Diffusers as Air Terminal not Mechanical Equipment?

[Gordon Price]

I got an interesting request today from our Mechanical Engineer, specifically asking us to make our Air Diffuser family an Air Terminal not Mechanical Equipment. Now the only reason we have these in our model now was to document existing conditions and to provide the Engineer with some design direction for the new work. The assumption is that by the end of DD we should be using their equipment via linked Revit file, and the stuff in our model would be deleted, or perhaps moved to a Render workset if their stuff is just too ugly to use in presentations, so it shouldn't matter what category our stuff is, right?. But perhaps more importantly, I have never heard this request before. Having the Architect use Mechanical Equipment placeholders and the Mechanical Engineer uses much more fine grained group of categories has always seemed to be the right answer.

So, anyone have any thoughts? Is there new Copy/Monitor functionality that doesn't work unless we use the same category as the engineer? Or is there something new in Revit MEP that otherwise makes coordination easier if we match categories? I ask mostly because changing this would require reworking our view templates and who knows what else, so I don't want to go there unless someone on the team is getting some real value.

Thanks for any insights. I am waiting to hear back from the Engineer as well. We'll see what she has to say on the matter also.

Gordon

[JCM]

I'm assuming that the mechanical engineer just saw the work more time consuming unless you can supply him with that change. he was probably going to use your family to just "swap it out" with one of his own but the family because it will not show up in the drop down list because it is not part of the same category, then he will have to place all air terminals manually.
I haven't touched Revit MEP in a while so this is just an assumption.

[RabbitHole]

I got an interesting request today from our Mechanical Engineer, specifically asking us to make our Air Diffuser family an Air Terminal not Mechanical Equipment. Now the only reason we have these in our model now was to document existing conditions and to provide the Engineer with some design direction for the new work. The assumption is that by the end of DD we should be using their equipment via linked Revit file, and the stuff in our model would be deleted, or perhaps moved to a Render workset if their stuff is just too ugly to use in presentations, so it shouldn't matter what category our stuff is, right?. But perhaps more importantly, I have never heard this request before. Having the Architect use Mechanical Equipment placeholders and the Mechanical Engineer uses much more fine grained group of categories has always seemed to be the right answer.

So, anyone have any thoughts? Is there new Copy/Monitor functionality that doesn't work unless we use the same category as the engineer? Or is there something new in Revit MEP that otherwise makes coordination easier if we match categories? I ask mostly because changing this would require reworking our view templates and who knows what else, so I don't want to go there unless someone on the team is getting some real value.

Thanks for any insights. I am waiting to hear back from the Engineer as well. We'll see what she has to say on the matter also.

Gordon

The engineers does way more detail modeling for the mechanical and HVAC systems than required by the design Architect for their DD model. So I cannot see why they would require your model elements to be editable for them. As you said they should just be place holders for your the engineer's reference and for you as Architect to better interpret the space and for presentation purposes.
Down the line as the engineers develop their model and design their systems you just link that into your model within worksets.
And as JCM mentioned it is probably because they can't select your family and switch it out easily, so they are looking at an easy way out. Just make sure who is liable and contracted to do the work. The whole system in Revit MEP is integrated and everything ties into one another. Ducts, channels , units and all that. They should be modeling it. Unless they supply you with the mechanical units and have you replace it. But once again who gets paid?
The whole idea for collaborative BIM is that each professional does his bit and we combine that.
Just my two bits.

[mdradvies]

I agree with Juan and RabbitHole, the guy is probably taking a shortcut on this one...
As far as I know you can still compare different categories, so that won't be the case. But, keep us posted because I would like to know if there's a valid reason for this request.

[M20roxxers]

The main is reason is for the co-ordination options in Revit for the MEP equipment. That way if you move an air diffuser it will let them know it's moved. They have to use Air Terminals and if you use mech equipment they have to aswell which stuffs up the co-ordination as well as the whole mech calculation side of things effort in the first place and therefore that tool has no use.

It's not a short cut it's about doing things the right way. I mean at the end of the day if you putting in Air Terminals why don't you call them that in the first place so they are on the correct catagory.

[mdradvies]

The main is reason is for the co-ordination options in Revit for the MEP equipment. That way if you move an air diffuser it will let them know it's moved. They have to use Air Terminals and if you use mech equipment they have to aswell which stuffs up the co-ordination as well as the whole mech calculation side of things effort in the first place and therefore that tool has no use.

It's not a short cut it's about doing things the right way. I mean at the end of the day if you putting in Air Terminals why don't you call them that in the first place so they are on the correct catagory.

You're probably right, BUT as I read the post it wasn't Gordon's intention that his Mech. Eq. is used for calculation. It's just a service to deliver an as-built starting point. By that means, I'd say: keep them as they are. I believe it to be the correct workflow if the general direction of the architect is rePLACED by the MEPguy, not reUSED.
It's the same thing with the Structural Components. The architect gives a hint of his ideas and directions. The Structural guy does the math and rePLACES the structural elements provided by the architect in a separate model. This model is then linked in the Architectural model.

If not: I forsee a lot of questions about liability. If the architects components are reUSED, who's to blame if they aren't correct? If I were the MEPguy I wouldn't even want to use Gordon's components. My own library I can trust. His library I would have to doublecheck. My library would be up-to-date, with the right parameters and values assigned to them. Who's to tell he didn't resize his family because "it wouldn't fit above the ceiling" or something?
My point of view always is: if I have to sign it off, I model it.

[ChrisRV]

This may be interesting to some who need to collaborate and would be helped by automation in getting the real world MEP data to align with the design model. EastCoast CAD/CAM has a new utility for conversion of ductwork in Revit MEP systems, using a mapping system that you define. There's a webinar presentation tomorrow, Jan 25th, at 1 p.m. EST that is open to everyone. Register for it on the EastCoast web site (www.eccadcam.com), and look to their Software Presentations page for a recording of it if you cannot make the time tomorrow. Best regards,

ChrisRV

[Ian.Kidston]

This may be interesting to some who need to collaborate and would be helped by automation in getting the real world MEP data to align with the design model. EastCoast CAD/CAM has a new utility for conversion of ductwork in Revit MEP systems, using a mapping system that you define. There's a webinar presentation tomorrow, Jan 25th, at 1 p.m. EST that is open to everyone. Register for it on the EastCoast web site (www.eccadcam.com), and look to their Software Presentations page for a recording of it if you cannot make the time tomorrow. Best regards,





ChrisRV

Hi Chris,

Welcome to the forum I am sure our MEP members would be keen to learn of any tips and tricks you might have to share, as the sharing of such information is the purpose of the forum. Whilst we are happy for you to include your website in your signature, we discourage straight advertorials on the forum.

Cheers

[M20roxxers]

You're probably right, BUT as I read the post it wasn't Gordon's intention that his Mech. Eq. is used for calculation. It's just a service to deliver an as-built starting point. By that means, I'd say: keep them as they are. I believe it to be the correct workflow if the general direction of the architect is rePLACED by the MEPguy, not reUSED.

He would have to REPLACE manually and track manually rather then automatically since you can't link Air Terminals to Mech eq with the co-ordination tools in Revit. the family is not relevant the location might be.

Also for co-ordination purposes in Navis models. I don't know about you guys but I like being able to go check clashes "Air Terminals" vs "Lighting Fixtures" with those models I would get no clashes, but with the MEP model I may get clashes so why one and not the other then I have to run around figuring out whats going on, then I wonder "If this isn't right what else is on some other catagory".

While it might have been setup this way it simply makes things longer for everybody else.
Better to send PDF's instead of the model since people actually go through those rather then a Revit model.

[mdradvies]

He would have to REPLACE manually and track manually rather then automatically since you can't link Air Terminals to Mech eq with the co-ordination tools in Revit. the family is not relevant the location might be.

That would be exactly the way I wanted it to go (and if I read the OP correctly, that's what Gordons intention was): all terminals are replaced, I delete my own and link in the complete MEP model...