Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: MEP modeling strategy

  1. #1
    New Member ari.monteiro's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 7, 2015
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3
    Current Local Time
    04:02 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Question MEP modeling strategy

    Hi,


    I’d like know what is Autodesk's recommendation for the development of projects in Revit MEP on the following aspect:

    What’s the best modeling strategy for reusing the facilities from one floor for the others?

    In Revit Architecture is common to use "Groups" to address this problem. But in Revit MEP this same approach incurs the following problems:


    Some components such as conduits, cable trays and pipes are not added in the same group as the rest of the components. The Revit displays an error window with the button "FIX GROUPS" when it try to create a group from all floor facilities;
    Revit disconnects components of the host faces (walls/ceilings/floors) when the group is copied to the other floors.
    Talking to some colleagues since 2011 all state face the same problems. They decided to model each individual floor and avoid the use of groups in order to avoid these problems.

    Well the obvious problem with this approach is: a lot of rework when the basis used to design the facilities is updated. All my colleagues report that in this scenario they have to redo the almost whole modeling.
    I believe that this issue may be related to the design facility families. I researched on the Autodesk forums something about this issue and I found many posts that talk about what kind of families use (hosted or non-hosted) to create a MEP BIM model.

    Some say that using non-hosted families is advisable to avoid disconnection problems components. On the other hand, if it is, why Revit allows you to create families face-hosted?

    I'm not sure that the use of non-hosted families is a correct approach. Because when there are revisions designers need to manually identify inconsistencies on the model. In my opinion, this is not to make intelligent use of BIM.

    Any comments will be appreciated!


    Thanks,
    Ari Monteiro
    Dharma Sistemas

  2. #2
    Forum Addict josephpeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,405
    Current Local Time
    08:02 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yes, groups are terrible for MEP and it doesnt look like Autodesk have any interest in fixing them since 2011. They have been 'replaced' with Assemblies, but they are not useful for MEP because you cant add ducts or pipes and objects in an assembly all have the same category, so you cant filter by system.

    So far we still model everything for one floor or location and then copy without grouping when it is nearly complete. This can be done quite easily using TAB if everything is well connected.
    I have been experimenting with other ways to manage repeated changes, like nested shared families or using linked models, but so far I havent found a better option.
    It should be possible to model a 'Typical' room in your main model with individual components, put that room on a sheet, export it with 'Save to New File' and then link the room model in multiple times. Overwriting the link with a new export would propagate changes to all the instances. At some point you will want everything in one model, at which point you can use Bind Link.
    I plan to test this soon but havent tried it yet...

    Also I agree with not using hosted families for MEP. Level hosted are much easier to copy and move. If you have modeled something as hosted and decide you want to use it non-hosted, you have to totally re-model it. Level based families have the option "Workplane Based" which lets you place them on a face anyway with one small change.
    I agree with your last point about non-hosted being less intelligent, but do you really want everything to move, without warning, with every change? In my experience architects like to move a wall left one day and right the next, so you will spend a lot of time fixing all the broken connections between fittings and pipes/ducts (Which you still have to manually find) and in the end they will probably end up in the same place as you started :P
    Copy Monitor with the option to do Coordination Review may be a better way to do this, but just clearly agreeing what will be changed when is the best

    If you do want non hosted families to move with wall you can align and lock, set them to Workplane Based or use locked dimensions. But I think it will cause more problems than it solves.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ning Zhou's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 20, 2011
    Posts
    854
    Current Local Time
    12:02 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by josephpeel View Post
    It should be possible to model a 'Typical' room in your main model with individual components, put that room on a sheet, export it with 'Save to New File' and then link the room model in multiple times. Overwriting the link with a new export would propagate changes to all the instances. At some point you will want everything in one model, at which point you can use Bind Link.
    I plan to test this soon but havent tried it yet...
    this sounds a good idea, as long as you only maintain sub-system of the room, you can bind everything later and connect sub-system if needed

  4. #4
    Junior Member noss's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 11, 2011
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    43
    Current Local Time
    05:02 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    There really is no need to have everything in the same model, you could leave all the elements linked. If you want to connect through to the linked typical layouts, you can create an element that can be copy monitored through to the main model and connected to.

  5. #5
    Forum Addict josephpeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,405
    Current Local Time
    08:02 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yeah, this is something a colleague of mine tried recently. Where the pipe goes from one model to the other there is an endcap/plumbing fixture with in and out flows. These get copy monitored between the different models to make sure thier position stay the same if moved. Finally all the flow rates can be synched between the models, based on the identical coordinates of the fitting in both models.

    The only problem with linked models is the components wont show which room/space they are in, in the main model.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    June 14, 2011
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    616
    Current Local Time
    03:02 PM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    +1 for level/non-hosted families.

    Also, I have yet to work on a project where the floors really are typical. IME, unless you are absolutely certain that the floors are the same, groups would only be handy in the beginning stages of a project. There are usually enough differences to warrant copying layouts from one floor to the next and making adjustments.

Similar Threads

  1. Strategy; roof or 2nd story walls first?
    By Arniedraws in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2015, 02:12 PM
  2. addition study strategy
    By safoulkes in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 7th, 2013, 05:22 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 19th, 2012, 06:15 PM
  4. Wall Section strategy...
    By MPwuzhere in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 30th, 2011, 06:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •