Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Room Separation - Best Practice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Room Separation - Best Practice

    We have a situation where many of the walls in our project are structural elements and are part of a linked structural model.

    The BEP protocols dictate that when sharing models, all links are removed. When we crate rooms with the models linked we can happily set them linked models to room bounding, but after they are removed and then re-linked after sharing, the rooms no longer find their boundaries.

    To get around this issue we have had to use room separation lines extensively, something that I would normally consider to be poor modelling practice. For one thing, we need to keep the separation lines invisible in most cases and they cannot be locked to the RC walls so any layout changes will need to be manually identified and adjusted.

    Have others experienced a similar situation and maybe developed a better approach? I'm toying with the idea of creating wall types to substitute for the RC walls in the structural models purely for the purpose of defining rooms in a way that eliminates the need for room separations, but this introduces other issues of course!

    #2
    Are you are being told by someone that the rooms aren't bounding? If so my money is on them not setting up their model space (and phase mapping) correctly.

    Or are you saying you lose the room bounding in your copy? Because if that's the case, that would suggest you're removing the link(s) from your LIVE model, not your "prepared for issue" model... no? In which case, my advice would be stop doing that (not purely because it clearly upsets things).


    And if you didn't know, if you want your rooms "bound" when in Navis, export the .nwc with links loaded (but hidden from your export view), then remove the links before sending the .rvt.

    Comment


      #3
      The MEP guys are telling me that the rooms are unbounded when they link my shared version of the model to their model. I had assumed that this is a Revit quirk. I suppose it is just possible that they are not setting the linked models to be room bounding, but I'm pretty sure that we had eliminated that as the issue and using room separation lines was a quick fix. We are now at the point of contractor design kicking-in, so we should be getting a new MEP model from them and tidying-up our model to dispose of the separating lines is something that I want to pursue. Something for me to check out before I have to run the BIM workshop for the contractors in a couple of weeks...

      When prepping the model for sharing, step 1 on my checklist is always to create a copy in a separate "Shared" folder before completing all of the other steps on my checklist.
      Last edited by john.warburton; February 20, 2017, 01:45 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by john.warburton View Post
        The MEP guys are telling me that the rooms are unbounded when they link my shared version of the model to their model.
        Have them screenshot (prove) their phase mappings.


        (I'll be waiting to collect my money!)

        Comment


          #5
          Firstly, having all consultants remove all links when sharing models, is a workflow i would avoid, honestly. Having the links present (even if the paths arent resolved) is a HELL of a lot easier than having to relink everything. I tell ALL consultants on a job, models WILL get transmitted EXACTLY as they are in their office: All Links, all views, nothing purged, etc.

          Room Bounding Links were fine as long as (as Snowy mentioned) the Phase Mapping is correct, the link is set to Room Bounding (Type properties of the link) and the walls in the Linked Model are set to Room Bounding (instance properties).

          Keep the links when transmitting, keep the linked file as room bounding, check the phase mapping, and delete all the RSL's. (my opinion).
          Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
          @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

          Comment


            #6
            I've asked for the MEP guys to check their phase mapping, but honestly I'm not seeing that it will be an issue - at this stage, the MEP guys only have Existing and New Construction phases in their models and in my tests the default phase mapping has always resolved the phasing in my model correctly (Existing to Existing, and everything else to New Construction.) At present, the only phase actually in use is New Construction ("Cat-A Works" in my model.) I have "Cat-A2" and "Cat-B" set up and ready to go, but until instructed to proceed to the next phase, they are unused. None of us have used design options, either.

            The BEP protocols on this project are quite exacting and before sharing of models they include unlinking everything, deletion of all reference planes, deletion of all non-essential views, ungrouping of all grouped elements, triple purging of the model, and more. I do have the opportunity to review this as we move into the next stage, but our client has asked us to avoid any alterations to the BEP unless absolutely essential...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by john.warburton View Post
              ungrouping of all grouped elements
              OMGeeeeeee! Really? How utterly absurd.

              Comment


                #8
                To be fair - using COBie kind of rules out using groups anyway.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by john.warburton View Post
                  To be fair - using COBie kind of rules out using groups anyway.
                  Or:

                  "Using the really rather half baked COBie tool from Autodesk rules out using groups."

                  Which is (one of the many reasons) why I don't.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                    Or:

                    "Using the really rather half baked COBie tool from Autodesk rules out using groups."

                    Which is (one of the many reasons) why I don't.
                    Not their finest bit of software, it's true. What would you recommend instead? Poor COBie output and issues with generating COBie export from linked models is what started me down this route of resolving rooms properly in the first place...
                    Last edited by john.warburton; February 21, 2017, 11:44 AM.

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X