Addenda Sheets/Supplemental Instructions

[bwilliams133]

I did a few searches and couldn't find a single post on this topic, I'm having a hard time believing it hasn't been asked. If there are other threads on this topic, please feel free to post links to them.

How is everyone handling addenda/supplemental sheets in Revit? With other software, we typically make a revision and then issue an 8.5"x11" sheet with just that revision on it, we don't usually reissue the whole sheet.

I know how to create the 8.5"x11" titleblock/sheet in Revit, and also know that I can't put the same view on two different sheets. I also know that you can't have two different sheets with the same sheet number, but I can work out a different number system for that.

I have a very small interior reno project and just need to redo one small elevation and a little part of the floor plan. I'd like to issue the smaller sized sheets if possible. I do know there is a revisions schedule but I need to learn more about it...is that the key to being able to issue the smaller sheets?

Any tips/suggestions/best practices? I'd really appreciate it. I'm slightly more advanced than a true beginner with Revit. Thank you everyone.

[antman]

Have you tried duplicate as dependent, and placing that view on a supplemental sheet? Sorry, not a lot of advice since I haven't quite gotten to that issue myself yet...

[CADastrophe]

Typically, we use Dependent Views and crop the image as needed. Rarely, we show the View at a different scale than the original and must make a separate View.

[bwilliams133]

Thanks - that was the only thing I could come up with. And for this small of a project it'll work. But i was trying to think like a typical, larger project where we can often have 4-5 revisions (design-build projects which are often only 90% designed when construction starts). This method would mean that I could end up with potentially dozens of duplicated views. I haven't found a better solution though! Thank you.

[CADastrophe]

Perhaps an answer to that (which we've kind of done) is to create separate, independent Views, but put them on their own Subdiscipline (or another user-created Project Parameter) so that they can be organized nicely in the Project Browser. We also created such a Parameter to apply to the Sheets so that we can create separate Sheet Indexes for each addendum (via Schedule Filters).

[antman]

I recently worked on a project in AutoCAD *gasp* that had hundreds of views that if done in Revit would have used this method. In theory, I would think it should work, unless Revit chokes once you have 50+ dependents of a single view. Perhaps I should test this out...

[dkoch]

On recent Revit projects, we have done a lot of whole sheet reissues, partly because of this issue, and partly because the Construction Manager preferred having the entire sheet reissued, rather than having to track a lot of smaller sheets. One other possibility is to create an image of the revision, and place that image on a small-format sheet. The advantage there is that the image remains static, so you always have the original sketch even if there are subsequent changes. I have experimented with this technique (including a variant where a hand-drawn sketch was brought into a Revit title block), but have not had a project where there were a large number of these, so I cannot say what the effect of having a lot of images attached would be on the performance of the Revit model.

I recall another thread on this topic - could be some time ago - where I read about using images for sketches, rather than dependent views. Perhaps one of these two threads will provide more information (if not a definitive answer, as personal preferences enter in here):
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?133831-Why-can-views-only-be-used-once-in-sheets&highlight=construction+sketch
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?124449-Save-to-Project-as-Image-amp-RFI-s&highlight=construction+sketch

[CADastrophe]

That's not a bad thought, but I imagine the agony of the poor computers when this gets out of control. We've had a few episodes of frantic architects changing an area for an addendum and then again for another addendum. Keeping up with the changes essentially invalidates the Views from the first addendum. We keep all records (original drawings, addendums) in PDF format elsewhere as a static record, but keep the sheets in the Model in order to keep a master sheet list (both drawings and sketches).

This may be going on a tangent, but a while ago when we were doing our first addendums in Revit, this was brought up. I threw out the idea of creating a Design Option for the original design, copying the original elements to it just to preserve the original info. This wouldn't be without its issues, but we never got around to trying it.

[dkoch]

We keep all records (original drawings, addendums) in PDF format elsewhere as a static record, but keep the sheets in the Model in order to keep a master sheet list (both drawings and sketches).

We do that, too.


This may be going on a tangent, but a while ago when we were doing our first addendums in Revit, this was brought up. I threw out the idea of creating a Design Option for the original design, copying the original elements to it just to preserve the original info. This wouldn't be without its issues, but we never got around to trying it.

My limited experience with Design Options is sufficient to make me question how well that might work. If you typically do not have many post-issued-for-bidding changes, that might work. If the concern is having a Revit record of the previous design, I would be more inclined to make an archival copy of the model before I made the changes.

[CADastrophe]

My limited experience with Design Options is sufficient to make me question how well that might work. If you typically do not have many post-issued-for-bidding changes, that might work. If the concern is having a Revit record of the previous design, I would be more inclined to make an archival copy of the model before I made the changes.

Agreed. There were reasons we didn't do it - was just a thought at the time on how to keep all of the info in a single model - we wouldn't really want to go the archiving models route, especially since the catastrophe of a project before that had 22 addendums, and we wouldn't been to enthusiastic about archiving 18 or so Revit models!