© 2012 Autodesk

Successful Coordination on Actual Projects!SE2534-RoundtableDesirée Mackey, PEStructural Engineer, Martin/Martin

© 2012 Autodesk

Class Summary

In this roundtable session, we will present several coordination items that occurred on an actual project where the project team had various levels of BIM expertise and a quick project schedule, but still achieved a high level of coordination among all disciplines. The project team employed numerous strategies—some tried and true, and some newer ideas—to make this a successful Building Information Modeling (BIM) project. These strategies will be presented for discussion among the group. Discussion topics will include the kick-off meeting, model coordination, modeling techniques, the challenges encountered on this project, things that we would repeat or do differently next time, and anything else the group may choose to discuss.

© 2012 Autodesk

Discussion Topics/Learning Objectives

Kick-Off Meeting

Model CoordinationAvoiding modeling any element more than once “Using” each others’ models – walls, roofs, slabs

Collaboration/Clash Detection

Time permitting: Model groups challenges

© 2012 Autodesk

The Kick-Off Meeting

© 2012 Autodesk

The BIM Kick-Off Meeting

Who should initiate/run the kick-off meeting?

If no kick-off meeting is initiated by the prime, should a consultant take the lead? If so, how should the consultant go about doing so?

How do different levels of experience influence the kick-off meeting and/or its results?

Should a consultant offer a “what we will/wont model” document as part of their standard contract as a sort of safety net?

© 2012 Autodesk

The BIM Kick-Off Meeting – Case Study ExampleVaried Revit experience among project team (SE more experienced than Arch and MEP)

Structural Engineer took the lead

Included a “what we will/will not model” page in our contract

No other official LOD/modeling documents

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Coordination

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Coordination

Who should model what elements?

What are the benefits/challenges with this approach?

Elements to discuss:WallsSlabsRoofsOthers?

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Coordination: Walls – Case Study Example

Architect models the walls, down to the footing depths

Benefits No chasing down wall geometry No time spent modeling walls

Challenges Only wanted to see the Structural Core on the Structural Drawings

Solution used: Parts and filters – would have been better in Revit 2013 No control over inaccuracies

Solution used: Stopped updating the link and manually edited the link Modeling wall footings without walls

Solution used: Many considered – used slab edges hosted to a model line

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Coordination: Roofs – Case Study Example

Architect models the roofing, Structural Engineer models the metal deck and framing directly below, matching Architect’s geometry

BenefitsGood coordination between systems/disciplines

ChallengesNo control over inaccuracies – “Line slightly off axis” warnings

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Coordination: Slabs – Case Study Example

Architect models all slabs

BenefitsNo modeling the slabs!

ChallengesGraphics of footings below

Solution used: linework tool, but had to constantly fix itSlab on grade schedules

Solution used: Arch added a parameter to the relevant slabs, SE scheduled through the link

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

Collaboration & Clash Detection

© 2012 Autodesk

Collaboration & Clash Detection

How does collaboration/clash detection with the other disciplines work?

How does the design team define coordination/clash detection? Does the contractor define it differently?

Are Navisworks models utilized? If so, to what extent?

Does the level of Revit experience/different levels of experience significantly impact coordination?

Is there a “trust” issue when using the models for coordination? Is there a disconnect between the models and the drawings if we focus on model coordination?

© 2012 Autodesk

Collaboration & Clash Detection – Case Study Example

Arch/Struct coordination issues became apparent in many model viewsBenefit: coordination issues were easy to catch by just lookingChallenge: Elements “looked wrong” in live views, so a high level of continual QA/QC required.

MEP Coordination mostly through visual observation of Revit and Navisworks models

Benefit: good resultsChallenge: Would have been difficult under any other principal

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Groups – Case Study Example

© 2012 Autodesk

Model Groups – Challenges

Complex “trusses” created using independent pieces and then grouped together

Movement of the groups caused annotation issues in live views

Exchange with analysis ungrouped and then regrouped all of the instances of the group into separate groups, thus defeating the purpose/eliminating the benefits of the group

© 2012 Autodesk

© 2012 Autodesk

Autodesk, AutoCAD* [*if/when mentioned in the pertinent material, followed by an alphabetical list of all other trademarks mentioned in the material] are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA and/or other countries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product and services offerings, and specifications and pricing at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document. © 2012 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.

Please fill out your surveys!

Contact Info:Desirée (Dezi) MackeyEmail: dmackey@martinmartin.comBlog: http://bdmackeyconsulting.com/blog/Twitter: @RevitGeeksWifeLinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/desiree-mackey/7/308/448