© 2012 Autodesk Successful Coordination on Actual Projects! SE2534-Roundtable Desirée Mackey, PE Structural 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 Coordination  Avoiding 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 Example  Varied 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

Model Coordination

© 2012 Autodesk Model Coordination  Who should model what elements?  What are the benefits/challenges with this approach?  Elements to discuss:  Walls  Slabs  Roofs  Others?

© 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

Model Coordination: Roofs – Case Study Example  Architect models the roofing, Structural Engineer models the metal deck and framing directly below, matching Architect’s geometry  Benefits  Good coordination between systems/disciplines  Challenges  No control over inaccuracies – “Line slightly off axis” warnings

© 2012 Autodesk Model Coordination: Slabs – Case Study Example  Architect models all slabs  Benefits  No modeling the slabs!  Challenges  Graphics of footings below  Solution used: linework tool, but had to constantly fix it  Slab on grade schedules  Solution used: Arch added a parameter to the relevant slabs, SE scheduled through the link

© 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 views  Benefit: coordination issues were easy to catch by just looking  Challenge: 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 results  Challenge: 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

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) Mackey Blog: LinkedIn: