Tekla BIMsight

Posted on by
Reply

As a regular user of Autodesk product, I am using Navisworks as my main coordination and project review software.

But recently, one of my client ask for BIMSight, a solution developed by Tekla for the project coordination. If I have already try it, I have never had the opportunity to implement it on project scale. I can now share my first impression on this solution.

Tekla_BIMsight

One of the main advantage of Tekla BIMSight is its price. Since it can be downloaded freely on the Tekla website, it can be given to anyone working on the project without bothering about licence fee. Furthermore, it is largely user-friendly, and can be used by anyone, even without a training phase.

It provide all main functionalities of a good project review software, like models compilation, project review and annotation, clash detection…

Possibilities for input format are pretty limited, since it can only import DWG and IFC files, but these formats are enough for most situations.

Tekla BIMSIght provide pretty good clash detection features, with most of the usual fonctionnalites : clash statuses, tagging, sorting and grouping, and so on.

The presentation of the clash result are also pretty good, but there is no function to export a clash report in PDF or HTML as we have in Navisworks, for example.

There is set of tools for creating notes that save a viewpoint in the model. Once done, you can add comments and markups on this view or link objects to this viewpoint. BIMsight provide also the ability for different users to respond to comments and keep an history of these responses.

Notes

One of the most interesting part of these notes is the possibility to export them in the BCF format, in order to be able to import them in another software. This functionnality can be really powerfull, and I will describe it more precisely in a future post.

Finally, I am quite impress by BIMSight. Tekla manage to provide a fully functional model review solution without even make us pay for it, which is pretty remarkable is this market.

Revit linked models visibility

Posted on by
1

A recent request from a client make me think on the different possibilities for displaying a linked MEP model in a general coordination model.

In this project, each discipline is designed in its very own Revit model. These models are linked inside a coordination model for producing synthesis views and drawings. On this model, I need a specific graphical representation for the coordination team, while every team keeps their usual representation on their own model.

This graphical representation must also be editable directly in the compiled model, without having to open every trade model to change color settings.

I firstly set custom Display Settings on each linked model, using an override for every element category.

General Override

If this method works well for most element, it doesn’t change the color of various HVAC and plumbing systems. This is due to the Graphic Overrides set up for each system in the linked model. I didn’t want to remove these overrides which are pretty convenient for setting up visibility settings in trade models.

Override by SystemSo I decide to use a workaround to define graphical representation in my coordination model.

Each trade model contain a limited amount of worksets, each draftsman working on his own linked model, so I was able to create the same worksets in my compiled model.

Worksets in the Coordination Model

These worksets can now be used to create filters containing every element of the specified trade.

Filtering

I use these filters to apply specific visibility settings in my coordination model.

This workaround is not very elegant, but it works, and allows me to set up the graphical representation very precisely in my compiled model without having to open each model to edit the visibility settings of a coordination view called in the main model with the “By linked view” function.

From Revit to Tekla Structure

Posted on by
1

After a long absence, I am back wishing you all the best for 2013, a year full of opportunities and crazy BIM projects.

During a meeting dedicated to a BIM process, I realized how convenient a direct link between Revit and Tekla could be. Most architects draw with Revit (for average buildings), but it is not enough for producing shop drawing for the construction site.

Being able to retrieve Revit structural elements and integrate them as native Tekla elements could really speed up the production of structural drawings.

Tekla comes with two plug-ins, one for exporting Revit models to Tekla, the other to import Tekla-generated .ifcZip files.

I  quickly drew a few walls in Revit and exported them using the associated command.

RevitWalls

It created an .IFCZip file tailored for the Tekla IFC Import function.

I inserted it as a Reference Model in Tekla. The resulting geometry looks pretty, but wall openings and walls with an edited profile are missing.

In order to use this Tekla model for the production of structural drawings, native Tekla elements are needed, so I used the Tekla Macro Convert IFC element to generate them from this Reference Model.

TeklaNativeElements

As you can see, some dimension were lost during the conversion process.

These limitations made me think of another kind of link between these two software, and I started a few months ago to write my own Revit plug-in in order to recreate structural beams and walls in Tekla.

Here is a first overview of this plug-in with an interface for mapping Revit families to Tekla profiles.

PlugInUI

I was able to import a few beams and some walls with my plug-in. The whole thing is in a very early stage, and still incredibly buggy, but I hope to be able to fix it and create something both stable and useful. By now I am trying to recreate walls with an edited profile or hosted openings.

I will keep you updated on my research.

Level Of Development

Posted on by
2

One of my current project made me think of talking about the so-called LOD of a building model.

The LOD (Level Of Development or Level Of Detail) was first described on the Model Progression Specification (MPS) development by Vico Software in 2004. This document aimed to create a framework in order to define standards for any building model delivery. It answers, for each phase of a project, the following questions :

How accurately the model should be detailed ?
Who is responsible for modeling a particular element ?
What information should be integrated in the model ?

In 2008, the American Institute of Architect  after further developments on this project, released their official version, the E-202 “Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit”.

This paper divided the Levels Of Development in five categories, each one describing the elements expected in the model, the corresponding state of development of the project and the possibilities for producing construction documents and building analysis. They are defined as follows:

LOD 100: Conceptual design
The model represent the general massing of the building, with area, volume, orientation and so on.
This model can be used for solar and early energy analysis.

LOD 200: Design development
All systems are modeled with their general size, location, orientation and approximate quantities.
It can be used for general performance analysis and early calculations.

LOD 300: General construction documents
In this model, elements are accurately integrated, with their actual size and location. It is suitable for producing general assembly and construction drawings.
This model allow precise analysis and simulations on every element and system. It can also be used for coordination and clash detection.

LOD 400: Fabrication information
Every element is modeled for fabrication purpose.
The model is suitable for shop drawings
It can be used for direct production and construction scheduling.

LOD 500: As-Built model
The BIM equivalent of As-Built drawings. In these models, elements are represented with all technical information needed for maintenance and procurement.

These descriptions are indicative, and do not prevent the BIM Manager from describing model deliverables more exhaustively. They are more like guidelines for creating an accurate BIM Implementation Plan, with precise indication for each actor about his responsibilities in the development of the model. To do so, these guidelines come with a Model Element Table like this one :

(From http://www.acec.org)

This table defines the required level of detail for each element of a building model at each phase/LOD of the project.

I am unsure whether or not this “Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit” can be used as it for any project, especially in France, where construction practices may differ from what the AIA first defined. However, it is a great tool for creating an accurate BIM Implementation Plan. It describes well the expected state of the model for each phase and may come in handy when working with companies which have not yet integrated all requirements of a BIM workflow.

My Revit experience

Posted on by
Reply

I previously dealt with some issues regarding the use of Digital Project. These problems arrose mostly because CATIA is not suitable for the AEC industry. Even if Digital Project is adapted to the building construction techniques, the main core, CATIA, is still a product aimed at industrial products.

Furthermore, Digital Project needs large resources both in time and money for designing anything. It can be perfectly acceptable for mass-produced objects or very complex building, but when it comes to more average construction projects, we have to find another solution.

I was wondering if I would be able to create all the precast pieces of a stone-like facade on Revit, and see what differences we can find.

Here is a little demonstration of concept for designing intricate geometry and casting drawing in Revit

Designing a specific part with the basic tool from the Revit family (extrusion and boolean operations) is not very difficult, and I quickly got the design of one of the arc over the door.

Anyway, some limitations already appears. Due to the void form created as boolean, it is impossible to merge the arc with the superior part, and a join remains.

Furthermore, there is at least one piece I was not able to draw properly a double-curved arch.

I insert my Revit family in a new project, and add a few dimensions and a section line.

A main problem appears when I am trying to extract a section of the curved part. If I get the section, I cannot add dimensions to it.

Finally, there is no embedded tool for extracting the position of the center of gravity. This information can probably be extracted using another software or the API, but we are seeking for a process developed entirely with Revit.

All these limitations made me think that Revit is not powerful enough to efficiently design intricate elements. Even if possibilities for creating complex 3D models are enough for most of the precast elements, there are still too many limitations for using it in production. I am waiting for the next releases of Revit to overcome these issues.

Walls in Geometry Gym

Posted on by
1

A recent webinar about interoperability between Grasshopper and Revit make me look again on these tools, particularly for importing walls, In fact, I generally test these kinds of tools with a set a beams, more or less intricate, but never with walls, so I decide to generate a set of walls using the Geometry Gym IFC Importer for Revit.

Using Geometry Gym require at least some basic knowledge of the IFC structure. In fact, using this tool can be a really good starting point for studying the model behind Industry Foundation Classes.

Any IFC building object must be included in a (IFC) building, itself included in a (IFC) project, both of them must have a GUID and a name. So we start by placing these components on the Grasshopper’s caneva.

In order to have our NURBS path curve understood by Revit, we approximate it into a set of lines and arcs, using the specific Geometry Gym component.

We create an ggIFCElementParameter component to give a pretty name to our wall.

In order to create the multy-layer structure, we add two materials, both of them linked to a MaterialLayer component where we define the thickness of each layer. These component are merged into a MaterialLayerSet, itself link to a wall type.

The IFC class used by Revit for generating walls is the IFCWallStandardCase, so we use this component in our Grasshopper definition. We link all these components to our IFC Wall Standard Case, had a height parameter, and bake the whole think.

The resulting IFC file contains a pretty good wall, with every expected parameter. We check it in my favorite IFC viewer, the Solibri Model checker.

Once imported in Revit, using the embedded plugin, it creates a generic component looking like our wall. It appears in a schedule with the family name and type as set, but it’s still not an editable Revit wall.

I generally use the massing tool to create walls in Geometry Gym. I create a simple IFCExtrudedAreaSolid (for example) from a base NURBS curve, and then import it in Revit to generate a mass.

 

I can now use this mass to create my curved walls in Revit, along with the floors slabs. This method need an additional step (creating the wall from the Revit mass faces), but create native Revit walls.

As I write these lines, a new version of the IFC Import plugin for Revit have been posted on the Geometry Gym blog, I still have to review the improvement.

Dreaming of a new drawing table

Posted on by
Reply

As BIM software has greatly improved over the last few years, there is not much change  on the interface side. Since the beginning of the concept of BIM, we have not much improve  the way we are designing on our favorite CAD application. The development of powerful touch-screens has totally changed our personal devices (mobile phones and personal computers), but I haven’t seen any professional design application using them successfully.

Anyway, some new devices seem to be interesting as new way of interacting with a 3D model.

The SMART Board presents itself as a flat screen, and uses a camera on top of it to change it into a giant touch screen. Some demonstration using Navisworks shown a very impressive way for reviewing and annotating a 3D model.

Some pretty cool videos make me think I am not the only one to believe in cameras and other Kinect to change our way of designing 3D models. As an example, you can have a look on the Scott Penman’s page on the Grasshopper forum. He presents how he uses a webcam to create and control a Rhino model through Grasshopper.

One of my biggest hope in this field is the Leap Motion, a new device including some VGA camera sensors and a “little” piece of software to create a $70 gesture control system that will make the Kinect look like an outdated piece of technology.

The presentation video features an incredibly precise motion detector, which can “see” the individual position of each of your fingers in a three cubic feet workspace.

Possibilities for this kind of devices are almost endless, especially in any 3D models related domain. I already imagine myself casually sculpting a whole building with just a few intuitive hand movements.

These kind of devices may be the next step for integrating BIM in the AEC industry, when modeling a building will become as easy and intuitive as a few pen strokes on a drawing table. And make me dream of a new desktop.