This post is about the current problems people face with
Revit/BIM. Resulting from the introduction to the depth of Bentley software in
class last week, the focus is generally going to be centered on the
capabilities and advances that Revit currently lacks.
A key issue that many people have hit with Revit, and
eventually turns them to Bentley, is the limited size of the model that Revit
can handle. This occurs with mid-rise buildings, around 100,000 sq. ft. and
when more than five people are attempting to collaborate on one model. [1]
These numbers make sense; personally I have never known Revit to be used for
more than a 2-3 story building. On my last co-op, at an engineering design firm,
Revit was mainly utilized for the Patco stations that were being redesigned.
These were not overly large stations by any means, so Revit had no problem.
However, it is understandable that Revit would begin to have issues as the file
became larger, because all the information is stored on one database. However,
Bentley enables the use of many databases, so the information storage capacity
almost seems limitless. This allows massive projects, such as re-creating an
entire city, to be modeled within Bentley products.
Last week the topic of interoperability was researched. This
is a function that is necessary in all BIM products. As mentioned before, on my
last co-op I helped with the Revit drawings for the redesign of Patco stations.
Before then I did not know that Revit had more than just architectural models.
Suddenly I was trying to deal with an architectural model linked to a
structural model, linked again to a MEP model. This became very confusing. I
want to be able to master this skill, which is why my team’s term project is to
create a fully outfitted house (architectural, structural, and MEP) within
Revit. However, shouldn’t it be easier? As Professor Mitchell mentioned in
class, Revit has its reasons for doing this. All disciplines care about
different dimensions and portions of the model. However, it would still be much
simpler for everyone if all the systems were in one drawing, and you didn’t have
to wait until the end to see what conflicts may exist between plumbing and
structural drawings. [2]
A problem for Revit and many BIM systems is the
functionality with the construction world. Firstly, many clients prefer
different systems. [3] Therefore, it is very difficult for companies to make a
final decision on what system to implement. This is where a common drawing
format, such as IFC, should be adopted by all packages. This would allow
companies to pick the system that best fits their needs, and not worry about
the format the client will need. Currently, Revit is used as a way to visualize
how all the building will look in the future. It would be very useful if detail
drawings or shop drawings could be pulled directly off the model for the
designer to give to the contractor, client, etc.
Thus, Revit and BIM still have a long way to go before they
are perfect.
Sources:
[3] http://www.augiuk.co.uk/index.php/articles/17-articles/31-the-problem-with-revit
Comments:
Comments:
Comment to Bryan Cummings,
I used Tekla during my last co-op as well. I agree that it
can be both helpful and frustrating in the same breath. Tekla was used by the
contractors to model the building, but very rarely were the information fields
for the individual parts filled out. I believe this stems from companies seeing
the usefulness of BIM, so they want to use it. However, these companies do not
fully commit to using BIM and continue a complicated half and half lifestyle.
If they were to harness BIM at its full capacity, it would be difficult at the
beginning to transfer everything over, but the end product would be very
beneficial. Unfortunately, many companies are not willing to put in this initial
investment of time, so the incorporation process is a slow one.
Comment to Alex Palma,
I agree with the point you made about the disadvantage of
the training time that goes into implementing a 3D modeling BIM program, such
as Revit, into a company. Many managers struggle with the decision on whether
or not to pull employees off projects to dedicate up to a week of training to a
new system. Obviously, the end result would be very beneficial; however, when a
company is trying to meet week-by-week deadlines it becomes hard to let the
employees go. Thus, the training generally comes in stages, with each
individual employee completing the training once they have a free week. While
this helps the company keep on schedule, it delays the full implementation of
the hardware for the company. Thus, the decision to adopt a BIM program, or upgrade,
generally comes with a great deal of frustration.
I also discussed file size and scalability issues in Revit in my post as well. I used Bentley products on co-op previously, and although I can't say for Bentley's primary BIM application, Bentley Systems, I've never seen them used for full cities like mentioned the other day. That's not to say it doesn't have the capability I suppose, but the structure of Revit does limit it in this aspect. That being said, Revit isn't meant for full-city applications (imagine the file size of a Revit model of Center City Philadelphia). I feel Revit, like every other program, has its' own niche of building applications; using BIM, that niche is simply much wider than for other programs, as it can coordinate such a wide variety of information.
ReplyDeleteDianna, I’m surprised that Revit hasn’t done more to make itself usable for mid and high rise buildings, considering the boom in high rise construction right now. You mentioned that Bentley is capable of high rise because it uses multiple databases. Do you know if there is a reason that Revit does not? Also from last week’s lecture, Professor Mitchell said that AutoDesk argues that it is better to separate the disciplines to Revit Architecture, Structures, MEP etc. I tend to agree with you that one model would be easier. In an era where integrated design is being pushed by some, separating models by discipline does seem counterintuitive.
ReplyDeleteDianna,
ReplyDeleteOn my last co-op, I worked for a full service, engineering firm that serviced the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. The models in REVIT were massive, sometimes comprising of multiple processing buildings that require a lot of detail. The model loading was slow but most of the time it worked fine. I think it has more to do with the power of the server that the model is located on. I agree with Alex, that REVIT is not meant for city size models. Maybe the structure and facade of the buildings, but not the complex inner workings of the structure that REVIT is intended for.