Revit vs Tekla for Precast Design: A Comprehensive Comparison

The choice between Autodesk Revit and Tekla Structures is one of the most consequential technology decisions a precast concrete producer or engineering firm will make. Both platforms are capable of producing high-quality precast models, but they approach the problem from fundamentally different philosophical positions. This article provides an objective, technically grounded comparison of both platforms across the dimensions that matter most for precast concrete workflows: modeling approach, reinforcement handling, shop drawing generation, IFC interoperability, learning curve, cost, and industry adoption.

Modeling Philosophy: Parametric Families vs Custom Components

Revit: The Parametric Family Approach

Revit models precast elements through parametric families, which are reusable, parameter-driven component definitions. A single Revit family for a double tee, for example, can accommodate variations in width (8-foot, 10-foot, 12-foot), depth (24-inch, 28-inch, 34-inch), and length by adjusting parameters rather than creating new geometry. This parametric approach is powerful for projects with many similar elements, as a small library of well-constructed families can represent hundreds of piece variations.

However, building parametric precast families in Revit requires deep knowledge of the Family Editor, which has a steep learning curve for complex precast shapes. Creating a family for a spandrel panel with variable window openings, chamfered edges, reveal patterns, and haunched bearing seats can take an experienced family author 20 to 40 hours. Once built, the family is highly reusable, but the initial investment is substantial. Many precast producers maintain libraries of 50 to 200 parametric families that have been refined over years of use.

Tekla: The Custom Component Approach

Tekla Structures approaches precast modeling through a combination of native concrete modeling tools and custom components. Tekla's modeling environment is more granular than Revit's, giving engineers direct control over concrete geometry through operations like Boolean cuts, chamfers, and surface treatments applied to basic shapes. For many precast producers, this direct modeling approach feels more natural than Revit's family-based abstraction.

Tekla's custom components serve a similar role to Revit families but with different mechanics. A custom component encapsulates a parametric definition that can include concrete geometry, reinforcement, embeds, and connection hardware. Tekla custom components are generally faster to create than Revit families for complex structural elements because Tekla's modeling kernel is purpose-built for structural steel and concrete detailing. The trade-off is that Tekla custom components are less flexible for architectural elements and may not represent non-structural features (reveal patterns, thin-section profiles) as naturally as Revit families.

Reinforcement Modeling and Detailing

Reinforcement handling is often the deciding factor for precast producers choosing between the two platforms. The quality and efficiency of reinforcement modeling directly affects shop drawing quality, rebar scheduling accuracy, and production floor clarity.

For most precast-specific workflows, Tekla's reinforcement toolset is more mature and purpose-built. The ability to model prestressing strands natively, including harped and depressed strand patterns with precise depression point control, is a significant advantage for producers fabricating prestressed elements such as double tees, hollow-core slabs, and bridge beams. Revit can achieve similar results with extensions and careful family construction, but the out-of-the-box experience for prestressed concrete is less developed.

Shop Drawing Generation

The ability to produce production-quality shop drawings directly from the 3D model is a core requirement for precast producers. Both platforms offer drawing generation capabilities, but they differ in approach and flexibility.

Revit Drawings

Revit generates drawings through its sheet and view system. For precast shop drawings, engineers create plan, elevation, and section views of individual elements, annotate them with dimensions and tags, and place them on sheets. Revit's drawing annotation tools are well-suited for architectural documentation but require significant customization for precast shop drawing standards. Tag families, dimension styles, section markers, and title blocks all need to be configured to match precast industry conventions.

The main challenge with Revit's drawing system for precast is automation. Creating views, placing them on sheets, adding dimensions, and configuring visibility settings for each of the hundreds of unique pieces in a project is labor-intensive. While Dynamo scripting and the Revit API can automate many of these steps, setting up the automation requires programming expertise that many precast engineering departments do not have in-house. This is exactly the gap that DesignLogic fills by providing pre-built automation templates for common precast drawing types.

Tekla Drawings

Tekla's drawing system is designed for structural and fabrication documentation. It includes a dedicated drawing type for individual parts (General Arrangement and Single Part drawings) with automatic view generation, dimensioning rules, and annotation placement. Tekla's drawing automation is more advanced out of the box for structural elements. The software can automatically create a shop drawing for every precast element in the model with predefined view configurations, dimension styles, and rebar callout formats.

Tekla's drawing templates are configured through its template editor, which uses a dedicated template language for formatting bills of materials, rebar schedules, and piece data tables. This template system is powerful but has its own learning curve. Once configured, though, Tekla can generate hundreds of shop drawings in minutes, compared to the hours or days required in a manual Revit workflow.

Platform          | Manual Setup | Automated (with plugin)
------------------+--------------+------------------------
Revit (no plugin) | 160-240 hrs  | N/A
Revit + DL Plugin | 20-30 hrs    | 8-12 hrs (config + gen)
Tekla (native)    | 60-80 hrs    | 15-25 hrs (template setup)
Tekla + DL Plugin | 10-15 hrs    | 4-8 hrs (config + gen)

Notes:
- "Manual" = creating views, sheets, dimensions manually
- "Automated" = template-based generation with auto-dimensions
- First project with new templates takes longer; subsequent
  projects reuse templates and run significantly faster

IFC and Interoperability

Both Revit and Tekla support IFC export and import, but the quality and completeness of the IFC output differs. Revit's native IFC exporter has improved substantially in recent versions, but it still tends to produce generic structural element classifications that lose precast-specific information. Tekla's IFC exporter, developed in close collaboration with buildingSMART, generally produces richer IFC output for structural concrete elements, with better preservation of reinforcement data and connection details.

However, the quality of IFC export from either platform depends heavily on how the model was built. A well-structured Revit model with properly configured shared parameters can produce excellent IFC output, while a poorly structured Tekla model can produce IFC files that lose critical data. DesignLogic's IFC export module addresses this variability by applying standardized precast property mappings regardless of how the native model is organized, ensuring consistent IFC quality from both platforms.

Learning Curve and Team Skills

The learning curve for each platform varies depending on the team's existing experience and the depth of precast functionality required.

Revit has a larger overall user base because it serves architectural, structural, and MEP disciplines. Finding someone who can model a building in Revit is relatively easy. Finding someone who can build production-quality parametric precast families in Revit is much harder. Tekla's user base is smaller but more concentrated in structural steel and concrete detailing, meaning that Tekla users tend to have deeper experience with the specific workflows precast producers need.

Cost Considerations

Licensing costs are an important factor, though they should be evaluated in the context of total cost of ownership, including training, support, and productivity differences.

On paper, Revit appears less expensive. However, the total cost analysis must account for the extensions and add-ins that many precast producers require to make Revit production-ready. Strand modeling tools, rebar schedule generators, and shop drawing automation plugins can add $2,000 to $5,000 per seat annually. When these are factored in, the total cost difference between the platforms narrows considerably.

Industry Adoption Patterns

The precast industry's adoption of Revit and Tekla varies by region and company type. In North America, the split is roughly as follows:

• Large architectural precast producers (wall panels, cladding, facades) tend to favor Revit because their primary clients (architects and general contractors) work in Revit and expect Revit-native deliverables.
• Structural precast producers (double tees, beams, columns, hollowcore) more frequently use Tekla because of its superior reinforcement and connection detailing capabilities.
• Full-service precast producers (both architectural and structural) often maintain both platforms, using Revit for architectural panel design and Tekla for structural element detailing.
• European and Asian precast producers show stronger Tekla adoption, partly due to Tekla's historical roots in Nordic countries and its strong presence in structural engineering markets outside North America.

How DesignLogic Supports Both Platforms

DesignLogic is designed to provide equivalent functionality on both Revit and Tekla. The plugin's architecture abstracts the platform-specific model access layer, presenting a unified interface for piece data extraction, shop drawing generation, rebar scheduling, and ERP synchronization regardless of the underlying design tool. This means that precast producers who use both platforms, or who are considering switching from one to the other, can maintain a consistent production data pipeline.

The DesignLogic plugins address the specific weaknesses of each platform. On Revit, the plugin provides enhanced strand modeling capabilities, automated shop drawing generation with precast-specific templates, and rebar schedule extraction that accounts for Revit's reinforcement hosting model. On Tekla, the plugin adds bidirectional ERP synchronization, parametric drawing template management, and IFC export optimization with precast-specific property mapping.

Making the Decision: A Framework

Rather than declaring a winner, we suggest evaluating both platforms against your specific requirements using this decision framework:

Conclusion

Both Revit and Tekla are capable platforms for precast concrete design and detailing. Tekla holds an edge in structural detailing depth, reinforcement modeling, and shop drawing automation for production-focused workflows. Revit excels in multi-discipline coordination, architectural integration, and ecosystem breadth. The best choice depends on your product mix, client expectations, team capabilities, and existing technology investments.

Regardless of which platform you choose, DesignLogic ensures that the path from design model to production data is automated, validated, and consistent. The real competitive advantage comes not from the modeling platform itself, but from how effectively you can extract production data from it and deliver that data to the manufacturing floor. That is the problem DesignLogic was built to solve.