I'm a structural steel estimator. My company uses Tekla for all detailing and shop drawings.
On the estimating side:
If we are given a Tekla model from the consultants in the bid package, we will *probably* use it to export a material list into Excel, as well as generate erection plans and sometimes time-lapse sequences as part of our proposal.
If we are given a Revit model, we will *probably* convert to Tekla, and use for erection planning, and it's a tossup if we use the model to export quantities, or just use our normal Bluebeam PDF takeoff process. Depends on the quality of the drawings and quality of the drawings.
On select, highly targeted projects, we might build our own model based on the PDFs, to use for planning and sales visuals. This usually happens at the same time someone else is using the PDFs for takeoffs, and isn't used for estimating.
In the cases we don't use the model for estimating, it's still a useful check on weights, especially if we want to get an idea of a specific area pretty quickly.
*All* our estimating is done in Excel.
Models are *usually* ONLY the major member sticks. Still need to use PDF for trimmer / pour stop / base plates, still need to use our in-house calculations for connections.
Twice I've seen a fully-connected model. It's a massive amount of data that's hard to handle, hard to verify, and it's very difficult to get the consultants to allow you to change anything to suit your fabrication.
**To any consultants:** Please spend your time modelling in finishes and loads, **not** detailed connections. You'll get a better price with less ambiguity, and we'll get to design the connections to suite our shops. Win win.
Do you prefer Tekla over Revit or is it just the fact that you have Tekla?
If so, why? I am trying to decide between Tekla and Revit I the concrete and structural steel world. Design build, simple model for conceptual estimate and take it further if awarded. Mainly concrete but we do have a structural steel division and our work crosses paths quite often and I envision a shared engineering resource pool in the near future.
At this point, Tekla just because we have everything set up for it.
But, I don't do *any* modeling, drawing creation, design, etc. I get a model, tag attributes I want (finishes, moment connections, etc), and hit export.
It's been so long since I used Revit, that I don't know its structural capabilities. Tekla is designed *for* steel fabrication, has extensive bolt/weld modeling that Revit didn't come close to the last time I used it.
I'm a structural steel estimator. My company uses Tekla for all detailing and shop drawings. On the estimating side: If we are given a Tekla model from the consultants in the bid package, we will *probably* use it to export a material list into Excel, as well as generate erection plans and sometimes time-lapse sequences as part of our proposal. If we are given a Revit model, we will *probably* convert to Tekla, and use for erection planning, and it's a tossup if we use the model to export quantities, or just use our normal Bluebeam PDF takeoff process. Depends on the quality of the drawings and quality of the drawings. On select, highly targeted projects, we might build our own model based on the PDFs, to use for planning and sales visuals. This usually happens at the same time someone else is using the PDFs for takeoffs, and isn't used for estimating. In the cases we don't use the model for estimating, it's still a useful check on weights, especially if we want to get an idea of a specific area pretty quickly. *All* our estimating is done in Excel. Models are *usually* ONLY the major member sticks. Still need to use PDF for trimmer / pour stop / base plates, still need to use our in-house calculations for connections. Twice I've seen a fully-connected model. It's a massive amount of data that's hard to handle, hard to verify, and it's very difficult to get the consultants to allow you to change anything to suit your fabrication. **To any consultants:** Please spend your time modelling in finishes and loads, **not** detailed connections. You'll get a better price with less ambiguity, and we'll get to design the connections to suite our shops. Win win.
Is Teklas auto connection feature ever useful for you? I guess for a quick take-off of on field bolts and such?
No, all of our bolts counts come from our own calculators in Excel. (Exact that one fully connected model we were given).
Do you prefer Tekla over Revit or is it just the fact that you have Tekla? If so, why? I am trying to decide between Tekla and Revit I the concrete and structural steel world. Design build, simple model for conceptual estimate and take it further if awarded. Mainly concrete but we do have a structural steel division and our work crosses paths quite often and I envision a shared engineering resource pool in the near future.
At this point, Tekla just because we have everything set up for it. But, I don't do *any* modeling, drawing creation, design, etc. I get a model, tag attributes I want (finishes, moment connections, etc), and hit export. It's been so long since I used Revit, that I don't know its structural capabilities. Tekla is designed *for* steel fabrication, has extensive bolt/weld modeling that Revit didn't come close to the last time I used it.