How do You show HVAC Ductwork with Revit Architecture?

[bbebart]

I have an existing space with existing ductwork and want to indicate it in the model.

I found and downloaded some of the Revit MEP components from the Autodesk site but it seems that you need a tool - likely similar to Wall in Revit Archtiecture - to draw some families ie Duct-Round.

[dcretsinger]

As a residential user, I have to say all I do is use line work to display it...........It's fast and simple. Not sure if that helps at all. Obviously it doesn't have any use for error detection and the like.................

[Steve_Stafford]

Buy Revit MEP... :shock: Well that's what Autodesk would like :smile:

There are several ways to tackle this so pick your poison.


In-Place family(ies) - assigned to duct category - Sweep(s), Extrusion(s)
Line-Based Families - parametric or not to simulate the duct runs
Railing using profiles and manipulating the parameters to "pretend to be duct"
Walls - similar to railing - change parameters to match duct size - turn OFF room bounding
Ceiling - varying thickness and make sketch match profile of plan orientation of duct
Ask a Revit MEP user to model a schematic/existing layout for a "few bucks" and send you a file.


Personally I'd try to work with someone using Revit MEP, might turn into decent consulting gig for you all later. If not, then the in-place family approach "feels" right...right now...ask again later. :smile:

[Mike Sealander]

Yeah, this is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I made some line-based families to represent ductwork, along with some elbows and things. It all feels kind of hokey.

[Jrobker]

To whom it may concern.
If any of you are sending your Arch model to MEP firms with your "Idea" of Duct, Mechanical equipment, Housekeeping pads, Pipe or anything related to MEP, QUIT DOING IT. If it's for your own in house design, buy the software and suffer like us.

[Wes Macaulay]

Woah Jeremiah -- stepped on a nerve methinks :mrgreen:

What's got your goat? Why should the archies quit with making their own hacked ducts?

[bbebart]

Found some duct components on Revit City that are OK: A tube with various diameters that can be saved to the proper location in the imperial library that has height above floor parameters. Fine for rough planning and generating a rough interior perspective.

Still, something allowing HVAC planning ought to be included in Revit Architecture. Allow initial planning for HVAC main duct and drain/supply piping. After all, basic structural components, light fixtures and power /data outlets come with the product out of the box and they are engineering items too.

This project is an existing loft space and is strictly low interior partitions and finishes so there will be no engineering work. Hence no MEP to beg to.

By the way: Every good architect includes an "idea" of all building components in the design: plumbing fixtures, plumbing chases, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms and , yes, even main ductwork.

[TerribleTim]

. . .The real problem is uneducated Arch Revit users.
You give us **** you get ****.
It fells so good to get this off my chest. I am tired of it.

Wow! Sounds like the REAL problem is a sub-consultant who doesn't know how to PICK UP THE PHONE AND TALK TO SOMEONE! If the A/E knew what your trouble was, maybe they could work with you on it. But if it was my sub acting like this, I'd find a different sub. Communication is the key, isn't that what this Revit **** is all about?

[twiceroadsfool]

*writes down firm name so im sure to not call them to consult with*

LOL.

1. In my VERY humble opinion, if youre using revit correctly, you shouldnt ever need to open up a consultants file. Period. End of story. Ive done plenty of multi-discipline projects, and ive been on BOTH ends. Ive never ACTUALLY had a need to go in a consultants file. I have- on occasion- asked them to add a Filter for something, etc, and have done it myself to the copy of their file i had, until they could get the filter added and the file sent over... But working in a consultants file is just a bad idea all around.


2. I PERSONALLY believe in the *team player* mentality of our industry. Im tired of my fellow architects who whine about engineers, and im tired of engineers who whine about architects. Im tired of contractors who whine about both, and im tired of both who whine about contractors.

This profession is chock full of way too much ego. When everyone (you and me both, included) decide to get OVER the ego and be productive and constructive, more work will get done.

3. We absolutely will NOT stop asking MEP engineers for things in their revit models. Just like they absolutely will not stop asking me for architectural things in my models. The REAL problem is uneducated PEOPLE, both disciplines alike. Claiming its SOLELY one of the other is just plain ignorant.

Have a nice day! :)

[Paul Monsef]

The real problem is uneducated Arch Revit users.
You give us **** you get ****.
It fells so good to get this off my chest. I am tired of it.
Good grief get a grip.. FYI: You neglected to read this on your company web site:

"Mission Statement:
The basic mission of Van Boerum & Frank Associates is to improve the economic well being and quality of life of all stock holders, which includes all employees. The expanded mission is to provide professional engineering services to the public in a manner that will be fair, courteous, and of high ethical and professional standards."

On topic, I model only the ducts I need to show as in place families. And I always put them in the wrong spot.

[Wes Macaulay]

Now, now, everyone -- let's play nice. The reality is that Revit asks a lot of everyone and often people don't have the knowledge to make things work the way they ought.

People need to have a humble attitude on all sides when it comes to stuff like this. And let's all say a prayer for the MEP users -- these guys really do take a licking because they're getting hackneyed files from the architect and having to make the best of it on software that has some issues.

Maybe if Adesk got around to giving us duct tools, then we could give better data to our Revit MEP consultants...

[twiceroadsfool]

Wes- I couldnt agree more. However: Having a humble attitude is part of the "Revit asks a lot from people that doesnt have the knowledge."

I spent a short while emailing and on the phone today, with two of our MEP consultants... Because they needed Revit help. I/We certainly dont have an issue helping them out, its part of the team effort. Pushing forward so we can all PROGRESS means sometimes we help out the other guy. EDIT: Its also why were all HERE on AUGI. Ive learned SO MUCH from people here, and i like coming here to help others too. The entire NOTION of a mindset of "if youre thinking of asking someone for help... DONT" just totally rubs me the wrong way. But now that ive said that, ill back out of this thread to not feed the flame war.

I do feel for the Revit MEP users.... Because of the infancy and the lacking capability of the software, to do what they sometimes need or want it to do. But feel bad because theyre getting hackneyed files from Architects? Absolutely not. Find better Architects, if thats the problem.

I havent had a case where the MEP or RST folks were complaining to us about the constructs of our models. In fact, i know a lot of architects that tend to go out of their way providing ways to do certain things for the MEP consultants.

Saying "architects give hacked files to engineers" is the same kind of broad overgeneralization that ruffled feathers on page 1.

As for us getting Duct tools in RAC... It would be just like in place families anyway. Theyd still be in the wrong place, or at least the wrong sizes. Because were not doing the caluclations. So its a floor drain in the wrong spot, or a Duct thats the wrong size. Pick your poison.

[Wes Macaulay]

Heh -- supporting MEP -- is that part of your job description?

Revit -- while promising much, demands much. It demands that we know that software very well in order for us all to get along in the BIM sandbox.

The reality is that the workflow still needs work -- both at the user level (education), and at the software level (functionality). And people are often left unsupported at their firms while it's expected that they will get the work done.

[twiceroadsfool]

Is it part of my job description? I suppose thats open to interpretation. :) My job description is to train, support, and help the Revit Project teams in house. Theyre working on a model with the two MEP firms, so one could deduce that if i know MEP is marching down a Revit technique thats going to cause us all hardships later, im helping MY team by helping THEIR team.

But all in all, i think its not even a Revit thing, its an attitude thing. Revit does demand a lot, but we should demand a lot from one another ANYWAY, in the interest of making better progress. You ARE right. The workflow needs work, the software needs work, and the users need work. Completely disregarding that, peoples ATTITUDES need work.

Im working with two structural engineers right now, on collaborative Revit projects. One of them, when we ask them to, has no problems sending their model to the MEP engineers, so we can ALL work together to produce a coordinated project. The other one... says "Thats not my job, youre the ARCHITECT. You deal with coordination, and you deal with sending our model to whoever else you want."

Its along the same lines of why this entire conversation rubbed me the wrong way. They may be TECHNICALLY correct, about their "scope of work" and "responsibility," but ill tell you something: Im here to make EVERY project i touch better. And i want to work with people who think the same way. The "this is my sandbox and i dont care about yours" mindset is the REASON this industry is as fragmented as it is today.

It stops being about software when the mindset is "dont ask us for help, figure it out yourself." Just my two cents. Its not worth much, and you can get a decent amount of change back. :)

[bbebart]

Jeez.

I didn't mean to stirs up a hornet's nest. I just started using Revit in June after one class and have had to figure most things out by myself, from online tutorials and from a couple of books. I am still quite a hack at this.

That said, I worked for 20 years a project manager and project architect on large and complex interiors projects and know a great deal about architecture and engineering coordination. The biggest thing that I see regarding Revit and traditional engineering practice - especially MEP engineering - is that engineers now no longer produce diagrams. Instead they produce at-scale models. That is a big change. And the "at-scale" portion of the change is significant. Many MEP drawings that I used to work with were barely at scale. Ductwork was shown as a line with a duct size dimension in it. Panels and equipment were generic boxes with an item number and no relation to the actual footprint of the equipment. VAV boxes were essentially a symbol and a number that referred to a schedule.

With Revit, it is no longer a diagram but an actual at-scale representation and now some engineers have to actually get their ductwork and equipment to fit within the confines of the allocated space instead of having the architect and contractor work it out in the field.

Of course, the architect is ultimately responsible for coordination. But now engineers are doing some of that coordination even at the initial planning stages in their schemes by working with the actual size components in the actual size space. It has to ultimately lead to a more efficient design process.