PDA

View Full Version : MEP the final frontier



Alex Cunningham
March 27th, 2013, 05:10 PM
Well here I am now building families for MEP engineers. My first problem I've been faced with is nesting electrical connectors. I am building what I've been told is a MCC (still very clueless on what is does) I relate it to a server rack. I have built the parent family that consists of the cabinet and have a dozen nested 'cubicles'. However the engineers are telling me that they are unable to connect to any of the connectors I have placed in the nested cubicles. What am I missing here.

Thanks.

ThatBIMGuy
March 27th, 2013, 05:16 PM
Even though you have connectors in the nested families, Im pretty sure you need connectors in the host family. We ran into this problem when taking a MFG faucet or flush valve and inserting them into the water closet or lavatory family. Needed to add the connectors to that family as well.

Steve_Stafford
March 27th, 2013, 05:18 PM
Connectors only work in the host (family that is loaded into the project), not nested components. Ongoing feature or limitation...I imagine it is harder than it might seem to resolve what Revit should or should not do when connector is hidden or in a nested component. It's much like we can't connect to family's connectors in linked files either.

Alex Cunningham
March 27th, 2013, 05:19 PM
Awe GOD damnit!!!

ThatBIMGuy
March 27th, 2013, 05:20 PM
Awe GOD damnit!!!

TAKE A DEEP BREATH! Its not the end of the world. :laugh:

Alex Cunningham
March 27th, 2013, 05:31 PM
TAKE A DEEP BREATH! Its not the end of the world. :laugh:

Back to the drawing board. This family complexity just multiplied by a very large number. :(

Twiceroadsfool
March 27th, 2013, 05:32 PM
With MEP families you just have to go simpler and less nested, and have them place more families. Like our toilets have Shared and Nested parameterized (swappable) flush valves, because thats how real toilets are. But they wont work with MEP because of the connector issue. So in those cases where we need them i just have people place the toilet and the FV seperately. It sucks.

Steve_Stafford
March 27th, 2013, 05:44 PM
If the MEP team uses "rough-in" families (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/03/revit-mep-family-connector-arrow.html) instead then you can build all the variables into the arch content and they just place their rough-in family "over the arch version". It's a technique that is described in the Mastering Autodesk Revit MEP book too. The rough-in happens before the fixtures anyway so it's consistent with construction and if the plumbing fixtures shift a little there are no "pipe can't be created, must delete" nightmares. Well the nightmares are a bit more manageable perhaps, not eliminated.

ThatBIMGuy
March 27th, 2013, 08:15 PM
If the MEP team uses "rough-in" families (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/03/revit-mep-family-connector-arrow.html) instead then you can build all the variables into the arch content and they just place their rough-in family "over the arch version". It's a technique that is described in the Mastering Autodesk Revit MEP book too. The rough-in happens before the fixtures anyway so it's consistent with construction and if the plumbing fixtures shift a little there are no "pipe can't be created, must delete" nightmares. Well the nightmares are a bit more manageable perhaps, not eliminated.

I have never looked at this book, but a couple of people in my office have the 2012 MEP version. I looked at the book and didnt see where it mentions or talks about the "rough-in" families.

Steve_Stafford
March 27th, 2013, 09:46 PM
It is in the 2014 book chapter 15 (just finished the Technical Editing for the book) so I believe it is in the same chapter for 2013 book. It may not be in the 2012 book. I don't think the technique is referred to as "rough-in", that's "my" term. The author that wrote the chapter may not have been part of the 2012 team, don't recall.

ThatBIMGuy
March 27th, 2013, 10:24 PM
It is in the 2014 book chapter 15 (just finished the Technical Editing for the book) so I believe it is in the same chapter for 2013 book. It may not be in the 2012 book. I don't think the technique is referred to as "rough-in", that's "my" term. The author that wrote the chapter may not have been part of the 2012 team, don't recall.

Well damn, that doesnt do me any good! :banghead::mad:

Steve_Stafford
March 27th, 2013, 10:40 PM
Well here's a couple sample rough-in families for reverse engineering, they are what you see in the blog post (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/03/revit-mep-family-connector-arrow.html) I provided the link to in the earlier reply.

ThatBIMGuy
March 28th, 2013, 01:29 PM
Well here's a couple sample rough-in families for reverse engineering, they are what you see in the blog post (http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2008/03/revit-mep-family-connector-arrow.html) I provided the link to in the earlier reply.

Thanks Steve.

Alex Cunningham
March 28th, 2013, 03:29 PM
What am I doing wrong. Please comment.

Steve_Stafford
March 28th, 2013, 03:55 PM
What is it supposed to be, do etc? You have "controls" connectors but the family is assigned to equipment switch. Is it high voltage, low voltage?

ThatBIMGuy
March 28th, 2013, 04:06 PM
What am I doing wrong. Please comment.

What are you trying to accomplish? I see all the connectors. They are classified as "Controls". Is that correct? If the section of the extrusion is not visible, the connector wont be "visible" but you can still connect to it. I would give each of those connectors a description and tie it to a parameter as well.

If its a power connection, I would also map the items listed, like # of poles, voltage, classification, etc.

Alex Cunningham
March 28th, 2013, 05:08 PM
This is my first MEP family so I am stumbling around a lot I know. This is what the final product will be.
http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Motor%20Control/Low%20Voltage%20Motor%20Control%20Centers/8998CT9701.pdf

Andrew K
March 28th, 2013, 05:34 PM
This is my first MEP family so I am stumbling around a lot I know.

It doesn't help that your first MEP family is something that complex. I'd like to help but I don't have 2013 installed.

Steve_Stafford
March 28th, 2013, 05:55 PM
All electrical (actually all services) relationships in Revit are child to parent or "up the family tree". In this case you'll want to be able to associate other equipment (children) with this MCC (a parent in this relationship) and to associate the MCC (a child in this relationship) with some source of power, another panel (the MCC's parent). In order to connect the MCC to its parent it needs a connector that uses the correct power designation, either balanced or un-balanced...most likely un-balanced but check with your engineer(s). This means that the MCC probably only needs one connector. Unless the way the engineers see this is as several loads on another panel in which case you need as many power connectors as the MCC needs to connect to its parent source of power.

The MCC serves as the parent to individual motors in the model and if you expect to generate a list of motors in a panel schedule you will need to make sure the panel type is set correctly so a panel report template can be created.

Is this making some sense so far?

Alex Cunningham
March 28th, 2013, 10:02 PM
About as clear as mud. Will probly make more sence to me after i re-read it tomorrow morning and have more time to work on the family. :)

Thanks Steve.

Alex Cunningham
March 28th, 2013, 10:19 PM
All electrical (actually all services) relationships in Revit are child to parent or "up the family tree". In this case you'll want to be able to associate other equipment (children) with this MCC (a parent in this relationship) and to associate the MCC (a child in this relationship) with some source of power, another panel (the MCC's parent). In order to connect the MCC to its parent it needs a connector that uses the correct power designation, either balanced or un-balanced...most likely un-balanced but check with your engineer(s). This means that the MCC probably only needs one connector. Unless the way the engineers see this is as several loads on another panel in which case you need as many power connectors as the MCC needs to connect to its parent source of power.

The MCC serves as the parent to individual motors in the model and if you expect to generate a list of motors in a panel schedule you will need to make sure the panel type is set correctly so a panel report template can be created.

Is this making some sense so far?

I think I may be in love with you. :o

I just took some time to re-read it and yes it make a lot of sence.

Steve_Stafford
March 28th, 2013, 10:45 PM
um, I may need to report that message... glad it helped.

Alex Cunningham
March 28th, 2013, 10:50 PM
um, I may need to report that message... glad it helped.

Report it and I will take care it it for you. :) I think I have the family functioning for them. Gotta just put the finishing touches next.

ThatBIMGuy
March 28th, 2013, 11:44 PM
About as clear as mud. Will probly make more sence to me after i re-read it tomorrow morning and have more time to work on the family. :)

Thanks Steve.

So youre telling me you cannot see through mud? :rolleyes:

Alex Cunningham
March 29th, 2013, 02:53 PM
So youre telling me you cannot see through mud? :rolleyes:

I have special mud vision goggles.

skoko
April 9th, 2013, 08:34 PM
So I'm going to throw another wrench at you. Have you decided how you are going to show all the connected loads to the MCC? MCC (motor control centre) takes in a bunch of electrical connections (like a breaker panel) and displays a schedule. Have you been able to create a schedule?

skoko
April 9th, 2013, 08:38 PM
I was trying to take an existing breaker panel and convert it to MCC schedule. Have you been successful with this?