PDA

View Full Version : Revit Systems and Linking



psundharam
2007-02-21, 04:42 PM
For a project of about 70000 s.f - two bldgs, our team chose to pursue one AR model with both the buildings and a separate Structural and MEP model to cover the rest - all three models being linked.

On the Electrical Side, we have a challenge. The MEP model links the Architectural and Structural Model. The MEP model does not copy monitor the walls. Our Electrical Engineer is able to put Lighting Devices like receptacles on the Architectural model walls (which are like ghost walls in the MEP model). But unfortunately, since there are no physical wall objects in the MEP model, when a wall is moved in the Architectural Model, the lighting devices or anything else associated to this wall in the MEP gets deleted. This is the only choice. You can either choose to delete or not open the file.

We understand that, we can fix this problem, if the MEP model copy monitors all the walls from the Architectural model and then apply the wall host objects. But in the normal workflow of the project, this is a huge change and we were wondering if you guys encountered such a thing - or is there a work around? or do we just have to change the way we approach - or is there something that I am not cognizant of?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Prem

Mottiqua
2007-02-22, 12:40 PM
Prem,
At my firm, we work on large projects that need to have the models separated into an architectural model and an MEP model. While it's not the 'preferred' workflow for an AE firm, having an integrated model into one file would drastically increase the size of our files.
One thing I don't understand is why you are placing electrical objects in your architectural file? Why aren't you placing them in your MEP model? You don't have to copy/monitor the walls to place your recepts. Revit Systems recognizes the linked wall as a "face", which is how a lot of the families for systems have been set up as. When you place them in your MEP model, if the architect decides to delete the wall, you will not lose your items that you have placed on that linked wall. Instead you will receive an error basically saying that you have some items that are not placed on a "face" and it needs to be dealt with. Try placing your items in you MEP file, and see how that works for you. With the adoption of Revit in any company, you will see that you will have to change or modify your workflow across all disciplines, and it will require communication to implement.

Mottiqua
2007-02-22, 12:44 PM
Also I forgot to mention one thing.....hosted objects are a no-go in a linked file. Sure you can copy/monitor walls, but it's a royal pain. You also cannot copy/monitor ceilings, which makes placing hosted lights impossible, this is why all the light fixtures in Systems are 'face' based rather than hosted.
Hope this all helps.

psundharam
2007-02-23, 02:55 PM
Hi Diane,

Awesome, that worked. I guess I was not clear about my question. We did place the face based electrical components on the MEP model - I meant to say over the face of the Architectural Model's walls and ceilings.

Not understanding exactly what was happening, we feared that if we move a wall in the architectural model, the related electrical objects get deleted - we were wrong. Although some objects did get deleted. So we wanted to understand more and your reply helped us see things clear.

We went through a three hour testing mode with a sample project to find exactly what causes the objects to get deleted. Here's what we found:
1. MEP face based objects move along with the walls and faces as long as the walls and faces move and rotate orthogonally - any change in the angle of the face - knocks these objects out. (By change in angle I mean - for a flat ceiling face, if you apply a slope - then the lights are gone)
2. Similarly, we found that, when light fixtures and electrical outlets and like, placed on the face of the wall, stay in the MEP model even when you delete the corresponding wall in the AR model waiting to be re hosted to another face (just like you said) - but ironically, ceilings and roof deletion in the AR model - kills the electrical light fixtures in the MEP model - I guess I understand the logic behind this.
3. This is what caused our electrical outlets to go to Revit's no mans land. If we had an electrical outlet placed on a wall, and the architectural wall change now puts an opening like a door in the place of the electrical outlet, then the system kills the electrical outlet on the MEP model (because I guess, there is no wall to place the electrical outlet) - so this is something the Electrical guys need to watch out as plan changes.

These are some tiny findings, please share if you have more.

Anyway, I believe now we have a lil better understanding of how Revit system works and thanks again for your input. Revit linking is although not perfect, it works great!!

Prem

jason.combs
2007-03-06, 01:54 PM
To be clear Diane and prem,

Have you found that it is not worth using the copy / monitor function to create hosts in MEP project? I have tried on a small project and it is very cumbersome.

Did you find you needed to change any of your families from host to face based associations?

Also, what about file linking? I have found that trying to replace a linked project with another name unassociates all the devices in the project. We are looking at using an X- named projec that will be updated as often as necessary, but will allow the architects to halt a project at certain intervals while letting other disciplines catch up (DD, SD, CD).

Any ideas?

mjdanowski
2007-03-07, 03:07 PM
A problem I have found with face basing things like receptacles is that they will not be recognized within a room, and if they are it is very erratic. My original attempt at wall based families was with a face based template, however I soon switched to just wall hosted as I wanted to keep scheduling utilities accurate.
I may have just been doing it wrong, but I have yet to have a "room association" problem with wall based families.

flutietutti
2018-07-23, 02:38 AM
Did you ever come up with a solution to devices getting deleted? We’re having the same issue lately.