Detailing a multi building (campus) project

[Duncan Lithgow]

I've been reading up on ways of doing details across several building models. Myself I'm working on a hospital campus project for the next few years. Here's what I've put together - comments very welcome

Thanks to these posts for their input
- http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?83511-Shared-Details-on-a-multiple-model-campus-project
- http://revitoped.blogspot.com/2011/08/projects-with-shared-details.html
- http://www.revitcity.com/forums.php?action=viewthread&thread_id=17400
- http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?83511-Shared-Details-on-a-multiple-model-campus-project

Here's the structure I'm working on for a hospital campus project
-----------------------------------------------------------------

* Each building has it's own project RVT file
* There is a separate details project RVT file where all callout are made, all sheets are made and printed. In this file there is a 2d imitation of each callout (because Callouts do not show up via By linked View)
* Each building is linked into the details project to provide a 3D context
* The detail project is linked into each buildings RVT file, by setting plan to show the detail project by linked view 2d imitation of Callouts can be seen
* There is also a separate RVT file for standard details. These are copied with 'Insert 2D from file' as needed into the details project for this project

I have not yet found a good solution to ensuring that sections are placed identically in the detail project so that the 3D models placement is the same. I'm tempted to say that sections should also be drawn in the detail project - but if a building gets unloaded from there then a lot of tagging and dimensioning work can be lost. I may have have to draw a line at each section placement in each building and then show it in the detail project by linked view - cleaned up for scruft by hiding all in the linked file expect 2d lines.

Workflow
--------

* If you want to draw a new detail - all project details should be drawn in regular views (not Drafting Views)

1. Open the project details file
2. In a plan or section create your Callout and open the view
3. Draw your detail (preferably with with Detail Components and Keynote Tags)
4. Create a sheet and give it the correct number and name
5. In a plan or section place a 2D Detail Component imitation Callout and fill out the correct information - it should be identical to the real Callout
6. If the corresponding view in the building model is set up correctly with by linked view then the imitation Callout will show up with the correct information

* If you want to use an existing details from the standards file - all standard details should be drawn in Drafting Views
1. Create a Drafting View
2. Use Insert > Import > Insert from File > Insert Views from File to choose the drafting view with the desired detail
3. In a plan or section create your Callout and reference it to your new Drafting View
4. In your plan or section place a 2D Detail Component imitation Callout and fill out the correct information - it should be identical to the real Callout
5. If the corresponding view in the building model is set up correctly with by linked view then the imitation Callout will show up with the correct information

Notes
------------

* Remember that Revit will not allow you to open a project linked in to a file you already have open
* Drafting Views cannot be collected with By linked View, they must be imported. Therefore there is no reason to link the standard details project into your project details file
* If a standard detail is revised it must be copied in again - remember to delete the old copy
* I have not found a satisfactory way to stop people editing the standard details once they have been copied into the project details file. My best suggestion is making a View Template which is only used on all Drafting Views and makes the content dark red. This creates a visual cue that they must not be edited - but it does not show up differently when printing.

I can attach an example if people want it, but the actual files are in Danish.

Hope this plan is useful for some of you, please do comment with your reactions.

[sbrown]

Sounds like a nightmare to me. I personally would not do it this way. Way too hard. I would do all my details in each specific building model. Then if there are crossover details, Ie details that are shared between multiple buildings, I might do those in a shared detail project, Ie if stair details and window details are the same, I would then just use a general note to point the contractor to the sheets of common details. No wall sections would be in that project. Another way to handle campus's are with "COMPONENT ID'S" in the titleblock, IE use a building identification system with one for General or Commons, So in your titleblock you have sheet A2.01 But in front of it is a modifier CD(common Details) or something like that, Each building gets one, so you can have BX A2.01 AND BY A2.01. Then you just put a note to see CD series for common details.

[david_peterson]

It is a nightmare. I'm working on a current project where I'll end up with 25+ different, unique structural packages to go with the 25+ phases. The problem here is that I can't tell contractor "A" to go look at contractor "B"'s drawings. So my plan is to try to do as much as possible in one model and duplicate details as often as possible. I would treat each building like it's an individual project since that's how it's going to be bid out (my assumption). Telling a contractor to go look at drawings he doesn't have and didn't include in his contract for reproduction costs causes confusion and usually ends up with someone getting a bill in the end.
I worked on a project that was done in cad a few years back where our archies tried to do a Common Details set. The problem was that there were similar details, but they weren't the same conditions. Caused us lots of problems in the end.
Depending on how your detailing ie if you're using the model to create the details or if you are going the 2d method. If the 2d method you can always use the "import 2d view" from another project.
Personally I think you really need to look at how the project is going to be delivered and built. If it's all going to be done at once by one GC or CM, then a common detail set may make some sense. If split between 1 coordinating CM who hires 3 other CM's who each hire 3-6 GC's and is going to be done in many phases, I'd look at doing separate sets for each phase/area. More work, but much less confusion.

[LP Design]

Interesting discussion. It seems to me that the most valuable aspect of shared details is having to do less coordination between drawing sets. For example, if a standard roof drain detail changes from metal to plastic, that change can be made once and all drawing sets will reference it.

Unfortunately what ends up actually happening is that a detail changes on one building for a specific reason. Say building A requires metal drains due to construction type, but buildings B-E can remain plastic to save cost. What if the foundation type is different so the wall terminations are not the same? In these cases you lose value because you have a detail that would normally be part of the common details set but isn't. Now the possibility of referring to incorrect details compounds with the inclusion of "imitation callouts" and the work of coordinating the details goes back up.

Here's an idea for a workflow that maintains separate details in each set but leverages Revit's capabilities. I have not tried this yet on my own projects so I'm curious to see if users such as Duncan would see it as a benefit.

1. Link all building models into a shared file for printing (this may be done already)
2. Set up a sheet-set that contains only the detail sheets for all projects
3. Print these sheets to PDF or DWF as a QA set. (or hard copy depending on your PM)
4. Flip quickly back and forth through each page to confirm that the details are matching between each set.
5. Make any required changes to one project only.
6. Save-to-file any modified views, then reload them into each respective building file.

Downsides: 1. It takes more effort to change details because you have to reload into each model. 2. Multiple reviewers making comments on multiple sets could be very difficult to coordinate.
Upsides: 1. each drawing set is unique so it can be split between contractors as David describes. 2. Revit detail references will stay current (extremely important imho) 3. Unique details can be addressed in each set more easily.

-LP

[Duncan Lithgow]

Hi Scott, thanks for your comment


Then if there are crossover details, Ie details that are shared between multiple buildings, I might do those in a shared detail project, Ie if stair details and window details are the same, I would then just use a general note to point the contractor to the sheets of common details.

You have a point about complexity - but the complexity is only in the setup - not in the execution. It's only one person who has to understand how it works (other than me), the others can just get on with drafting.

We have about 48,000 sqm (157,000 sqft) spread across ca. 10 building models which are very similar and fall into max 3 types. So the majority of details are shared. We also have several 100.000 sqm to draft over the next 5 years or so, so drawing things in each building doesn't look attractive to me. What you suggest (which is very close to how we did it for the first 30,000 sqm) means that someone has the job of
1. coordinating that the (imitation) Callouts are placed correctly
2. that they have the right number, and
3. that there are no duplicate numbers
4. moving all the details from all the buildings to the next part of the project

That means a spreadsheet outside Revit which everyone has to refer to.

What I'm trying to do is leverage the coordination Revit is so good at _inside one model_ with the By linked View feature to replace manual entry and cross checking. I'm also trying to make a system which can be reused for the next piece of the project. Looking at the two numbered lists I made, in both cases only adding the imitation Callout is an extra process, the last bit will just work if the coordinator sets things up correctly. I can't see how we can avoid having to use imitation Callouts once we hit the first common detail.

Feel free to vigorously defend your position - I'm still pretty new to this role of refining work-flows and am still trying to learn how to tackle these complex issues.

[Duncan Lithgow]

[duplicate post]

[Duncan Lithgow]

Hi David.

This project is being sent out in just two rounds (I assume that's what you mean by phases - nothing to do with Revits Phases? I don't do my daily work in English so I don't know what everything is called in the US)

[Duncan Lithgow]

Hi LP Design. I don't understand what you mean, is there one set of all details or several sets to compare?


4. Flip quickly back and forth through each page to confirm that the details are matching between each set.

[LP Design]

Several sets. My experience with multi-building campuses has shown that there are not all that many details that can be purely shared between sets without any modification. So there would be maybe 1 or 2 sheets of shared details total. Those would be duplicated for each building set. So in your 10 building example, the QA documents would consist of 20 sheets total. 10 identical sets of 2 pages each. I will admit, however that the system fails if you truly have a large number of shared details, say 4 pages worth, because then you are cross checking 40 sheets at a time.

Think about it. If your buildings are so close to each other that you have that many details shared, you could accomplish your goal by having a single set of documents containing design options to cover the small differences. Then you end up with 1 set of drawings for the buildings, 1 set for the sitework. If your buildings are different enough that they need different document sets I would imagine that there are not that many shared details.

[david_peterson]

Hi David.

This project is being sent out in just two rounds (I assume that's what you mean by phases - nothing to do with Revits Phases? I don't do my daily work in English so I don't know what everything is called in the US)
Yep those would be phases. I look at phases as how many sets of drawings must be issued. If you do things in a traditional Design, Bid, Build delivery, you have one package for all trades and everything goes out for bid and construction at once.
Phases in Revit can be used for many things, but they can also get very complicated and cumbersome so we tend to use revit phases only for the basics - existing, demo, and new construction.
My little project is 1.6 million sqft over I think it's about 16 buildings that will be delivered in multiple bid/build packages. The first package may be the foundation of say 3 of the buildings, but those are going to separate contractors on separate contracts, so I would issue 3 unique packages. Then about 6-8 weeks later we'll issue another foundation package for 3 more of the buildings and so on....... followed by the super structure packages and finally we have the balance (ie everything else)
And you mention you have 5yrs to draw it? I have to start putting out packages in 4 mths and I couldn't tell you where the exterior wall is yet. Should be a fun summer for me.
Hope this helps.

[MikeJarosz]

My little project is 1.6 million sqft over I think it's about 16 buildings that will be delivered in multiple bid/build packages.

Sounds like fast track. Make SURE everyone understands this, so that you aren't hit with change orders later. When you add work in multiple packages, you are not correcting deficiencies from the previous issue, but a lot of contractors see it that way.

Example: If you don't know what the exterior looks like yet, you might discover you need embeds long after the structure has gone out. Contractors love to get you into that situation! Revit can't help you there.

[david_peterson]

Sounds like fast track. Make SURE everyone understands this, so that you aren't hit with change orders later. When you add work in multiple packages, you are not correcting deficiencies from the previous issue, but a lot of contractors see it that way.

Example: If you don't know what the exterior looks like yet, you might discover you need embeds long after the structure has gone out. Contractors love to get you into that situation! Revit can't help you there.
You are correct, but the client knows that already.
It's one of those "We need it built yesterday, and we don't care about change orders or things that got missed". They know there's going to be additional work.
As for fast track, this is more like "going plaid" or "ludicrous speed". But they don't need the whole thing done ASAP. There's a large portion that will be sent out about 18mths from now. They need to get the some parts done in order to meet approvals and commissioning. As for embeds, it's a steel structure; they can weld what ever they want. A coordinating CM will also be on board before the other CM's hire GC's, so everyone is going to be on the same page. It's going to be very well understood that somethings will be missing and changing as the building goes thru the construction cycle. The majority is due to finish construction by the end of 2014 with the entire campus being done end of 2015. But on the upside, I've got job security until then.

[LP Design]

Revit can't help you there.
No, but one thing Revit CAN do is simplify drawing sets for bid packages. By saving sheet-sets and filtering sheet lists by a "bid package" parameter it becomes much easier to assemble each set of drawings. Better than combining sheets one-by-one using Adobe...


this is more like "going plaid" or "ludicrous speed".
+10,000 points. I lol'd.

[david_peterson]

The other thing that it allows me to do is to set objects to a particular "Phase" or "Package". This way I can use my view filter to screen anything that isn't a part of that package; no matter if it's existing or future. That's kind of key when it comes to bids. But the nice part is, since I'm doing it in revit, I'm going to have very little sympathy later on when one of my Archies or MEP consultants tells me "Hey that doesn't fit, can you move that", I can tell them "No, you should have thought about it or given me information prior to my package going out. I guess you'll have to figure it out now". How I love to see them squirm. If it don't fit, not my problem, steel is in place and concrete is cast.

[Duncan Lithgow]

The first package may be the foundation of say 3 of the buildings, but those are going to separate contractors on separate contracts, so I would issue 3 unique packages. Then about 6-8 weeks later we'll issue another foundation package for 3 more of the buildings and so on....... followed by the super structure packages and finally we have the balance (ie everything else)
And you mention you have 5yrs to draw it? I have to start putting out packages in 4 mths and I couldn't tell you where the exterior wall is yet.

Okay, interesting. Is that what they call fast track? When the rest of the building is not yet designed as the structure starts going up. Anyway, the big difference between what you describe and what I have is that we deliver all the drawings for two groups of buildings in July - you're splitting things up into different aspects of the project: foundations, sub-structure, façades etc (sorry if my terminology is wrong). So of course it makes no sense for you to have a central project with all details inside.

On the other hand I assume that your details for the sub-structure will often be the same across several buildings. Would there be a benefit in collecting those in a centralised project - if not why not?

[david_peterson]

Ok so I guess I need to explain myself a little better.
I will have one revit file that has 13 semi-connected (separated by expansion joints and fire-walls) and all the detail associated with them. That revit fill will contain somewhere around 20 different, unique sets of drawings - nothing from one drawing set will be used in another drawing set. While I'm sure I'll have many of the same details across several drawings sets, we set them up so each drawing set can stand by it's own. I hand the contractor 1 set of drawings for structural and everything he needs is there. So while I will have about 7 sheets of details that are going to be identical, (in my case) those sheets get copied to each drawing set. So yes, I may have 20 copies of the same sheet by the time I'm done. Along with those I'll have 20-30 more detail sheets per drawing set that will have very similar details, but not exact due to order of construction. So I may have the exact same detail for 3 different conditions/phases. One that should show the the foundation wall for package 1 solid and the columns for package 2 and 3 screened (screened because they are not in that GC's contract). That same detail would show up in package 2. In package 2 that detail would show the foundation wall from package 1 screened (it's existing and not in that GC's contract) and it would show the steel column from package 2 as solid/bold line work and the steel column from the adjacent building (which is in package 3) as screened (again because it's not in that GC's contract. Package 3 would show that same detail with the foundation wall from package 1 and steel column from package 2 screened (again, existing and not in that GC's contract) and the steel column for package 3 as solid/bold linework. This isn't idea, but it's what needs to be done. I may end up with that same detail in a 4th contract where the slab on grade is the only thing in that contract. So that's where my nightmare is.
While the details are the same, I don't want to give a contractor a detail he isn't supposed to use or doesn't exist in that contract. Also the other thing I run into is while Package 1 is in construction, Package 2 is in Bid, and Package 3 is being finished. So if I was using common details, I'd have to issue 3 changes anyway. 1 Construction Bulletin for Package 1, an Addenda for Package 2 and Package 3 would just be changed in the revit file. Also you may run into that point in time where you can't change what's been issued for package 2 (because it's being reviewed or it's the last day of a bid) and you need to issue something to the contractor working on package 1 while the concrete truck is standing by. So while it may make your life easier to have a "combined detail set" for CD's when it comes time to actually build it you may want to pull your hair out.
By doing a project with the approach I'm using, you end up doing more work up front, it might help ease the confusion in the end by not having them combined. Our archies on another project had a section for an egress stair that they were using for 6 stairs in 3 different buildings. 2 of the stairs fit, the others didn't. Why, because they didn't want to create unique sections for each one.
It's a 2 way street. You can make the case for doing it with a combined set and you can make the case for the individual set.
My detailing approach will be to use mostly 2d details so I can copy them easily with the "Duplicate with Detailing" tool. So once I get my detail done and it's been back checked, the odds of it changing are slim. And once it's been issued with the first package that goes from slim to none. Then I can copy to the next package and so on. So while I'm going to have some what duplicate details, I'm not going to have to do twice the work.
Hope this make some better sense.

[Duncan Lithgow]

Thanks David - that did explain a few things. I can very clearly see that this is all about how the project is organised generally rather than what I think might be optimal use of Revit. I will pass some of your comments on to the people with the most insight into what details they'll need and how many of them can reasonably be shared. Remember we have no phases - the whole documentation set goes out once to just three main contractors, and gets build form earth works to door handles from that documentation set. (As an aside it's amusing to note that our project head says we are delivering a 'complete and error-free project' - despite the fact that most of the team have never done another project in Revit - sigh!)

I just need to check this point: you are doing all details in a separate project file which has the buildings linked in? You are then organising them according to building. So despite the fact that each details set is building specific you still see an advantage in doing them all in one project file? That sounds very close to what I'm planning and Scott was saying I shouldn't do. Collecting them in one project file is where I'm meeting some resistance from the office - so I need to understand the pros and cons.

And how do you deal with placing Callouts correctly out in each building model?

[david_peterson]

You're close and in your case if it were me, I'd hand over the complete set and let the Construction Manager (CM) figure out what belongs to what.
In my case (and this may change in the future), I'm doing all 1mil sqft in one model. All elements, details, plans, sections, elevations..... in one big revit file, NOT linked. That's how I'm getting around detail call-outs. So I don't need to worry about call-outs, they are unique to each deliverable (drawing set). So my sheets will have a building number, phase number and sheet number; that's the info that I'll be using to organize it. But in a sense I'm doing about 20 different projects in one. No separate models. I've picked a good place to cut off the other 600,000 sqft into a different revit file. So the majority of the work will be done in one model.

[MikeJarosz]

I hope you have a team working with you! 1 mil+ SF is a lot of building.

When we did the World Trade Center in Revit 6.0, we had about 10 on the Revit team (if you don't count Phil Read, Matt Jezyk et. al.).

[kmarquis]

Can't you just have a host file where all the models are linked in and do all your annotations and details in that file? I suppose you wouldn't have as much control with graphics but it seems more straight forward. I think about this topic all the time and how I would set up the files. I wish Autodesk gave you the capability to show callouts and section tags from linked files. That would solve a lot of problems. Then the Interior model team can do their details in their file and the exterior team can do their own details as well and bring them together for a complete set.

One idea I had which purist might be against is to do standard details that you don't want changed in Autocad and linked in from a common file location. I guess then you might have some inconsistency with graphics.

[david_peterson]

You could do that, but you'll need to remember a few things when it comes to productivity. If you have separate models, and you're going to document everything from a "composite" model, You'll need to close the big composite model every time you want to "fix" something in one of the links. You can't have a linked model and a composite model open at the same time. So that's 5-10 min every time that happens. Hence the desire to do this all in one file.
One thing you may be able to do is have your interiors group create the detail in their model and in the comp model you can cut the section, turn off your model and use the "By Linked View" option and select the detail they'd like to cut. Still not ideal, but an option I think.
As for importing or linking in cad files, IMHO you're better off leaving cad in cad and creating dummy sheets and details in revit. I don't think Adesk has resolved all the issues yet. If I were going to do something like that, I'd go the jpeg route. Print the cad detail as a jpeg and insert that jpeg into your detail view. Less to worry about with how the graphics (text, hatch, dims...) look.

[kmarquis]

You could do that, but you'll need to remember a few things when it comes to productivity. If you have separate models, and you're going to document everything from a "composite" model, You'll need to close the big composite model every time you want to "fix" something in one of the links. You can't have a linked model and a composite model open at the same time. So that's 5-10 min every time that happens. Hence the desire to do this all in one file.


I guess I was thinking of this scenario as if you had an exterior and an interior model. The interior model was linked into the exterior model and all the annotations were done in the exterior model....or vice versa. This would be annoying I guess since one of the great things about Revit is that you can use your views as working....like in an interior elevation realizing the ceiling was too low...It would have to be moved in another file. I suppose if you had an entire team working you could just coordinate with your team.

I guess my lesson learned here is stick to one giant model until it gets unmanagable or that it is a campus project..then I guess you've got the hoops to jump through. Whatevs....I'm getting a headache.

[crullier]

... You can't have a linked model and a composite model open at the same time. So that's 5-10 min every time that happens. Hence the desire to do this all in one file.....


You can open a second session of Revit, open the link in it, change it, save it, go back to the main model and reload the link. Ive been doing that for quite some time.

[jsteinhauer]

Until you run out of network licenses. If you have 2013 Revit, 2010 Acad you have two licenses checked out. Now opening a second session of Revit checks out another license. Multiply that by 100-125 people and our 250 seats are all used up. Now if network licenses were not version dependent it wouldn't matter.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

[crullier]

Until you run out of network licenses. If you have 2013 Revit, 2010 Acad you have two licenses checked out. Now opening a second session of Revit checks out another license. Multiply that by 100-125 people and our 250 seats are all used up. Now if network licenses were not version dependent it wouldn't matter.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

should've bought a suite ;) - on a serious note, not sure how it works with network lic, but at least with standalone what I suggested works.

[david_peterson]

should've bought a suite ;) - on a serious note, not sure how it works with network lic, but at least with standalone what I suggested works.
Should have bought a suite? Do you work for adesk or something? If you have 200 people in an office, how many of them would you say are using that suite to the fullest? And even then, you can't do it on a network lic. Maybe something has changed, but I can't open a network lic of RA and a network lic of RS and have both models open and retain the links. The link always gets unloaded from it's host when you open it. So you'll still be spending time to open and close and reload models all day long.

[kmarquis]

Until you run out of network licenses. If you have 2013 Revit, 2010 Acad you have two licenses checked out. Now opening a second session of Revit checks out another license. Multiply that by 100-125 people and our 250 seats are all used up. Now if network licenses were not version dependent it wouldn't matter.

Cheers,
Jeff S.

I can see how this might occassionaly be an issue but I think it's pretty infrequent that someone has two sessions of Revit open. Once in a great while I might open another file in another session to quickly change something and then I close it after the change is made. If you assume both models are active and have project teams working on them it's probably easier and better just to communicate with your collegues the changes you need.

[jsteinhauer]

It is an issue, because we hit a wall on licenses already, because of using different versions of Adesk products checks out additional licenses.

Jeff S.

[crullier]

Should have bought a suite? Do you work for adesk or something? ...
sort off... either way relax it was honestly a joke.

[Duncan Lithgow]

If you assume both models are active and have project teams working on them it's probably easier and better just to communicate with your colleagues the changes you need.

That's the situation in my project, the people drawing the details are not allowed to change building geometry without coordinating with other. We also have enough people working at any given time that one can just walk around and find someone with that model open, make the change, sync, and get back to work. But I can see how this problem becomes significant with multi model buildings with a small number of users and limited licenses.