Workflow - Copy Monitor

[MS_jkimc65]

An item my office is running into is with Multi-Disciplines (Consulting Engineers) and multiple  models.  I am going to touch on just the Architect and the  Structural Engineer.  Generally within our Architectural Firm, we model all items such as floors, walls, roofs, etc.  We all basically know what goes into the model that is created by the Architect.  Structurally, the SE will do floors, structural walls, roofs, etc. and the entire framing system.  In cases, both models may have walls that overlap.  Such as in a case of a simple 4 level stairwell (concrete filled pan), that is constructed with masonry or concrete walls.  SE designs the  walls, stringers, any structure that supports the landings, designs and details these structural connections.  The architectural model has walls whether masonry or concrete, in the same place so that doors can be placed.  Within the architectural model, views and the structural model link have to be managed in a way via Visibility Graphics or a View Template so that you don't get duplicate/overlapping walls.

So here is the million dollar question, How do others (A/E) in this design profession handle this workflow?  I recently had a Project Manager request that we use the Structural Walls from the Structural Model Link to be displayed in our model and that I shouldn't show walls, well then I can't place doors where needed in a linked model.  Yes, I can copy monitor walls (prefer not to), or at least the wall that doors are in, but then I still need to use Visibility Graphics overrides or hide wall from structural model link in view.  Then I have a wall cleanup issue, walls don't cleanup with wall in a linked file.

[SteveKStafford · Accepted solution]

C/M is useful at the very least to help keep an eye on Levels and Grids between a primary (theirs) and secondary (yours) models. The copy part is useful to create elements you don't already have. The Monitor part alone can be invoked when you already have (a level for instance) and want to monitor it compared with their instance.

The four primary C/M relationships are in the order of importance and use (my interpretation): Levels, Grids, Floors, and Walls. I nearly always Monitor Levels and Grids. I rarely use C/M for floors or walls.

It's reasonable to strive for only having a single element to represent that element throughout a project's models. In practice however each discipline is responsible for documenting the design accurately so it can be built. As such some redundancy is necessary, meaning you may need to have your own version of a wall, for example, in your model so you can tell the required story accurately. It's "our" responsibility to manage the redundancy and C/M might/could help with that task but even if it doesn't the responsibility is still "ours".

For example, if you have a wall in your model that's fewer layers than another model's version of that element, you can use Monitor to watch that other wall (for position, location line, thickness) without worrying about the difference in wall structure or type. That's one way to help identify things that have changed when there is redundancy, apart from carefully looking at a model floor by floor. You may also decide that is better than trying to review such warnings in the Coordination Review dialog?

I think C/M is effective (not perfect) for levels and grids but far less effective for the other elements.

[ToanDN]

Agreed. I have made Copy/Monitor Levels and Grids from a control model a mandatory requirement for all consultants. I rarely copy/monitor model elements so I can't speak for it.