Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Necro99

Thread: Mech Elec Coordination Across Files

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    April 30, 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    177
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM

    Mech Elec Coordination Across Files

    My office uses seperate files for the mechanical and electrical departments. I want a way to make the mechanical elements circuitable and to reduce the amount of information that electrical has to copy over from the mechanical file. I've found this post which describes a workflow that included adding a nested electrical family to mechanical equipement and changing the batch copy settings to replace it with the electrical family you want. The thing I like about this idea is that it keeps the mechanical family relatively clean. The electrical wiring schedule includes a lot of information which mechanical will either not use or not use on every peice of equipment. If we were to go with a standard copy/monitor I would have to add all these parameters to the mechanical equipement. Below is a spread sheet of what the wiring schedule will look like. Parameters marked in blue will be used by all departments for all peices of equipment. Red ons will have to be replaced if I have everything natively in the mechanical family because they will often conflict with the mechancial department uses of them. Every other parameter would either never be used by the mechanical department or only used on some pieces of equipment. For example, I don't think it would be good practice to add KW to every mechanical family if the majority are going to be left blank.


    I've tried creating a placeholder family and nesting it in the mechanical family. Then copying it into the mechanical with the batch copy setting for that family changed to copy over another family I created that has all these parameters loaded. Errors are occuring when equipment is moved in the mechanical file and coordination review is done in the mechanical. This error happens:



    Anyone have ideas about whats happening here?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Mech Elec Coordination Across Files-elec-mech-coor-02.png   Mech Elec Coordination Across Files-elec-mech-coor-01.png  

  2. #2
    Forum Addict josephpeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,394
    Current Local Time
    02:18 AM
    Well like the error says, dont use hosted (Wall,Ceiling,Face based) families as they cannot be easily moved. Just use Level based and make sure you have the same levels.
    Workplane Based is also unreliable with Copy Monitor, it tends to put them all at offset 0.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    April 30, 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    177
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM
    Both the placeholder family and the family in the electrical model are not hosted. The pump that the family is nested in is hosted to a face, but the coordination review moved that fine. I don't understand how the "ELEC_Electrical Mechanical" file is hosted.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    February 22, 2013
    Posts
    316
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM
    All this messing with Copy/Monitor and placeholder families... why not just have M and E in the same model? That way you can circuit directly to their equipment. That's the way we've been doing it for almost 7 years now. It really seems like you're going against the intended workflow, here.

  5. #5
    Forum Addict josephpeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 3, 2012
    Posts
    1,394
    Current Local Time
    02:18 AM
    Kind of agree.. but being able to seamlessly work with multiple confederated models, as if elements where in the same model just without being able to change the link, would be a major step up in the way that Revit can be used collaboratively.

    Although its quite badly implemented, copy monitor is the only way to create and manage linked points between models. I would really like to see ADesk develop this to its full potential in the future. Any kind of parametric design process in one model has to be propagated to changes in other related models. Manually following changes or trying to link and move stuff with dynamo is not really practical.

    @CRapai
    If its not hosted then I dont know what that error is about.
    Last edited by josephpeel; February 15th, 2019 at 11:06 AM.

  6.    #6
    Member
    Join Date
    April 20, 2015
    Posts
    116
    Current Local Time
    01:18 AM
    As Necro99 says. Is there a reason why you dont have the single Revit MEP model?

  7.    #7
    Member
    Join Date
    April 30, 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    177
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM
    From what I've gathered the reason we are using 4 models, yes four, is because people were tired of people messing with "their" stuff/elements. I'm not sure if it is something that I'm going to be able to change peoples minds on, but I'd be open to suggestions if anyone has had to force their company away from this strategy.

  8.    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    June 14, 2011
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    554
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM
    There are a couple of valid reasons to have multiple MEP models but people not playing well with others is not one of them.

    Why implement a workflow that makes users work harder?

    I think the real question is how to get these people properly trained to not mess with other peoples' designs without coordinating with them.

  9.    #9
    Member
    Join Date
    February 22, 2013
    Posts
    316
    Current Local Time
    09:18 PM
    This is what Worksets were intended for. Let people check out a workset that should be that. MEP should always be in the same model. Thankfully we never went down any other road when we were starting out.

    Like I said above, mech and elec need to be in the same model otherwise the whole collaboration workflow breaks down. Elec needs to see the electrical connectors in the mechanical families, and the data needs to flow freely through them. For example, if I increase the KW of a duct heating coil, the Apparent Load immediately goes up in the electrical circuit feeding it. If elec was using copy/monitor they would need to run the Coordination Review tool to see the change. That's asking for trouble IMO.

Similar Threads

  1. Building Coder: WTA Mech and TTT for Provision for Voids
    By Building Coder in forum Blog Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 31st, 2017, 11:15 AM
  2. Problème gabarit élec
    By pistol in forum Forum Français
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 29th, 2016, 09:08 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 8th, 2015, 05:56 PM
  4. Type Catalog for Mech Family
    By aykhan9 in forum MEP - General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 17th, 2014, 03:43 PM
  5. Controlling visbility of interior components between Arch-Elec-Mech disciplines
    By cadmancan in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 9th, 2013, 12:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •