I agree. It's the old addage, a picture is worth a thousand words. When trying to coordinate beam or wall penitrations, drawing things out, both in plan and elevation really helps communicate exactly what is going on. This is especially useful if you can get all mechanical, plumbing, electrical and doorway openings shown on the same sketch.

A simple sketch, properly labeled, will really help move things along and help avoid change orders in the future. Also, combining multiple small penetrations into a single (reasonably sized) opening, can simplify the process of design verification and construction.

do you find 3d models help in that coordination? if anybody has any experience going from BIM to a more post-traditional DR Elev. process I would be interested to hear that as well.

more often than not i find myself creating my elevations from 3d models (make2d) and plans (archcut) than going the other way, making models for perspectives or 2d elves, from plans and elevations and many times i catch all kinds of errors and inconstancies in the plans and elevations when making the model than in the end make for a tighter set that contractors are more pleased with.

Yes, I believe that is an advantage of modelling objects as opposed to simply working with representative lines?

I think the 3d model can be really helpful for coordination. On the other hand, I typically do not need to draw up complex elevations or full scale building sections.

For me, I often draw up roof framing plans, and even on simple buildings, it is critical to keep in mind the elevations (both absolute and relative) of the various members, otherwise you end up with beams framing into a ghost girder that is actually located 3 feet higher than the incomming beam. Penetrations cause similar issues.

The point is that the model certainly would help with coordination, but I'm not sure if the time invested is worth it for me (as a structural engineer). I suppose that it also varies dramatically on the project size and type. The bigger and more complex the project, the more the front load time investment of building a 3d model will pay off.

the end goal would be that MPE structural and architect(+viz) and even the contractors would be able to share the same model and all have their input and take offs from it. if only it were so easy as it sounds when you talk about it.

I think the problem I see with it, which I'm sure others have mentioned on similar threads, is that BIM seems geared towards removing responsibility from the contractor and manufacturers and putting it onto the Architect and engineers.

Historically we produce our drawings and the contractor and manufactures develop their own independent drawings. These drawings serve as a check on everything from dimensions to coordination and constructibility.

If I am going to build a BIM model and simply hand it over, I better be paid substantially more money to do the additional independent checks to verify the documents are drawn as intended. Sometimes the extra set of eyes looking over the drawings really helps. Even with a BIM model, it is possible to become blind to issues when you have been invested in a project for an extended period, you know?

ya. I am not a BIM fan at this point at all i am more BOM. everybody wants there territory and breaking out of the old model not incl. the retraining of old dogs is almost impossible
you will notice the AIA is not talking about BIM any more.

yeah, that makes sense, I would say from my small sample (the engineers I know), we engineers are not too interested in BIM, it is primarily advocated by the steel industry who have the most to gain by it. I suspect the concrete industry is generally against it, because I don't think it is practical to model reinforcing bars, and without it, it won't help much for slab and wall penetrations, you'll still need to do separate investigations.

I don't know what BOM is, what is it and how is different from BIM?

yes that makes sense the last BIM thing i saw was from a steel mfg who had their own program far better (but much more simple not so GUI) than anything I've seen from any of the big cad companies and it was specific to their common parts. It was a type of solution to steel boxes.

BOM means Building Object Management, maybe i have the incorrect definition but it is making the model and object management that is not so intelligent that it prevents you from designing the way you want, like allot of these 'square' solutions that keep you in the 'box' so to speak.

What is important is that things can work together so that the people using those different tools can too. not every hammer is =. and the most creative of designs takes exceptional tools, Rhinoceros for instance with it's lack of limitations and always expanding box of toys is my choice.


as far as concrete the boxed lunch people that have come in with the associations on that subject are saying reenforcement(especially wire mesh) is a thing of the past and actually hinders and does nothing but holds the concrete together after it cracks witch all concrete is bound to do. also i saw presentations on natural fibers benefits over glass fibers in preventing cracks ans also the new tools to do expansion joints(multi axis expansion triangle dowel thingies. pardon my lack of proper terminology i don't feel like getting out the spec books.

Yeah there are some changes and new innovations in fiber reinforcement. It is primarily for temperature reinforcing in slabs. I don't steel primary steel reinforcing, for flexure, compression, and torsion going anywhere for a long. Researchers are always coming up with new concrete mixes and reinforcing ideas, which is a very good thing, but I haven't seen anything that will replace reinforcing bars and post tensioning tendons soon.