Structural / Architectural Coordination
Structural / Architectural Coordination aligns the architect’s Revit model with the structural engineer’s Revit or Tekla model — column locations, slab edges, beam offsets, and bearing-wall locations — across two firms. It reads federated architectural and structural models, surfaces discrepancies element-by-element, and outputs an owner-assigned action report. Available now as a Labs engagement under MSA + Appendix.
- Element-by-element diff between architectural and structural models, with explicit IDs and grid references for each pair.
- Discrepancies classified by responsible party (architect or structural engineer), following your coordination ruleset.
- Re-runs on either model’s revision diff against the prior alignment so only changed elements flag for review.
From clash-by-meeting to align-by-agent.
Workflow today
-
01
Architect issues model; structural engineer issues model
Week 0. The architect exports a Revit model; the structural engineer issues a Revit or Tekla model. Each firm follows its own worksharing, levels, and grid conventions. The BIM coordinator pulls both into Navisworks or Revit for initial checks, but structural architectural coordination still depends on manual comparison of column lines, slab edges, and bearing walls.
Week 0 -
02
BIM Coordinator runs Navisworks
Week 1. The coordinator federates architectural and structural models in Navisworks, runs clash detection, and exports a 3,000-line clash report. The report mixes true structural architecture clashes with secondary issues like furniture, ceilings, and MEP penetrations. Sorting which clashes relate to column offsets or slab misalignments versus generic geometry takes hours per sprint.
Week 1 -
03
Coordination meetings triage
Week 1–3. Weekly coordination meetings walk through clash screenshots and section cuts. Architects and structural engineers debate whether a misaligned column belongs to a late grid change or a missed update. Senior staff spend 2–3 hours per session on structural architectural coordination decisions that could have been pre-triaged. Many teams also run separate MEP clash review sessions, further fragmenting attention.
Week 1–3 -
04
Resolutions captured in PDF / Excel
Week 3+. The coordinator tracks decisions in Excel, PDF markups, or Navisworks viewpoints. Action items and owners are assigned by meeting consensus, often without a clear record of which Revit element IDs or Tekla members were affected. When the architect reissues via Revit, and the engineer updates their model, the team repeats the process because there is no automated diff against the prior alignment.
Week 3+
Workflow with VitruAI
-
01
Run the agent on the federated model
Day 1, ~1 hour. You run the structural / architectural coordination agent on the same federated model used for Navisworks clash detection. It reads the architect’s Revit model and the structural engineer’s Revit or Tekla model, pairs columns, beams, slabs, and bearing walls by grid and level, and builds a structured element map distinct from generic clash results.
Day 1, ~1 hour -
02
Agent surfaces structured discrepancies
Day 1. The agent outputs a discrepancy table: architect’s column at gridline B5 vs structural column at gridline B5, with measured X/Y/Z offsets, level differences, and rotation deltas. Each row includes proposed ownership based on your coordination protocol and flags for items that conflict with structural sizing in preliminary design. This sits alongside outputs from the Clash Review Agent for a complete picture.
Day 1 -
03
Coordination meeting reviews flagged decisions
Day 1–2. Coordination meetings shrink to a 30–45 minute pass over the discrepancy report. The team focuses on ambiguous ownership, unusual offsets, or intentional architectural moves that override structural grids. Clear cases auto-assign to architect or structural engineer, while edge conditions such as sloping slabs or transfer beams are escalated for joint review. Notes remain tied to specific Revit or Tekla elements for audit.
Day 1–2 -
04
Re-runs on revisions
Ongoing. When either firm issues a new Revit or Tekla model, you re-run the agent. It diffs the new alignment against the prior baseline and only flags changed or newly misaligned elements. This keeps structural architectural coordination current without re-reading a 3,000-line clash report and avoids re-litigating resolved decisions on columns, slab edges, and bearing-wall locations.
Ongoing
Structural / Architectural Coordination — FAQ
-
Does this replace Navisworks federation?
No. Navisworks still handles model federation and generic clash detection across architecture, structure, and MEP. The VitruAI workflow sits alongside that, focusing on structural-vs-architectural element pairing and discrepancy triage for columns, slabs, beams, and bearing walls. Many teams keep their existing Navisworks integration and add this agent for targeted structural architectural coordination.
-
Does it work with Tekla on the structural side?
Yes. The workflow reads Tekla models alongside Revit models from the architect. Tekla model parsing and element-mapping rules are calibrated per Labs engagement so gridlines, levels, and member types match your firm’s conventions. Mixed Revit–Tekla projects benefit most, because they often suffer the worst manual alignment overhead.
-
How are owner assignments decided?
Owner assignments follow your firm’s coordination protocol, configured during the Labs engagement. A common default is that the architect owns layout decisions such as grid shifts or wall locations, while the structural engineer owns member sizing and connection details. Edge cases, like architectural transfers or complex cores, are flagged for joint review so the coordination lead can make a documented call.
-
How is this different from MEP clash review?
MEP clash review focuses on ductwork, piping, and equipment intersecting with structure or architecture, often managed as a separate workflow like the MEP clash review use case. Structural / architectural coordination instead targets alignment between grids, columns, slabs, and bearing walls across the two discipline models. Many firms run both workflows in parallel to keep structure aligned before detailed MEP routing begins.
-
When does this ship as a productised release?
This workflow sits on the roadmap and is available now as a Labs engagement under MSA + Appendix. Early adopters co-design the element-pairing rules, ownership heuristics, and reporting format with the VitruAI team. Productised packaging and wider availability follow after the Labs cohort stabilises the patterns across multiple project types.