[2009] Conduit and Cable Tray (OPEN)

[sschwartz]

We need (not just want) electrical conduit.

It needs to be not part of the piping/plumbing system. No workarounds, no 'just draw piping and "make" it show on the electrical plan.

It needs to physically connect to panelboards, main distribution panels, large motor starters, motor control centers, transformers, run above ceilings, on the site in manholes and hand holes, up above ceiling and through fire rated walls, incoming/underground with conduit sleeves, to generators, up through floors from electrical room to electrical room above, from communications room to communications room, connecting to junction boxes and pull boxes at every 270 degrees (3 turns).

EMT, (Electrical Metallic Tubing), IMC (Intermediate Metal Conduit), RMC Rigid Metal Conduit. LB Fittings (or connectors?), Conduits run underfloor from in-floor receptacle boxes, to name a few. How on earth can we expect to do an enlarged electrical substation room and NOT show the main building feeders? This is a major electrical item to exclude, especially for interference detection.

Just how does interference detection work properly if we are faking in plumbing runs and making them show? :shock: I think this item should be at the top of the MEP list electrically.

[sparkie001]

This is a major electrical item to exclude, especially for interference detection.

I agree. But I'm sure that they are working on the assumption that (most) electrical plans are diagrammatic, with conduit routing determined in the field by the contractor. That also doesn't help when you need to show existing conduit on demo plans. Someday...

[sschwartz]

I agree. But I'm sure that they are working on the assumption that (most) electrical plans are diagrammatic, with conduit routing determined in the field by the contractor. That also doesn't help when you need to show existing conduit on demo plans. Someday...

Homeruns are diagrammatic. One Line Diagrams or Riser Diagrams are diagrammatic. Not trying to argue with you, I am only trying to make a valid point. :beer:

[sgermano]

I agree. But I'm sure that they are working on the assumption that (most) electrical plans are diagrammatic, with conduit routing determined in the field by the contractor. That also doesn't help when you need to show existing conduit on demo plans. Someday...
4-6" conduits are hardly "diagramatic", they need to be shown. I fully agree, Autodesk needs to incorporate this in their electrical package.

[sparkie001]

4-6" conduits are hardly "diagramatic", they need to be shown. I fully agree, Autodesk needs to incorporate this in their electrical package. I _said_ most dwgs, not all. I'm on your side... :)

[Steve_Stafford]

Good and logical development for Revit mEp. Unfortunately simply using Pipe for conduit isn't really a solution because you have to endure piping/plumbing visibility behavior for conduit which isn't really the same thing. You can get nearly there but it deserves its own workflow and visibility rules.

I believe that their focus has been on attempting to replicate existing work habits, building toward the "holy grail" of a full complete model. Most or at least many do not "model" such things in their design documents now so the current battle is just getting folks to use Revit mEp at all, let alone take on all sorts of tasks they don't already do. I'm speaking very generally so please understand I'm not trying to speak for you and your firm's practice. If your firm documents these things already with your tools then you are already ahead of the "curve" and it is easy to see why you are ready for the "rest". :smile:

P.S. I also think the Plumbing discipline deserves its own discipline :wink:

[Bruce C. Olson]

We need (not just want) electrical conduit.

<--SNIP-->

I think this item should be at the top of the MEP list electrically.

This is really important for my design work in Technical Systems. Routing of conduit for specific signal levels is critical in the design phase for me to avoid interference from power feeders for example. I have been showing this routing since my first use of AutoCAD circa 1985.

[sparkie001]

Having the ability to model conduit would be great, especially for demo/remodel work. Modeling it for new work would show that the routing of a large conduit is possible through a tight space but it's been my experience that no matter what routing I show the contractor elects to do it his way anyway. Just another .02

[sschwartz]

Having the ability to model conduit would be great, especially for demo/remodel work. Modeling it for new work would show that the routing of a large conduit is possible through a tight space but it's been my experience that no matter what routing I show the contractor elects to do it his way anyway. Just another .02

Hey Sparkie
I know you're on our side here. :P Home runs from silly little receptacles are diagrammatic too, btw...

I have attached a sample of why electrically we NEED this... I think this photo speaks for itself. I also invite anyone else to give a visual example in any form so that our freinds at autodesk can help us out???!!! This is an actual project we did in 2d Autocad some time ago...

Pretty please with sugar on top!

[stelthorst]

Hi Stacey,

I think you answered THIS (http://www.forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=83304) question with this wish. As an electrical contractor all I draw is conduit and cable tray for coordination. HERE (http://www.forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=51068) is an example of what I do.

I think Revit MEP is the future but for now will stick with AutoCAD MEP (AMEP). Revit MEP and AMEP are designed more as diagrammatic and engineering tools. I hope in the future Autodesk will see the potential to also make these programs usable for the physical representation of electrical systems and work on this aspect of the program.

[mjdanowski]

Hey Sparkie
I know you're on our side here. :P Home runs from silly little receptacles are diagrammatic too, btw...

I have attached a sample of why electrically we NEED this... I think this photo speaks for itself. I also invite anyone else to give a visual example in any form so that our freinds at autodesk can help us out???!!! This is an actual project we did in 2d Autocad some time ago...

Pretty please with sugar on top!

The thing is, we would not show those conduit routings. There is ample room in the ceiling space above that switchgear and we would definitely leave routing to the contractor's discretion.

We only show routings on our plan where we have conduits going through tight spaces, or places which would require a hefty amount of work for the contractor (trenching for example). For these instances, the current detail line system in Revit is more than adequate to get our design across.

It is not that I don't want to see conduit routings in Revit, but quite frankly it would not be used that excessively. It would be a lot of work for not a lot of return in my design and at most I would only use it for main feeders throughout a building.
It would also be hell for family libraries as I would have to have multiple families for multiple sets of connectors. ([2 SETS] (4) 500KCMIL would be a different family than just (4) 500KCMIL, and that would get real old real quick)

I would much rather see Autodesk spend their time making panel schedules not useless and/or increasing other lacking electrical functionality and calculation potential as we would see a a lot greater return from it.

[sschwartz]

I hope in the future Autodesk will see the potential to also make these programs usable for the physical representation of electrical systems and work on this aspect of the program.

I would much rather see Autodesk spend their time making panel schedules not useless and/or increasing other lacking electrical functionality and calculation potential as we would see a a lot greater return from it.

Both valid points...and very nice layout there, stelhorst. Also, yes in the example I posted was 1. a new installation. 2. pleeeennnnnty of space. Not very typically common. 3. the best example of what I would like to be able to and would expect to be able to produce in Revit, as an electrical tool, not a faked in piping one... For coordination. Yes, definitely for main feeders and routing. OK my ranting is done. Thanks for your input, augi-ers. :beer:

[RobertB]

The thing is, we would not show those conduit routings. There is ample room in the ceiling space above that switchgear and we would definitely leave routing to the contractor's discretion. There's the problem, right there. As the BIM Manager at an electrical firm, I totally agree with you. However, as a BIM Manager coordinating large projects, we are going to hand our model off to the contractors. So what are you proposing the contractors do to the model? How are they going to model that conduit routing that is now their responsibility?

[stelthorst]

There's the problem, right there. As the BIM Manager at an electrical firm, I totally agree with you. However, as a BIM Manager coordinating large projects, we are going to hand our model off to the contractors. So what are you proposing the contractors do to the model? How are they going to model that conduit routing that is now their responsibility?

Welcome to MY world. :)

Personally, I would prefer if engineers wouldn't add conduit to their drawings. I think people should do what they are good at doing.

Engineers are good at engineering a project and we (contractors) are good at figuring out the cheapest, most efficient way to install the components.

However, as Robert states, it is important to us contractors to have the tools available to do our work.

A program that is designed to cater to only the engineering side of a project is just as useless as a program that only caters to the physical representation of the project.

[RobertB]

A program that is designed to cater to only the engineering side of a project is just as useless as a program that only caters to the physical representation of the project.Well stated.

As time goes by, on BIM projects, maybe there will be more involvement of the contractors to develop crucial portions of the model in the early stages.

Case in point was where we needed to tell the architect that the space alloted for our conduit coming out of a tunnel was a fantasy. I would have loved to have the contractor draw the required conduit run rather than us. But as engineers we are still a bit too used to relying on ourselves in the virtual design phase.

[sschwartz]

Well stated.

As time goes by, on BIM projects, maybe there will be more involvement of the contractors to develop crucial portions of the model in the early stages.

Case in point was where we needed to tell the architect that the space alloted for our conduit coming out of a tunnel was a fantasy. I would have loved to have the contractor draw the required conduit run rather than us. But as engineers we are still a bit too used to relying on ourselves in the virtual design phase.


Love that stick man/person!

[RobertB]

Love that stick man/person!I'd love to take credit for that, but that actually came from the architect.

[sixthflick]

...the current battle is just getting folks to use Revit mEp at all, let alone take on all sorts of tasks they don't already do.

I agree with Steve completely on this one. Our Electrical consultants are absolutely refusing to use Revit mEp simply because they cannot draw electrical conduit and components out-of-the-box. To them, having to use the pipe work-around is like setting us all up to be Beta-testers, to which they've already said they'd like to get paid by Autodesk for testing the product.

Sometimes, conduits and such simply need to be modeled - as in the case of, yes, demo drawings when the entire circuit is not being demo'd or in the case of DoD projects, where NIPR/SIPR lines have certain criteria as to where and how they can be run.

[Ms. Serene]

I have noticed a huge gap when it come to Mechanical content and Electrical content. Even the class I went to was primarily Mechanical and unfortunately I am Electrical. Not to say that the information wasn't useful, but it wasn't designed for my disipline and some things (like the work around for conduit) aren't adequite. Are there any changes in Revit MEP comming down the pike that will close this gap?

[schrodingerscat]

Usually (in AutoCAD) we would use a linetype with text in it (eg. 32mm electrical conduit we use ---- E32 ---- E32 ----) and I would be happy to use this same thing in RMEP and then insert wires underneath so that all the connections are still consistent, and then hide the wires. Because text can't be inserted into linetypes this is no longer an option and is a possible reason that RMEP won't be used for too long in this office. Cabletrays are another concern for us. We don't want to use duct, and the custom made cabletrays we have are alright, but it is an area where AMEP beats RMEP, and this is a bit disappointing since AMEP is a horrible program for our needs.

[mmiller.204915]

One of the things we have trouble with is creating cable/conduit schedules that contain the same intelligence as the rest of the drawing. Also, why can't AutoCAD electrical do fill for cable tray. Sorry if this is in the wrong thread. Thanks for listening

[schrodingerscat]

Kind of the wrong product forum, but you raise a valid point with the first part. Using the "pipe work-around" is a step backwards in BIMing because it cannot give the relevant information needed. Conduits and cable trays are used in almost every job we do, and I would think the lack of them in subsequent versions from the first of Revit MEP would be embarrassing enough for Autodesk, but we're now almost up to RMEP 2010 and there is still not a hint of them!

[RobertB]

Kind of the wrong product forum, but you raise a valid point with the first part. Using the "pipe work-around" is a step backwards in BIMing because it cannot give the relevant information needed. Conduits and cable trays are used in almost every job we do, and I would think the lack of them in subsequent versions from the first of Revit MEP would be embarrassing enough for Autodesk, but we're now almost up to RMEP 2010 and there is still not a hint of them!Sort of the same point I made in the other forums about the missing "I" in the Electrical B"I"M. (FWIW, I found round duct to be a better substitute.)

[RevitNinja]

Sort of the same point I made in the other forums about the missing "I" in the Electrical B"I"M. (FWIW, I found round duct to be a better substitute.)

Robert, I used pipe to represent conduit in our company template. Are there advantages to using round duct instead?

[RobertB]

Robert, I used pipe to represent conduit in our company template. Are there advantages to using round duct instead?It was easier to edit the elbow definition for long sweeps, and the plan representation was a bit more accurate, IMHO.

[RevitNinja]

I changed our conduit to round duct instead of pipe. Much easier with the elbows/bends.

Thanks for the tip.

[mwiggins]

Seth,
Did you catch the radius multiplier on the elbows?

[RevitNinja]

Seth,
Did you catch the radius multiplier on the elbows?

Sure did! That's what made it so easy to get the long bends!

[RobertB]

Sure did! That's what made it so easy to get the long bends!I'm happy that you liked it. :beer:

[truevis]

We used round duct or RFAs in our data center project.

I agree, a new category -- Conduit -- would be very useful. Would be just like round duct without any computations done on it.

[RobertB]

I agree, a new category -- Conduit -- would be very useful. Would be just like round duct without any computations done on it.Actually, in the interest of BIM, the conduit should "know" what wires are running thru it and if it meets code requirements for fill.

[keturah.jordan]

I'm about to work on a model of a bridge where placement of conduit is very important because there isn't a lot of room but certainly a whole lot going on.

So, I've been skimming over the posts here and being a new REVIT MEP user about to begin my first project, is the conclusion, then, that there is no way to model conduit and cable tray? Is this item still on the wish list? Am I correct in thinking that the only way to create this modeled effect is to "fake the funk"?

If so where would I go for assistance on said "funk" faking?

[RobertB]

... Am I correct in thinking that the only way to create this modeled effect is to "fake the funk"?

If so where would I go for assistance on said "funk" faking?Search the Revit MEP - General Forum for two "solutions" for conduit. Search the Revit MEP - Families forum for Cable Tray solutions.

[chairpak.74969]

I would be able to convert my company immediately to Revit if these were available.

[Steve_Stafford]

I would be able to convert my company immediately to Revit if these were available.So what would you expect conduit and cable trays to do if they did exist? I'm curious because a lot of firms do not model them now...they draw them schematically. I'm not debating your necessity. They are elements that need coordination in a model and there are engineering concerns that software can help with too.

I'm just curious to know what you would expect them to do if you had them and if they existed but didn't do what you expected, what your position might be. So for example, let's say you could model conduit much like pipe and you could model cable trays much like you can model duct now would that "cut it"? A lot of hypothetical questions...sorry.

[mwiggins]

Steve,

You sound like you are working ADSK now. :roll:

Good questions.

[lcooper]

So what would you expect conduit and cable trays to do if they did exist? I'm curious because a lot of firms do not model them now...they draw them schematically. I'm not debating your necessity. They are elements that need coordination in a model and there are engineering concerns that software can help with too.

I'm just curious to know what you would expect them to do if you had them and if they existed but didn't do what you expected, what your position might be. So for example, let's say you could model conduit much like pipe and you could model cable trays much like you can model duct now would that "cut it"? A lot of hypothetical questions...sorry.

Steve, we are a large Electrical Contractor. Many of our projects require us to create 3D models for coordination. At this point, we are forced to re-model an engineering firms "design intent" model that was created in Revit in AutoCAD MEP in order to coordinate conduit, cabletray, switchboards, generators, ductbanks, bus duct... ect with mechanical systems, structure and the like. I would like to be able to model conduit and cable tray as I do in MEP within Revit. I would like to be able to fill the conduit with wire and connect them to panel boards, disconnects, pumps, air handeling units and the like. I would then like to be able to creat scedules and materials lists and also do load calculations...

I would like to see the industry go to a true BIM way of doing things, such as the One Model concept were the design intent model is taken all the way through construction to facilities management.

The only way to do this is for Revit to be able to truly model ALL elements of a building.

[Steve_Stafford]

...The only way to do this is for Revit to be able to truly model ALL elements of a building...No argument from me. I see your focus is on "modelling" them. I was curious to see if there was equivalent interest in "designing/engineering" them, like load calculation, voltage mismatches...actually defining which circuits are inside etc... I'm optimistic about the future :smile:

[lcooper]

No argument from me. I see your focus is on "modelling" them. I was curious to see if there was equivalent interest in "designing/engineering" them, like load calculation, voltage mismatches...actually defining which circuits are inside etc... I'm optimistic about the future :smile:

Absolutly! All of that and more! We are getting more involed in Design/Build and IPD projects and are becoming more involved in the design aspects. We are teaming with General Contractors, Archetects, Engineers and other sub-contractors to hopefully fully realize the full BIM experience. Unfortunatly, we, as sub-contractors, have to re-invent the wheel so to speak when it comes to creating intellegent models that can be integrated with the engineers and architects models. If Revit and AutoCAD MEP could merge so that the functionality of both could be seamless, we would really have something.

I would love to be able to suck material quantities, load calculations, foot-candle data and the like out of a model.