3d is helpful for design and sales purposes,
But is it REALLY neccessary for day to day construction?
What's next, a 3d rendering so the roofer knows where to cut the shingles?
Maybe the tile guy would like a 3d rendering too, of course all the rooms must fit his 12" tile. And the framer must have all sheets of plywood on the roof work out perfectly.
Oh, and the drywaller, so their is no waste and the architect doesn't have any rooms over the maximum 14ft. sheet of drywall. Cmon, its time for Insulating Concrete Formers to play with the big boys.

When people quit designing houses to "fit" ICF, then Insulating Concrete Forms will be mainstream. Treat the method as a special student persay, it will always be as such...

Kevin

Actually, there is a whole industry segment devoted to the idea that better front-end modelling is needed to increase customer satisfaction, build better buildings, and increase profits - I pulled this from 'lean construction' in Wikipedia:

Lean construction is defined by six goals of construction best practice, namely (Cain 2004):

• 1. Finished building will deliver maximum functionality, which includes delighted end users.
• 2. End Users will benefit from the lowest optimim cost of ownership.
• 3. Ineficiency and waste in the use of labour and materials will be eliminated.
• 4. Specialist suppliers will be involved in design from the outset to achieve integration and buildability.
• 5. Design and construction will be through a single point of contact for the most effective co-ordination and clarity of responsibility.
• 6. Current performance and improvement achievements will be established by measurement.

This might sound like overkill for a DIYer, but the the fact that a DIYer is discussing which software modeller is more functional and even owns/uses appropriate software for front end design-to-cutnumber functionality means that we have passed the turning point - architects, builders, and DIYers are realizing that integrated software design (not just drafting software) can help them avoid more future problems than previously realized.

I know that the whole issue of overly involved front-end design brings up new on-site coordination/hands-on construction issues, but if I start getting ceramic tile pallets pre-cut for every room with peel-and-stick backing I am going to have to adapt and deal with it...

Architect Jerry Laiserin claims in an interviewwith the webmag Ubiquity that' ... there's a lot of research that has been published both in the U.S. and the U.K. indicating that as much as 30% of the dollars that are spent on building construction are effectively wasted as a consequence of bad information management, missing information, erroneous information, duplicated information that may conflict internally, information that is available but is out of date, and so on.' http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/v6i18_laiserin.html

U.S. Dept Of Energy stats and my own personal experience tend to back up Laiserin's waste and headache claims. It comes out of my pocket in the end - I ain't laughin!

I can tell you that doing ad infinitum modeling of my house just saved me some headache in construction. I was working on the block layout to optimally locate windows to avoid small pieces of block, as in 2" filler pieces. In the process I laid out the web spacing along the entire wall and discovered a problem. I had sized the house to even 2' increments on the interior dimensions to minimize cutting of subfloor sheets. What I found was that on every wall but one I would have a mismatch of 2" in the web spacing when laying the block to the center from each corner. One wall the mismatch would be 1". This meant I would either have a bastard seam somewhere in the wall to keep all the webs lined up, or would have to hang sheet rock somewhere with the webs in a staggered line up the wall. I finally opted to take the time to redo my drawings to resize the house by 1" on one dimension,  and by 2" on a couple of other dimensions.

Overkill? Maybe, but I tell you, the piece of mind I've got about being able to lay the block from each corner to the center and not have to battle misaligned webs is well worth the effort. And like I told my wife one day, "It's a lot easier to make a change on paper than it will be after the concrete is poured." And it'll be a lot cheaper to have the truss design changed to accommodate a 2" wider wall spacing before they're built than after.

{whoops, already said it several times}

But dmaceld, when laying out the house to be ICF-friendly, you want to make the outside walls to 2' centers. (depending on the brand of block)

To everyone,

Being someone who uses 3D modeling on complex structures and someone who started building before there was a PC or MAC. Here is my take on it.

3D modeling is great in the office and planning stage and the ongoing management of a jobsite. It is helpful for people who don't have the gift of spacial relationship to see what the end product will look like. It works great to head off any big issues that may occur in the design phase ie. beams lining up, floor heights, lintel heights, ect. The problem that I have seen in the past is most people who rely on 3D modeling as the end all be all of efficiency have never or rarely stepped foot on a jobsite let alone picked up a tool to actually work.

In the field 3D modeling is useless for the worker bees. Many of them can't spell PC let alone understand the 3D modeling. Heck many of them can't even speak english. This is more previlant in the residential market than the commercial market. I for one do not want an automaton on my jobsite that doesn't plan ahead, look for potential problems, and who can't think on their feet. I for one have recieved many a set of plans from Engineers and Architects that are wrought with little issues that have to be solved on the fly in the field and this is due to their lack of field experience and their reliance on CAD and 3D modeing to be their Holy Grail. Nothing beats a great jobsite supervisor that can think on his feet, resolve issues, understand and talk to the Engineer or Architect to resolve such problems.

It is funny, I received from one of my Engineers, who loves RevIt and does 3D modeling of all his buildings, an estimate of concrete for a project that he had subtracted the rebar and taken into account the flutes in the block as well as the tapers of the taper top block. He was off by 10%. Luckily I had done my own calculations and ordered what I wanted and was only off by a wheelbarrow load. So thinking in the feild is vital and necessary.

ICF Contractor

a year ago we used amvic block on a foundation we designed it so there were no cuts but with the slightest variation in block this is more of a pain than using even demension ie. 30' x 60' we ended up 1/2'' short in approx. 60' and had to wedge shims between the blocks to grow the foundation
this has nothing to do with the quality of the block by the way we like amvic and will continue to use it
glenn

" received from one of my Engineers, who loves RevIt and does 3D modeling of all his buildings, an estimate of concrete for a project that he had subtracted the rebar and taken into account the flutes in the block as well as the tapers of the taper top block. He was off by 10%." Scary, but I'd be asking him some questions! Do you ask why he was 10% short? He obviously missed something as CAD programs are only as accurate as the person entering the parameters... He may love Revit but that doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes. The tool is only as good as the craftsman using it. Lack of construction experience/insight has nothing to do with CAD—you had the same issues when T-squares and drafting table where used. CAD/BIM tools are very powerful and can provide an insight into the building process that will only help good architects and builders build better... the bad ones, well they will always blame the tools or someone else.

McKinlay,

That is my point exactly. CAD/BIM, 3D modeling are just tools as well as the people who are building it. Part of my response addressed a post where the poster said that "No thinking allowed" on the jobsite. The poster has now removed his posts. My point is: tools are great, there are times and places for those tools, and the more familiar and competent your are with your tools the better your building will be. An Architect typically won't have a table saw in their office as well as the guy doing layout probably has no clue how to run CAD but the person in the middle who has experience with both is your successful contractor, lead person, or site manager. There is a ton of thinking that needs to happen on the computer as well as on the site.

In the great words of Voltaire, "Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."

ICF Contractor

PS. My engineer, who happens to be a great one, found his issue when I pointed out that some of the spaces in his model were voids being filled with concrete. Like you said a computer is only as good as its input and we all make mistakes. That's why there are multiple levels of checks, cross references, and balances.

I believe you are addressing me. Well, I have removed the picture because everyone's seen it, and I changed the two posts immediately above, as I was just saying the same things over again. Do you have a problem with this, icfcontractor? Why does this bother you? {Edit: I see you've modified your post now icfcontractor, removing the anger and fear of me, so my first paragraph here no longer makes sense. I guess I should fully quote you from now on}

When I say, 'no thinking allowed', it is an old expression we used in Air Force intelligence to mean when you prepare for a job well, on-site execution goes well. When I can take measurements directly from the model, I can be supervising men on-site, rather than having them standing around while you're doing figuring of the prints. Prints by their nature are minimalistic, and as you infer measurements and infer from the inferences, you greatly increase the chance for error. It happens all the time. But the computer keeps things square and measurements accurate.

Your engineer made a significant error in the model. 10% is Hella big for a model. Do you think the computer miscalculated? No. Your engineer made a major mistake. I offered this information here to help people, and obviously it has. You don't like it, don't read it.

As I've said twice before, those who can not do 3D modelling, should continue to do it their way, and I won't complain.

Quantum, no matter how much you model and plan things off the job there are always going to be abnormalities and unknown variables that are going to have to be addressed on the job site. Modeling is great to a certain point. I think the "cut-list" idea is interesting and feasible, but at the same time my spider instincts tell me that on site verification of my outside corner to corner dimensions on a regular basis is going to net the best plumb/square results.

I don't understand why you deleted your post. At least leave a picture up so other newer members can search the board and gain information. Diverse and rich information is what drives internet forums such as this.

btw real mature post...

Of course there will always be problems on-site, but the idea is to reduce the potential for errors and problems as much as possible. And sure the layout must be squared on-site, one way or another. Goes without saying.

I only removed the footer model picture in the Footer Thread. Everyone has seen it, and it costs me bandwidth everytime someone opens it. Besides, it seems some do not like the idea, so path of least resistance for me; when I get such resistance whenever offering advanced methods, why should I? Who needs the aggravation?

It is true that wishing for more complex design software does not instantly translate into simpler, easier, more cost-effective on-site building processes. I totally agree that one of the biggest headaches in day-to-day construction is a lack of qualified manual laborers – people who can use tools productively, safely, and with repetitive accuracy.

 

The use of ICFs allows us to short-circuit this problem by building a better product while using less-skilled workers. While all the benefits to the homeowner – strength, quietness, energy efficiency, etc – make the end product desirable, one of the main reasons we can competitively afford to use it instead of stick, cinder block, etc is relative simplicity and ease of use. A superior product is making up for inferior labor in the cost sheets.

 

However, we have to keep getting improving, or we will not remain competitive. There are all sorts of different ICF products, but they can only be tweaked so much. The skilled labor issue is getting worse, not better. I believe the solution lies in using better design systems with the same product.  ICFs are a perfect match: for the builder because they are modular, so more complicated design does not necessarily require better-skilled installers; and for the manufacturer, because with minimal retooling costs they can produce automated product based on a custom design.

 

On my last slab pour, I figured the concrete pretty tightly. The yardage came out just fine. What I did not figure on was the 20 degree temperature drop the day before the pour  – between the additives and the batch plant water-heating costs my $100/yd mud turned into $200/yd – for a 40 yard pour. That $4000 came right out of my pocket - I puckered up so hard I was constipated for 2 weeks straight.

But - ICF construction planning should not depend on my weather forecasting skills – they’re just big boy LEGOs! I should be able to hand an architect an overall design, and get back an exact LEGO layout, not an estimate – construction depends on finite numbers, not maybes. I should be able to e-mail that layout to a supplier, and have the ICFs shipped off the same exact listing, with any custom material manufactured by automated equipment that reads directly off of the layout software. I should not be getting concrete yardage estimates from an engineer – volume fill calculations of a complex finite shape (such as an ICF wall) are as simple for modern computers as adding 2+2. No, my guys don’t need 3-D visualizations, but  I should be able to print out 2-D sections right off my 3-D modeler, give them to any carpenter worth a crap, and not worry about them coming back and telling me the footer radius does not match block layout by 3 inches.

 

Every other manufacturing/sales industry is doing it, why aren’t we on the bandwagon instead of hanging off the tailgate? We need accountability from architects and engineers, not estimates; and we need design-build software, not computer artistry. This is not future technology; it is now old technology in many other fields. If we do not force the design/manufacturing side of our industry to catch up with the field side, then ICF builders are always going to be explaining to future owners why they should pay ‘just 2% more for all these benefits’, instead of being recognized as purveyors of ‘the accepted standard for building shell construction’.

After all, the original poster asked for something that lighting manufacturers like Lithonia did a long time ago – they paid the software development costs (which were pretty minimal) to create product-specific programs which worked either independently of, or as a integrated portion of, already proven CAD modelers. No more guessing, no more maybes, either the foot-candle level meets code, costing, has owner approval, and works, or – it doesn’t. The first ICF manufacturer to put out a user-friendly design-build program based on its own proprietary block system is going to see a big increase in market share in under a 5-year timeline.

  

If I get carried away here and go on for an unreasonably long post, it is because I have been swinging a hammer since I was 15, and my elbow hurts (try to feel pity here). I don’t want to turn 50 (looking like 60 now) and still be in the trenches with bags on (more pity here) in order to stay competitive – brains over brawn for me any day. I know that most of you are in or have been in the same boat. Realistically, if I ever attain the levels of practical knowledge and field experience that the posting members on this site display on a daily basis, I want to be able to use it managerially, and put on my bags when I want to do so - not because I can’t compete with other contractors who are building better, faster, safer and more profitably in the face of ever more complex and restrictive building codes, safety regulations, and a lack of hands who can read 1/16th's on their FatMax. I simply feel that better industry/product specific software, and even Lego-block modeling, is my ticket to continued success as the owner of my company – the alternative of working for some other yahoo tomorrow is not very promising, and I am trying to plan against it today.

 

 

Very well said - I totally agree.


Quantum - try imageshack.us for image hosting, its free! It will automatically resize full jpegs to a forum friendly level. - Pete

alaska, would that it be so. But fact is almost no architects have graduated to 3D yet, and there's a good reason for that: it is difficult. And until 3D is more widely recognized in general, simpler tools like you describe won't come. This isn't even considering the fact that we are a mole on a gnat's arse, compared with other industries. IOW I am not optimistic, so decided to get up off my knees and save myself.

And gee, I almost still remember when I was under 50... didn't ache when I get up... got wood more often... chicks weren't turned off by my belly. :( See what you have to look forward to?

pcoughlin, the screenie was almost 600k. Besides, I've already deleted it. If somebody saved it and wants to put it on {fillintheblank}, they can give me the link and I'll fix it. But this doesn't resolve the dissenters, who make some of us wonder why we try.