Revit Wall Naming Convention

[josh.made4worship]

Okay, I have attached a pdf of my first major stab at Revit Wall Naming conventions.

I know that some of you will probably hate it cause it's encrypted and complicated while others of you will hopefully like it for just that reason.

I would really appreciate some "critical" feedback for this. What are your thoughts...what pitfalls do you see...what benefits.

Feel free to ask me to clarify anything.

I am not looking for comments like..."too complicated..." but if you think it is, tell why and how it could affect our workflow in Revit. I know it's complicated, I want to know WHY you think it is and what problems you forsee.

I hope this thread will help fellow reviteers in their standards endeavor as well, particularly with walls.

On a side note, I wish there was a way to "hard coat" the wall name from the wall construction we set up for the wall in Revit. The major pitfall I see of any naming of walls is that if you ever edit/change the wall type composition, you have to manually update the name...just a thought.

[aaronrumple]

We have a system for standard interior partitions. However we have a very lose system for exterior walls.

Our system is WAY shorter than yours.

A few comments. Why dor you need the F? Why not just S and W instead of FS and FW?

We shortended our widths to nominal units based on the stud width. So just 3 or 6. We don't use 3 1/2" metal studs so there is no need to slice things that fine.

The rating is just a parameter on the wall for us.

Save some space and just use <Description> rather than <<<Description>>>. I think everyone gets the idea. Or just drop it all together and keep it as the description parameter. This forces users to learn the system. Why the underscores? That is so retro. Something like
1/2" Gyp.>3 5/8" Stud<1/2" Gyp. Would be more Revit as the >< could indicate the >Core<.

Adding in the STC as a shared instance parameter greatly reduces the number of wall types required. But this does requite a little more checking as you assemble the documents.

It is a complex issue. I've suggested that what Revit really needs is sub-types. So you could have one wall which is gyp. stud gyp. and then have several variations of thickness and type developed from that. It would save a lot of organizational time.

[josh.made4worship]

Great comment...I am currently getting more feedback here in house, and will share some of that feedback with you guys once I come to some more conclusions about how this should work.

fyi...we are looking at getting rid of the STC and the Fire Rating all together in the wall name. The comment was made that if you can see the component construction, you can have a good idea of what the ratings will be with a little experience. Plus, as you mentioned, it's data in the wall properties that be looked at manually if necessary.

The "<<<..." really was a stupid idea...it was late yesterday and I was just trying to indicate the "construction" section of the name. Nice comment on the "retro"-ness of my naming convention...lol.

As far as your STC comment, I don't know that I completely understand. The STC rating is based on the wall construction, and since the wall construction is by Type, why would you want the Rating to be by instance?...let me know your thoughts...maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective.

[twiceroadsfool]

Ours are rough first/second attempts as well, but ive been using them fairly well on projects, and they are easiy to sort through.

For stacked walls we use the thickest designation, and the same system bith with blackslashes "STONE/EIFS - MTL STD - GYP" and so on.

I tossed up the one on families too. Its not bulletproof, but its better than the "everyone throw their initials after the family and project name" method that existed before hand...

[josh.made4worship]

very nice...this will be helpful to us and many other Reviteers I am sure...thanks for the post.

P.S. I was just fixing to tackle family naming conventions, so thanks again!

[josh.made4worship]

One more comment regarding the families naming convention. We have "pre-fixed" our family names with their corresponding "MasterSpec" number...this really helps organize the drop down list, particular with things defined as "components." It also helps us keep our Family Library Organized a little more in depth...just a thought. I took me a while to set it up this way though, since I had to go and rename all of the existing "out of box" families with their "MasterSpec" number as a prefix...but I accomplished it and like it pretty well.

[twiceroadsfool]

I find in the Revit library im often looking for things based on what theyre used for... So the CONST families are ones that are just components made to model things like EIFS cornices that are at angles, wall brackets, etc... I know if i need to find a Profile, i sort by name and go to PRF. I know a few places are sorting the families directory by catagory, but thats tough if a lot of things get modeled as Generic Models, but dont get me started on that, LOL...

[luigi]

I don't have critical comments about your system, I prefer a more minimal naming convention aproach...this is what we do

X CFMF 4" x-BRK i-GWB 5/8" (like my rainbow?)

I care about whether the wall is an eXterior or Interior wall, the core of the wall, the exterior material (size where applicable) and the interior material (size where applicable)

one would be allowed to add parts, but the main structure is that....we don't want to be the Revit Police though....

Anyways, just thought to share

[mattmols]

Here is my take on it. I believe they way most people select a wall is governed by this list of priorities:

1. Interior/Exterior
2. Wall Type (Type Mark) - first the Core and Exterior Finish, then the sub-types are the varies of wall type that stem from interior finish, thicknesses, etc.
3. Ratings

One can have a file for each core type with numerous variations. Then copy whichever walls into the project. The sub-type could be specific to a project.

I like the way these list too.

[Justin Marchiel]

our system is simple

core layer - thickness - finish layer ie WF4A. This means wood frame, 2x4, with 1/2" gwb each side (the A is a value that represents different finish based on a schedule). when the wall gets more complicated we can break it down into pieces (such as when there is a concrete wall we would use a C8 tag for the concrete, then the type desigantion listed above). if there are sound batts we add a i to the tag and type x gwb we use a x. so you might have a WF4Bxi. if it is a fire seperation we use a legend to like the wall to a tested value.

Exterior walls are designated as E1, E2 etc. each wall is different and doesn't need a code because it is shown on the wall sections and such.

Seems to work and once you know the code it is easy to look at a plan and know what the wall type if by looking at the code.

Justin

[jcoe]

I have taken the simple approach here as well. I broke our walls down based on what the overall construction was going to be. So walls that are used as furring start with an F identifier; gypsum walls with G, Masonry walls with M and Wood walls with W. We leave exterior wall definitions to wall sections.

Samples attached. Also from a scheduling standpoint, I created a parameter for walls that would allow sorting and grouping by assembly type.

[Mike Sealander]

We use a four-character tag.
Letter for core type (M, S, W).
Number for core thickness (0 for direct applied, for instance gwb to existing cmu) in whole-number increments.
Number for head attachment type: six possible head types.
Finishes switch, A,B,C et.c for scheduled finishes. Most finishes are one layer of gwb on both sides for interior partitions. The idea here is that it's very easy to frame partitions based on the first three characters, and then finishes are scheduled or elevated.
If particular STC or fire ratings apply to a partition, they are noted in the final 'finishes' switch
Exterior walls are developed in section. We have tagged them on residential projects where the same wall section appears over and over again, using E1, E2, and so on.

[Kevin Janik]

Mike,

Could you please show us some examples of what the wall names would be. I am a bit confused and your wall tag graphic associated to a wall name from the examples above. That would help me out.

Kevin

[dbaldacchino]

So you create unique wall types depending on the head attachment type? Isn't that redundant? I mean, the wall construction is the same. Different head conditions really result in different bracing configurations or gyp stopping above ceiling for example, etc. But fundementally, the wall is the same. I really struggle with figuring out the best "BIM" way to model and document walls.

[D_Driver]

ahhh...great discussion, and I guess the following probably belongs on the wish list, but here goes.

subtypes would be awesome

So many firms I work for have some designator within their wall tag system for:
1) height of wall (to ceiling, 6" above ceiling, full height)
as well as
2) finish layer height (6" above ceiling, full height)

Item 1) While the parameter exists for item 1 (wall top and wall top offset), these parameters are not exposed to tags (don't get me started here). I have thought much about this one and cannot see any resolution. Even if I could test to see if wall was top constrained to next level up, there will always be the condition where the next level up is a partial level such as a mezzanine or...If I could test to see if the wall was top attached, same deal, I would need to test if the wall was top attached to a floor or roof that was the correct "next level up".


Item 2) Granted that Revit wall (structure) finishes are a bit oblivious to their conditions relative to their adjacent ceilings, this becomes a tedious manual process in BIM (not just Revit). Manual process = likely chance for error.
I could (and have) defined wall types for simple buildings that have wall finish layer heights absolutely defined (little known/documented wall structural property (hit the wall in the structure>edit section preview and unlock the single gwb component top)), this makes for too many wall types in a project and is unweildy in anything but a small project.

no answers, good thread, thanks

[mattmols]

In order to keep wall naming and wall tags easy to use and understandable for all, I believe the type and instance should be kept separate. I like to only name a wall with what is included in the type parameters (listed my opinion on that earlier in this thread). Likewise, the actual wall "type mark" will only reflect type parameters (to each their own) and not the instance parameters.

However, I think the documents should quickly give the reader an accurate understanding of all wall properties. So, there are a couple ways, that I can think of, to depict instance parameters or properties for each wall:

1. The wall tag family could have modified to have number, symbols and/or letters just outside of the tag shape (diamond is standard). Then, your symbol legend will then reflect the encryptic code.

2. The wall itself can be graphically modified to and depicted in a legend. This can be easily achieve with visibility graphic filters and hatches.

Personally I like a combination of the two. Becuase different plan sheets are designated for different purposes (Dimensions, keynotes, egress, RCP, etc.) the specific filters can be applied. I think tag styles should be limited in a project to limit confusion when switch in from sheet to sheet, but I don't think hatches don't have that same problem.

I am still in the process of figuring out what is the best practice, but this is where I am at currently. Does anyone have a wall tag does what I describe above?

[nsinha73]

Wow awesome guys....We have something very similar however very short...

EX 7 1/2" SP II G

EX - Exterior

7 1/2" - Wall

S - Stucco

P - Ply

II - Indicates Core

G - Gypsum Board

[cek]

I've been down this road before and there doesn't seem to be a simple way to address this. Once you start to realize the number of variables in a wall assembly the permutations become enormous, especially if you are a firm that does a wide variety of project types. The coding approach, which I've also tried, has part of its roots in trying to shorten the descriptive so it conveniently appears in the Revit drop down menu. Modifying this limitation within Revit would appear to go along way toward resolving wall naming issues and help a more novice user extract the appropriate wall type.

I beilieve the solution can be found in having a logical structured menu to select your wall from. A possible answer might be found in a tiered menu approach (like many web sites employ). If each tier could appear as a parameter within the wall construction and as we build the wall assembly it locates it's value properly within the tiered menu structure this may be very helpful.

Of course once the wall is selected you will want to retain this type so as not to have to revisit the Wall Assembly Selector so an abbreviated code would be necessary, possibly derived from the core assembly. If you then placed your cursor over a particular coded assembly the entire assembly structure should be revealed.

Just a suggestion.

For example:

WALL ASSEMBLY SELECTION
Exterior
-----Frame
--------4” (Nom)
------------Wood
--------------16” o.c.
-----------------Sheathing 0.5” OSB / 0.5” GWB
--------------------2” EFIS
-----------------Sheathing 0.5” CDX / 0.625” GWB
---------------24” o.c.
-------------------Sheathing 0.5” OSB / 0.5” GWB
-------------------Sheathing 0.5” CDX / 0.625” GWB
------------Metal
--------6” (Nom)
--------8” (Nom)
----Masonry
--------6”
--------8”
--------12”

WALLS SELECTED

X-Ext-F4W
(where X would be a wall not assigned a mark value for the wall schedule)
1-Ext-F4W
(where ‘1’ would be the wall assigned mark value for the wall schedule)

[DzineN]

Since Revit has a steady stream of new users, I thought it would be nice to revive this thread.

Here are my thoughts ...

At the extreme low-end one could simply name walls 1,2,3,4 etc. whereas the opposite extreme of naming every single component: (Component 1)(Component 2)(Component 3)Core(Component 4)(Component 5) to Ad infinitum is just as crazy. :roll:

So, we went with a happy medium. Choosing to name walls based on the attached image.

Example: EXT-WS*nr(7/8" EIFS/2x6/.62Gyp)9 1/8"#12+

Essentially, we chose to break down the wall name with codes for Exterior (Interior) / Major support member type / Fire & Smoke Rating / Then the outermost exterior material / The core thickness / Innermost material / Total Thickness (This was a designer request) / Sequential Number for walls that are of the same general type but have differences / And the final number is a sequential project specific number where multiple instances are used with different para-metrics.

Ok, that looks like a lot when you describe it but it really isn't. (Check the image) The result is a wall type name that is easily identifiable, sorts well and customizable without being too over the top (IMO). The name itself is not really any longer than some of the pre-installed wall types.

89905

The walls themselves are stored in a template file along with the Wall Type Detail, which is created in a drafting view. The drafting view can be inserted into the current project file and placed on a sheet with ease. The wall is simply copied into the current project (copy / paste).

[bstrauss353542]

All our family types (walls or otherwise) are named in the same very simple method:

"The thing"("The thing's dimensions in mm")
ie for a door:
Panel(820x40x2040)

An underscore separates the different components that you need to describe in a family:
Panel(820x40x2040)_Frame(40)

Works for anything...

Tree(6000)
Spa(800x1700x500)_6 Jets_White
Cubicle(900x1800)
Arial(1.8)

We actually avoid writing the name in the type if its in the family name.


AS FOR WALLS.... they are very similar

Use simple abbreviations for the layers and work from Exterior>Interior
An underscore divides the different layers

1 Layer 13mm Plasterboard each side of 76mm Steel Stud
PLB(13)_SSF(76)_PLB(13)


Brick Veneer
BWK(110)_CAV(50)_TSF_(90)_PLB(10)

93646


SSF - Steel Stud Frame
PLB - Plasterboard
BWK - Brickwork
CAV - Cavity


We can build/copy and create walls very easily on the fly and the users on Revit can easily understand the system.
Not to mention all the benefits of filtering based on type name:mrgreen:

[keith394833]

This is a very useful thread for anyone trying to put together naming conventions.

If I may I'd like to throw another issue into the mix to see how others deal with them.

We find that as a project develops often we have to split external walls down into and external portion and an internal portion particularly where there is a cavity in which structural elements are located. In general terms this is fine but it leads me to the following issue;

The internal face of the wall - should that now be considered to be an internal wall or possibly a lining or does it remain an external wall as in general terms it's still part of the external wall construction? And with this wall what should be considered to be the 'external' and 'internal' face?

[nsinha73]

I think this is the simplest. Wall naming Convention

EX 6" - W1.0 - SP II G - Typical Wall

EX 6"= Exterior 6" Studs
W1.0 = Wall Tag Designation
S = Stucco
P = Plywood Sheathing
II = Resembles "CORE"
G = Gypsum Sheathing
At the end is a simple description

Letters before the "II" is Exterior side.

I have not seen anything simpler than these. A complicated Naming system becomes a "Chore", which is counter productive in Revit :)

[Abin Jose]

Is there any common standard we can follow for naming Walls. A bit more easier than this.

[marmiketin]

For exterior walls we use W followed by a number (W1, W2, W3, etc.) and these are built up for each project as exterior walls are almost never the same. For interior walls we use P for partition followed by a number and then a lower case letter (P1a, P4d, P6b, etc.). P1 - P4 are different size metal stud walls, P5 - P8 are the different sizes of wood stud walls, then we have P9 - P13 for concrete block walls and a few more for other common core types like double studs or flat studs. The lower case letters after the number represent the finish, P1a is 64mm metal stud no finish, P1b is has 1/2" gypsum on one side, P1c has 1/2" both sides, P1d has 1/2" one side with batt insul fill, P1e has 1/2" both side with batt insul fill, then the it cycles through the 5/8" gypsum as well as different thickness gyp on both sides and double layer gyp with and without batt. The lower case letters always represent the same finishes so its fairly easy to know what walls are what once you have used them a few times.

[martinezdesign]

There was a comment made earlier from "cek" about the complexity and variation that comes from the many wall types in any given project. Our firm does a lot of ground-up work, so we find ourselves having to create dozens of wall/ceiling/roof types, particularly for the exterior walls. We could theoretically create a wall type for each and every condition, but we generally don't do this and let the details/drafting views capture the nuances. For instance, at the rim joist/floor assembly, our details stipulate only a single layer of gypsum board on the inside behind the rim joist for FLS purposes while the rest of the wall assembly has (2) layers, but we are definitely not going to split our walls up by floor and create a new wall type just for the rim joist--it effort required is not proportionate to the results. Fortunately, we don't have a BIM execution plan that stipulates this level of specificity.

It has been my experience that as soon as you have a separate document that stipulates the naming convention, people will generally not adhere to it. There are already so many issues to worry about, both BIM and non-BIM, and to have to find a document to type in a cryptic naming convention is just not worth it. People will create wall types with a naming convention that is "good enough," i.e., it might not follow a rigid standard, but people can find the wall type within a reasonable amount of time and understand what it's composed of without having to find a separate PDF to explain what it's all about.

In my opinion, if you need an entire document to explain it, it's not intuitive enough to use and therefore another method should be pursued. I am a firm believer of visual management a la Lean. If the BIM lead on the project has a few wall types already set up, and people can figure it out by just looking at the wall types, you're golden.

With that being said, in my current project, the wall type names are their wall tags followed with a few descriptors. Example: (3A) Plaster - White - Sand Smooth (11") (Double Shear). I inherited this project and decided to follow this convention for the sake of consistency. Kind of long, but I think most people by looking at it would be able to figure out the methodology.

I'll certainly be thinking about this more, although I am still not convinced there is a system that will yield a truly flawless naming convention, i.e., one that is intuitive and does not require a separate document to explain, will not yield dozens of wall types, and that will be readily used by all.