![]() If we had to go back to autocad, I'd quit and find something else to do. It's much easier to coordinate than with 2d cad drawings. This works great for syncing with architects as all of the members are sized correctly and in the correct location. If Robot had US based wood design, I would have no need for Risa. Otherwise, I'll use Robot for everything else. At this point, if I have a simple structure that has a lot of wood members, I'll use Risa. We mainly use Risa 3d and Robot (part of our subscription package). ![]() We use the analytical model that Revit provides to export models to a few different structural engineering software packages. You can sync back to Revit any of the sizes that changed. The whole process is much quicker than if you had to generate it from scratch. I spend more time checking the results than actually running the models. Once exported, you setup your load combinations, and verify the member design parameters, materials, boundary conditions.etc and run it. You then export to your favorite analysis software. You can even apply most of the loading inside Revit. Revit provides an easy way to generate an analytical model for your structure. I can't remember the last time we used Autocad to draw something (probably close to 10 years).īear in mind that Revit doesn't do any engineering calculations. There is no need for a drafter as it's quicker for the engineer to generate the drawings from the model than redline printed drawings and have a drafter do them, only to have to check them over again. I own a small structural engineering firm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |