3D coordination is right where sprinkler design software was 12-15 years ago - an emerging technology. As a consultant firm that does a lot of work with architectural clients, we are being asked more and more to draw in 3D or have 3D capability; its use so far has been primarily as a coordination tool by the construction teams working off of our design teams' documents. As such, we still haven't made a binding commitment to Revit or any other particular program, and Navis remains the coordination platform of choice because you can easily load conventional 2D CAD files and make it spin.
Speaking just for myself and based on our experiences to date, I would characterize 3D as purely a garbage-in-garbage-out exercise. We have a large and very complicated hospital project in construction now, a 3-floor tenant improvement for which the scope of sprinkler work is to add drops to existing shell branch piping installed about 4 years ago. The work was "coordinated" in 3D by a "3D consultant". Which means two skateboarders with Cheetos stains on their fingers in this case. They identified countless "conflicts" that weren't and missed several others that were, leading to dozens of hours of paperwork for both design and construction team members to sort out RFI's, sketches and field conditions. It was, in a word, a FIASCO. We have another much smaller project, also going into construction, where we and the other trades have managed to thread the needle in several exceptionally tight situations and it has gone smoothly. Not surprisingly, this work was managed by one of the subs, and not by an outside "consultant" (insert self-deprecating joke HERE). It is unquestionably the platform of the future and when used by a knowledgeable technician can be a powerful tool. But there's a honeymoon period that we need to move on from, in which certain opportunistic engineers and CAD technicians are representing their services as something more - sometimes much more - than they can actually deliver. Steve Leyton Protection Design & Consulting San Diego, CA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GAYLE KNOWLES Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:57 AM To: sprinklerforum Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles that's right, what Ron said. And besides the fact, we all know where the design problems are in all the different constructions and occupancies when we prepare our bids. The 3D is great if everyone sits done at the table during the construction meetings and signs off on coordination drawings showing elevations etc. Doesn't do much good in bidding, when the electrician decides to run his cable trays wherever he wants after the fact. If your bid is that tight, counting on the electrician to run his trays "as shown conceptually", you are out of luck.> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:13:32 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject: RE: White papers and definition of roles> > Right on George. With all the special systems I would expect more than> $2k difference in the specialty equipment quotes and the prices should> be closer if you take away the opportunity for innovation of design by> the bidders.> > Our prices are higher on jobs requiring 3D or BIM. We find there is very> little coordination and more "here is where we are so now you> (sprinkler) can go around us. It's like a 3D retrofit. The only thing> that changes is we spend more design time to come up with the same> product. Besides we FP contractors have been doing 3D since the> beginning of time, it's just that the presentation has been 2D. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3603 (20081111) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
