Do Engineers Have Digital Dreams?

So originally this was going to be called "Do Engineers Have Electric Dreams?" as a take on "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?" the novel by Phillip K.Dick upon which Blade Runner was based. By changing the title to Do Engineers Have Digital Dreams? it has more relevance to the construction industry as a whole.

Early wireframe 3D analysis model

When I first joined the industry, digital engineering was very basic. 2D drawings were the norm, companies were beginning to play with some 3D modelling software such as Rhino and 3D plus. Structural analysis was still conducted on a member by member basis with basic wire frames models being adopted and 2D Finite Element Analysis of concrete plates. The emphasis of the industry was to drive repetition to save time time on analysis and drawing. The mantra often being "if it's easy to design it's easy to build".








12 years on and I can say that thankfully with the digital tools available we can design complex structures in about half the time it took 10 years ago. What's more we can actually communicate this information to clients and contractors in multiple formats that allows for understanding of both the complexity and cost.  So why is it that many companies are not maximising or using the tools available to them? Why are the engineers not having digital dreams? I've thought about this over the past few years and have come to some conclusions.

To me, the most basic form of a Digital Tool-kit is a 3rd party plugin to Revit or Bentley Structure, normally produced by the structural analysis developer that allows the transfer of data between the software. Typically this transfers geometry and materials, and sometimes includes analytical information such as releases and loads. However very rarely do these plug-ins do what the developer says they do. From my experience anything other than a concrete flat slab with straight columns or similar in composite steel just won't transfer, often the "round trip" simply doesn't work

.

I have spent many a day with software suppliers telling them this is how the software needs to work and this is how we want to work. The problem to me is that a basic 3D model i.e. flat slab and column, is very easy to draw in a 3D modelling package and very easy to draw in an analysis package. So why mess around with sharing the information backwards and forwards when its likely not to work without a series of bespoke work-arounds? Importantly this wastes already limited time and fee.

Where is the incentive for a design practice to use even the most basic form of tool-kit if in the long run it costs more money to use? Firms get suckered by the big sell and as soon as you try and use the plug-ins they breakdown very quickly. Unfortunately most design firms are often on tight fees and this potential for waste in time and fee just can't happen.

So consider you are a director in a company and the first experience you have of the digital world of engineering is spending £1000 up front and £500 a year on maintenance  on a plug in which is no use whatsoever. You're probably going to call it all a waste of time and money and go back to how you did things previously.

If you want to know about music you are going to listen to BBC 6 music, if you want to be sold music you are going to listen to BBC Radio 1. This is true of software in the construction industry If you talk to the big software developers they are going to sell you software but if you talk to the digital engineers in the industry they are going to tell you about the tools available to develop your own processes and tool kits.

And here's the real hook, it shouldn't cost you any capital expenditure at all to develop your own toolkits. Most worthwhile toolkits are free! Yes free! and all you have to do is share and be active with the community. You will also have to free up some time for someone in your business to learn, play, and develop a series of process that suit your company and the way it works, but that is a controllable expenditure.

I can't sit here and write a catch all solution for you, each company is different with different design ethos, software and needs, but I can write about my experience and it is as follows.

When I was at AECOM we originally decided that we wanted to use Rhino with the plug-in Grasshopper to hold all the geometry for the structures we were designing, we would then pass this through into our analysis package, originally by excel but later the team developed an XML plug in called Panda (See Ricky's post Enter The Panda). The files were then passed through to Revit by a link which was an enhanced beta version of the standard plug in which we developed with the software company. This worked really well until the designs became too complicated with bespoke nodal connects and free formed surfaces.

Drawing complex geometry before Dynamo

We identified that our weak link was the transfer of geometry into Revit (Revit is notoriously  difficult to draw complex geometry in) so we looked to other means. Dynamo was the obvious choice, in layman's terms Dynamo is to Revit what Grasshopper is to Rhino. Although a number of years behind in development we could programme Dynamo to directly translate our grasshopper geometry into Revit. We could also link our analysis results from SCIA engineer back into Grasshopper so we could also export all the structural information relating to the design back into Revit via Grasshopper and Dynamo. So if you can create a parameter for it in Revit then you could transfer the data, from releases to reactions, connection forces to deformations at specified points it could all come through.

Throughout all this development we hit a number of stumbling blocks, but the key was this, we had the basic tools to get around the problems. Often all we needed was to apply the tools in a different way or ask the Grasshopper or Dynamo community if someone had a work around or a component that would solve the issue.

So what does this all cost, well on the assumption you have a copy of Revit and or Rhino, then Dynamo and Grasshopper are both free to download. There are numerous websites with tutorials and YouTube videos. So really the only outlay is an investment in time, and an investment into understanding what digital engineering can give you.

So  engineers can dream of a digital world....it's here waiting for you.

Pandametrics (The Zen Art of Parametrics) – Episode I

Defining Pandametrics:

Parametric design – defining a series of design processes by a set of adjustable parameters

Zen – enlightenment through meditation, self contemplation and intuition

Not a panda...but pretty Zen

In structural engineering when we talk about parametrics we are traditionally talking about our modelling and design workflows, where the input parameters are a series of geometric definitions such as intersecting circles, variable frame settings, definable surface forms etc.

However, we often meet many definitions of parametric throughout the construction industry, just as we meet many definitions of BIM (an argument for another day)!

The zen art of parametrics, or Pandametrics as we like to call it (in true naming workflows and software after animals fashion), is using our experience and intuition to pick the right parameters for the most holistically efficient design workflow. 

A brief aside,  As I'm writing this at this years Autodesk University 2015 I'll take this opportunity to point out that architects and engineers who have been using parametric design, you're the choir and this is piece is going to come across as me preaching what you already know, although hopefully with a few talking points or bits you've not considered. Primarily this is written from the point of view of talking to those who haven't used parametric design but are considering making the plunge. Anyway, I digress, back to the content...

Why Panda? –  Some Chinese philosophers believe that the black and white of the Panda represents the opposing forces of Yin and Yang and in the time honoured tradition of using animal names for workflows and plugins we have focused on the Panda. Is there an animal more zen that representing the balanced peace and harmony of parametric design? 

Zen Panda

Let's expand that…

When I am asked to create a parametric model my first task is to work out what the key adjustable inputs are that can optimise our solution and most importantly what constitutes ‘optimised’.

We should talk about what we mean by optimised as it forms the foundation of the parametric process. In my experience, optimised in terms of building structures could be any number of things, for example:

• A found form which produces pure structures such as a pure tension structure, or a pure arch.

• a form which is confined by specific criteria such as avoiding ponding, or minimum curvature. 

• a structure which can be mapped to a specific aesthetic but adjusted for material performance.

• workflows which improve interoperability speeds to allow rapid prototyping and analysis. 

• a structure which is optimised for alternative key performance indicators such as cost, or additive material tonnage, or reductive material tonnage, or aesthetic, or energy performance, or user comfort…..the list goes on ad infinitum.

Benefits of Parametric Design

The largest benefit of producing a parametric model should come from an understanding of

1. the specific outcome you are looking to achieve; and
2. which small group of inputs with best help you achieve this.

One thing I can say for certain is that creating a parametric design process without fully understanding both of these will end in something too unwieldy to be practical or so inflexible it finds itself on the scrap heap the second your input requirements change. 

The basic benefit of all parametric design (sweeping statement coming) should be to make your design processes more efficient and anything that has to be binned off at the first hurdle because it's too inflexible fails even this simple test.

And I’m gonna stop right there… right before launching into the do’s and don’ts of parametric modelling, mainly because this blog is getting a bit on the long side, but also because it means when we return for the thrilling conclusion there will also be a hint of the workflows we’ve developed and a lead in to the free bit of software for download that Ricky has been pioneering….watch this space