Site/Building linked files - changing building elevation?

[patricks]

I have a project with a separate building file and site file, each linked into the other by shared coordinates. When I linked the site file into the building, I moved it to the proper elevation based on the FF elevation of the existing portion of the building. Then I went to the site file and linked the building file back in via shared coordinates, and it all came in at the correct height. So far so good.

The issue we're running into now is how to change the elevation of the new portion of the building? My first thought was to move the building link while in the site file. Seems to make sense, since you are supposed to be able to have multiple instances of a building file linked into a site, in the case of identical buildings on a campus.

So I moved the whole building link up 5 inches. My plan was to move the existing building levels back down 5 inches back in the building file. So I get the normal message about saved locations, so I save the location of the building link under Manage Links. I save and then open the building file. It still showed the levels with the same shared elevation as what I had before!

I tried updating, saving, and I even tried moving the site down 5 inches in the building file. I think at one point I had moved the building a total of 10 inches, which of course wasn't right. I think I finally just did Relocate Project and moved it up 5 inches, then moved the existing building levels back down 5 inches.

Also at one point, while in the SITE file, when I tried to move the building, I got an error message saying that a bunch of spot elevations did not lie on their reference. But these spots were in the BUILDING file. How could I get an error about annotations in a separate file?? When the building file was STC and updated, all the spots disappeared, and we had to recreate them all over again.

So I guess my main question is, what is the proper procedure for updating a building's floor elevation if it has to change in the middle of the project? I know the procedure for getting it set up initially, with acquiring coordinates and all that. I just don't seem to know the correct way to revise the building elevation if needed.

[Andre Carvalho]

So I guess my main question is, what is the proper procedure for updating a building's floor elevation if it has to change in the middle of the project? I know the procedure for getting it set up initially, with acquiring coordinates and all that. I just don't seem to know the correct way to revise the building elevation if needed.

Patrick,

What I do is make the site file to share coordinates to the building file. My building(s) is(are) linked into the site file and are acquiring coordinates from it. Then if I have to move my building up or down to adjust elevations, I do it on the site file, where my building file is linked and save back the locations. I never moved the linked site up or down when it is linked into my building file.

Andre Carvalho

[patricks]

Well that's what I did... at least I think so.

I created a site file, linked in a CAD file, and acquired coordinate from the CAD file. Then I created a toposurface from the CAD contour lines, which were all at the correct elevations. Save and close.

Next in my building file, I linked in my site file. It came in with the 0 elevation matching my building's 0 elevation, so I moved the site link down to the proper elevation, 394.64' in my case (actual new building FF). After the site link was in the right place, I acquired coordinates from it. Save and close.

Now back in the site file, I linked in the building file by shared coordinates, and it came in at the correct elevation.

But then when I needed to move the building up 5 inches to 395.06', I tried moving it up in the site file. I saved and closed, opened the building file, and the FF level was still reporting 394.64. Why would that happen?

[Andre Carvalho]

Why would that happen?

Because you started this way, I think you'd have to move the site down by 5 inches on your building file. Then when you link your building file into the site file, it will be 5 inches up.

I prefer to do it the other way around (creating the site file at the proper location and elevation, link my building, move it up or down and then publishing coordinates to my building file) because doing this I'm always moving the same element (the building) while the site is always still. I don't know if that's the reason, but in your case you first moved the linked site on the building file and now are moving the linked building on the site file...

Andre Carvalho

[patricks]

hmm... I will run some tests using a particular past project where I first tried using linked site/building files and it worked quite well for the most part, but I didn't have to change building elevations on that one.

I'm planning on putting together a lunch n learn presentation soon on the process of linking and working with separate site/building files so that the rest of the Revit users in our office will be up to speed on this process, which IMHO is superior to having the site topo in the building file. So I need to get all this worked out so I can convey the correct workflow to everyone else.

[patricks]

Well I have finally run some test, and it seems to work both ways for me in the tests.

First test:
- Create site file.
- Link survey, rotate to proper orientation, check that it comes in correct elevation (it does).
- Acquire coordinates, check for correct rotation in Manage Place and Locations
- Save and close site file.
- Create building file (draw some walls)
- Link in Site file, move to correct location in plan (rotate if needed) and move to correct elevation (matching existing finished floor).
- Acquire coordinates from Site file. Check level elevation by changing to shared, it is correct.
- Save and close building file.
- Open site file, move building up 2 feet. Message about saving locations, hit Save Now, building link now shows correct elevation 2 feet higher while still in site file. Save and close.
- Open building file, open elevation, shared elevations are correct there also.

Second test:
- Create building file (draw some walls)
- Save and close building file.
- Create site file.
- Link survey, rotate to proper orientation, check that it comes in correct elevation (it does).
- Acquire coordinates, check for correct rotation in Manage Place and Locations.
- Link in building file.
- Move building file to correct location, and up to correct elevation.
- Publish coordinates of site file to building file link, and save locations to building file.
- Save and close site file.
- Open building file, link in site file. It comes in correct location and elevation relative to building. Save and close building file.
- Open site file, move building up 2 feet. Message about saving locations, hit Save Now, building link now shows correct elevation 2 feet higher while still in site file. Save and close.
- Open building file, open elevation, shared elevations are correct there also.

So in both cases, I was able to move the building link from within the site file, save the locations, and the building's shared elevations reported the correct new elevation (2 ft. higher).

So I don't know why it wasn't working in the project I was working on last week.

[Gadget Man]

Now, to add some additional twist to the matter...

Note: I'm still using version 2009, so in 2010 it may be fixed.

After doing everything as Patric did (and I do it for a some time now - without any problems) I want to coordinate my Project Information data between these linked files. When I Transfer Project Standards from one to the other (it doesn't matter from which to which) suddenly my linked building/site (depending what direction I'm doing it) jumps to a wrong position!

Re-acquiring coordinates from the other file fixes the problem. Is it a bug in 2009 or am I doing something wrong?

[kreed]

We've done a number of multi-building projects the way Andre described, or the First test procedure Patricks just outlined. It has worked failry well and we have documented it as our office procedure for shared coordinates. So far, so good - all in 2009 though.

We haven't run into the transfering standards problem though.