams or MONITOR the size of columns, the two most critical elements in coordination with structural.  It seems to me this would be a problem present on ANY project of a size that would require the use of the copy/monitor tool.

Even if I were to show a linked model it would not solve the issue because I would still have no notification that column sizes in the linked model were adjusted?  My coordination effort would be the same, individually looking at each instance for a change or having my structural engineer coordinate changes with me directly outside of a BIM environment.  That's an issue with the coordination 'tool.'

At the most fundamental level, why shouldn't we expect software tools to help our design workflow instead of adjusting our workflow to the constraints of the software.  "Autodesk's vision is to help people imagine, design, and create a better world. Autodesk's mission is to build software tools to enable people to experience their ideas before they are real." Okay, well here's a software tool that is not enabling people, it's constraining them.  It's an easy fix, let users monitor any parameter, in any type of Revit element, for changes.  I don't need it to reconcile changes automatically, just monitor elements for changes.

[RobDraw]

Can you tell us this?

Are those sizes instance or type parameters?

I would expect that Revit might not monitor instance parameters because of the nature of that tool.

[lukekvasnicka]

Currently, they are type parameters.  Different column or beam types for each size.  Although on our end I don't see a reason they couldn't be instance parameters if they needed to be.

[RobDraw]

---

@lukekvasnicka wrote:

At the most fundamental level, why shouldn't we expect software tools to help our design workflow instead of adjusting our workflow to the constraints of the software.

---

A common Revit mantra is "What does Revit want in order to get what we expect our of it?"

So, yes, we have to adjust our workflows in order to accommodate the software.

[RobDraw]

Could you post sample files that exhibit this behavior?

I do agree with your gripe, this should work, but I'm still not convinced that it isn't a workflow issue.

[RobDraw]

---

@lukekvasnicka wrote:

Currently, they are type parameters.  Different column or beam types for each size. 

---

Are you sure your not using type mapping? 

---

[ralvarez1976]

---

@lukekvasnicka wrote:

Looking for anyone to confirm for me that copy/monitor is indeed as useless as it seems.  We have copy/monitored all of our structural columns.  Upon receiving the new structural model from our engineer we linked in the new model and ran a coordination review.  Coordination review indicates no major changes even though the column sizes have been changed in the structural model, and they are still monitored.  Could it be, that among the terribly designed elements of this tool, a "monitored" column does not actually monitor the size of the element or alert the user of changes in the dimensions of a column???  At this point without being able to monitor beams, columns sizes, or structural walls I'm left wondering what is the point of this tool at all?  What possible use case is left?

Attachments show the 24"x24" monitored column selected and the 20x30 column in the linked structural model in red.  Monitor link is still established but no error is shown for the change in size.

---

lukekvasnicka

I totally get your frustration, but it seems Revit is not set up to work this way. The Revit copy / monitor tool is setup with the following workflow in mind:

1. The Architect places "architectural" columns (think column enclosures or schematic column placeholders) in their model tied to the column grid and levels, and the first stab at modeling floors and roofs, along with walls and other elements. They send this model to the Structural Engineer.

2. The Structural Engineer copy / monitors the grids and levels from the Architect. They place structural columns, beams and slabs in their model, which are constrained to the levels and grids. The may also copy / monitor the floors and swap them through type mapping into their slabs, and architectural columns which get swapped into the structural columns at that location (if there is an architectural column cover with a steel or concrete column inside of it, etc) 

3. The Architect initiates a change in the levels, architectural columns, floors, grids or wall locations (which may affect slab edges.). They send their updated model to the Structural Engineer.

4. The Structural Engineer uses the Coordination Review to update the references that were previously copy / monitored, and all the dependent elements in their model update. The tool focuses on updating the overall location of the elements. Specific parameters and type changes are not tracked, because these are assumed to be different in each discipline's models. The actual column and beam profiles are specified in the Structural Engineer's file, and the overall coordination of "place column here" relative to other elements is what the architect does.

5. This workflow assumes that you are linking the Structural Engineer's model into your Architectural model, and displaying their elements directly in your views. If something is wrong, you communicate the required changes to the Structural Engineer, they fix it and send you a new file. You overwrite it and update your link. This way you are actually showing how coordinated the entire team is, as opposed to hiding the issues by fixing them in your local architectural structural file that you control. It may take a couple of tries to get right, but in the long run it prevents lots of issues when the files are used in construction coordination and the things that don't match are revealed.

6. To determine what has changed, you use Navisworks Model Compare, and compare the previously issued Structural model to the new one. You can also run a clash detection between the Architectural and Structural models to determine if any column and beam sizes are causing issues with your architectural boundaries.

I hope this helps. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

I gather from the comments that you are an architect.  You are correct copy monitor does not monitor size.  This is because when you copy monitor you have the option to change to a different family shown for that column in your model.  The copy and subsequent monitoring is location and extent only, not size as this is controlled by the family  E.g engineer copies architect model column but changes the family to a new family to suit the parameters for his structural purposes but the monitor function lets the engineer know the column was moved by the architect when reloaded.  

I believe your issue is the direction of your workflow.  Where I come from every other consultant copy monitors from the architects model, not the other way around.  This is because the architect controls the location of masonry walls and columns, and steel columns.  Around here structural engineers are not known for accuracy, but in your workflow you have the engineer telling you exactly where to put the column?  What happens when a design change means you need to move a wall or column slightly?

[lukekvasnicka]

I'm an architect working with a practice based in Austin, TX.  I guess the problem does stem from a workflow difference but I would be curious to know how people 'typically' coordinate with their structural engineer throughout the design process.

We also begin the process by setting up the model and having the structural engineer copy/monitor our grids and columns.  In a schematic phase when we first set up the model, we are using rules of thumb for column and beam sizes.  Once the project progresses through design development the structural engineer will typical right-size different elements of the structure to make the building more efficient as they calculate the actual loads on the structure and design the individual components.  So typically in our process, the column stays in the same location but its dimensions are adjusted depending on the engineer's calculations.

In an ideal world, the columns and beams would live in our model so that the architect controls the precise location of the elements.  Our beams and columns would be 'monitoring' the structural model so that we are alerted when parameters (like length, width, height) of a monitored element change in the structural model.  The structural model would be 'monitoring' the columns in our model to alert if the location is changed.  Both models should be monitoring each other and so when we swap models during the design any coordination alerts can be flagged and addressed.

The current workflow when the structural engineer adjusts a beam depth from 28" to 30" or a column from (24"x24") to (24" x 28") there is no alert that anything has changed even though these can be critical changes that cause a problem for ceiling height or create a conflict with MEP.  Currently, the only way to find and make these updates in the architecture model (that I know of) is to:

1) Have the structural engineer document and notify us of every design change including a change in dimension

2) Create a coordination view and visually compare all the elements of the structural model with arch model.

On some of the large and complex projects, both of these methods are inefficient and prone to error.  We've been using method 2 and using transparent colored views to overlay the structural and arch model and compare (attached image).  I'm interested to hear how other people confront this challenge.

[SteveKStafford]

The intention of the tools with respect to columns is that the architect's role is subservient to structure's. As such the size of the column is defined by the structural team and quite often grid spacing might get defined by them too, even it originally defined by the architect. It's a collaborative effort and altering the structural module might yield better cost, ease of construction and material choices.

My general recommendation is that once there are structural columns available in the structural model any such elements ought to be removed from the architectural model. The redundancy of these elements isn't really necessary in the same way that grids/levels are. The columns in the arch model can deal with the appearance and interior design of the space while the structural model deals with the structural integrity of the design.

There is nothing wrong with placing structural columns in the architectural model in early design as long as it is clear that those sizes are conceptual, not engineered...until they are and at which time it is advisable to show the engineers version only.

As for beams...the manner in which they are hidden from view varies as widely as one building does to another. As such you do need to create views that make such considerations obvious for everyone involved in design. Before 3D ALL of this was done visually. That's hasn't changed except to say that many of these things can be observed far faster in 3D than via 2D overlays and years of experience and intuition.

[lukekvasnicka]

We avoid showing ONLY the engineers columns (the columns from the linked model) because in order for slab, column and other concrete elements to properly join in sections and details and appear visually monolithic they all need to be in the same model.  To avoid drawing filled regions over all of our wall sections and details we need the elements to 'live' in our arch model.

This is mainly a suggestion that the functionality of the copy/monitor tool could be vastly improved if the user had the ability to monitor not only elements; but also parameters associated with those elements.  Rather than having a single workflow dictated by the software, the software should be a tool that helps designers and engineers collaborate in many different workflows.  I'm clearly not a software developer but if there is an ability to monitor some attributes of a particular element such as its name or location it seems like it would not be too far of a stretch to give users control over additional attributes to be monitored such as dimension or material.  Even if editing the elements is still a manual process the ability to export a 'coordination report' that shows when any parameter is altered in a monitored object would have huge upsides.