Clicky Web Analytics

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Architecture vs. Structure ... Who "Owns" the Grids

I am going to put it out there... some architects may cringe... some engineers may rejoice.

Where I work it seems to be an ongoing battle between who "owns" the columns grids.  Some of the architects want complete control throughout the entire project.  Some could care less.  Some engineers refuse to copy the architect's grids... Others work with them...  In the end, it always seem to end up with two sets of grids.  One independent grid owned by the architect and drawn inside the architecture model.  The other owned by the engineer and drawn inside the structural model.

Let's break this habit NOW!

I propose a solution.  We use a basic three phase workflow (SD, DD, CD).  During the SD and beginning of the DD phase the architect will draw the grids.  This will allow for design intent, some control of where columns would like to go, and the ability to adjust them at will.  Once the architect considers the grids to be sufficient the engineer will link in the model and re-draw the grids (that's right... re-draw... not copy/monitor).

I am proposing that once the structural model has its grids in place the architect's grids will be removed and structural's grids will be copy/monitored (***Edit*** No need to REMOVE the architects grids because you can simply set up a "monitor" relationship between them.  See here.).  That's right... I said it.  The architect should copy/monitor the structural model's grids into the architectural model.

Because the only things that will be locked to a grid in the architectural model will most likely be dimensions and column enclosures a change in the grid location will have less of an unwanted modeling impact than on the structural model.  Of course, because of the copy/monitor a notification will make the architect aware of the change and... well... he or she will have to COMMUNICATE with the engineer....

Am I really that crazy??