MEP Spaces

[mitchellvoss]

Here is my scenario. I have a project where the architect is modeling the walls, and structural is modeling the concrete columns. The architect is linking in the structural to make an enclosed room. The architect is not using room separation lines. (refusing to even try)

As a MEP firm, when we received models, we load them into our model separately. Therefor, we unload the structural link from the architectural. This allows us to control the visibility of the architectural and structural models separately. Due to this, our new version of the architectural model (arch.rvt) is no longer able to define the extents of the room, causing our space tags to be incorrect.

My workaround is that I save the architectural model as a separate model with the structural link in tact (arch-spaces.rvt). In the MEP model, I unload all other models and use this new model to create the spaces. Once the spaces are made, I reload all of the other models and turn off the visibility for the (arch-spaces.rvt) link thru the visibility graphics. (I unload the (arch-spaces.rvt) due to that I have no control of the visibility of the nested structural model.)

Any thoughts?

[Steve_Stafford]

Why not link in the structural model and make it room bounding too? I presume that's what the architect has to do to define rooms. It ought to be similar for you and your spaces then. Their structural link ought to be Overlay versus Attached. You'd do the same.

[mitchellvoss]

We tried that. The architectural model is losing its connection with the structural model to enclose the room. Once you detach the structural model the architectural rooms then change to floating boxes instead of the extending to the walls.

Here is an example of what I am working with. Both the architectural and structural models are linked into the MEP and using room bounding.

Picture 1 - The space finds the extents of the room and places the tag. The tag however is incorrect. "Linen Holding" is the name of the adjacent corridor. This is an Electrical Room.
Space Correct.jpg

Picture 2 - The room from the architectural model is incorrect. It isn't finding the extents of the room since the structural in no longer linked in the architectural model.
Room Incorrect.jpg

[ballj]

I've never encountered this issue, but is there a possibility that sticking with "Overlay" would work, as long as the Structural link in the Arch model remains intact? I'm just thinking that it appears that during the linking process Mitchellvoss outlined, it seems they are actually unlinking the structural model which may be the reason the rooms are not bounding any longer. The Overlay model may not come through the link, but perhaps the rooms will still bound properly. Just a thought.

[Steve_Stafford]

So are you opening the architects model and detaching the structural file there? Why? It should be set to Overlay. When I tested a similar scenario the spaces worked as expected, both linked files together provided the boundary it needs. Fwiw, when I tried doing that too the two linked files still provided a boundary for a space. When the model is detached from the arch model the space doesn't know what room it is related too though...

I must be missing something you are doing?

[CADastrophe]

I looked at my test file again - the two separate models linked into the Revit Model worked to form the boundary. When I tested, my links came in at 1/32" higher elevation than the current Project's Level, so that's why my Spaces didn't work. D'oh...

[troywright]

We have this issue frequently, as with major projects we will receive different models for architectural fitout, shell and core and facades etc.

The solution we have (in your example) is to;
- Link the structural model into architectural as an overlay, set to room bounding
- In your MEP model link in the structural model and the architectural model.

That's it. Essentially it is an extra step, but it means that the architectural model knows it is bound by the structural model, even though it is only an overlay! I think someone else mentioned this method earlier but with worksets. I can't see a point in doing this as the nested structural model is an overlay, so it's irrelevant.

Another issue you may have is that your spaces act up when an architectural model has floor finishes set to room bounding that are higher than the level they are on. To fix this just change all of your levels to have a calculation height above that of the floor finish.

[mitchellvoss]

you guys are dead on. the model we are receiving is set to "attachment". we discussed the overlay option shortly after my last post and had yet to test it. That worked.