AutoCAD MEP
Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
MOVE TO REVIT MEP FROM ACAD MEP ?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
1111 Views, 2 Replies
03-13-2008 09:55 AM
If Architectural plans are not Revit but 2D autocad, is it ok to use Revit MEP? If there is someone who use in this way, what would your advice be?
We’ve been using Acad MEP for a long time, however, we have some difficulties to make the program do duct and sprinkler calculation. We cannot draw 3D sanitary installation and do plumbing according to cooling and heating calculations. Will we be able to do all of these by using Revit Mep?
We’ve been using Acad MEP for a long time, however, we have some difficulties to make the program do duct and sprinkler calculation. We cannot draw 3D sanitary installation and do plumbing according to cooling and heating calculations. Will we be able to do all of these by using Revit Mep?
Re: MOVE TO REVIT MEP FROM ACAD MEP ?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-13-2008 11:09 AM in reply to:
saudek
There really is not a recommended workflow where you use Revit MEP where you don't have a Revit Architecture model.
The whole initial benefit of using RMEP with the Architectural model is that you have the entire building defined to be able to do initial heating/cooling load analysis, area take offs, study the building's geometry by easily creating sections, etc. If you have no architectural model, you really have none of this data to work from.... thus, there is no potential to run heating/cooling loads, etc.
Revit MEP provides no functionality w/ regard to Sprinkler Calculations. You can use Elite Fire with AutoCAD MEP to do sprinkler calculations, however. In addition to Velocity and Friction calcs found in AutoCAD MEP, Revit MEP also provides Static Regain and Equal Friction based calculations. However, via 3rd party tools such as Trane Duct or Elite Ductsize, I believe you can achieve the same in AutoCAD MEP.
I'm not sure what you mean by plumbing according to heating and cooling calculations. Piping in Revit is sized similar to duct, using friction or velocity as the basis of the calculation. You still need to specify the design requirements w/ regard to flow, etc, based on the thermal load... i.e., there is no relationship between the building/space load and the piping flows.
I have seen a some instances where the MEP was prime on a project, and it was a relatively simple building, that they modeled it on their own... but this would be the exception rather than the rule.

Martin Schmid, P.E.
Industry Success Manager
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction
Autodesk, Inc.
The whole initial benefit of using RMEP with the Architectural model is that you have the entire building defined to be able to do initial heating/cooling load analysis, area take offs, study the building's geometry by easily creating sections, etc. If you have no architectural model, you really have none of this data to work from.... thus, there is no potential to run heating/cooling loads, etc.
Revit MEP provides no functionality w/ regard to Sprinkler Calculations. You can use Elite Fire with AutoCAD MEP to do sprinkler calculations, however. In addition to Velocity and Friction calcs found in AutoCAD MEP, Revit MEP also provides Static Regain and Equal Friction based calculations. However, via 3rd party tools such as Trane Duct or Elite Ductsize, I believe you can achieve the same in AutoCAD MEP.
I'm not sure what you mean by plumbing according to heating and cooling calculations. Piping in Revit is sized similar to duct, using friction or velocity as the basis of the calculation. You still need to specify the design requirements w/ regard to flow, etc, based on the thermal load... i.e., there is no relationship between the building/space load and the piping flows.
I have seen a some instances where the MEP was prime on a project, and it was a relatively simple building, that they modeled it on their own... but this would be the exception rather than the rule.

Martin Schmid, P.E.
Industry Success Manager
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction
Autodesk, Inc.
*Karl Maas
Re: MOVE TO REVIT MEP FROM ACAD MEP ?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-14-2008 08:50 AM in reply to:
saudek
I too have Revit MEP and have noticed that you need a building model. The
software allows you to build one but I didn't see that it allowed you to add
the building structure. Is the structural steel only available in Revit
Structure? Meanwhile I have resorted to using AutoCAD MEP.
wrote in message
news:5875092@discussion.autodesk.com...
There really is not a recommended workflow where you use Revit MEP where you
don't have a Revit Architecture model.
The whole initial benefit of using RMEP with the Architectural model is that
you have the entire building defined to be able to do initial
heating/cooling load analysis, area take offs, study the building's geometry
by easily creating sections, etc. If you have no architectural model, you
really have none of this data to work from.... thus, there is no potential
to run heating/cooling loads, etc.
Revit MEP provides no functionality w/ regard to Sprinkler Calculations.
You can use Elite Fire with AutoCAD MEP to do sprinkler calculations,
however. In addition to Velocity and Friction calcs found in AutoCAD MEP,
Revit MEP also provides Static Regain and Equal Friction based calculations.
However, via 3rd party tools such as Trane Duct or Elite Ductsize, I believe
you can achieve the same in AutoCAD MEP.
I'm not sure what you mean by plumbing according to heating and cooling
calculations. Piping in Revit is sized similar to duct, using friction or
velocity as the basis of the calculation. You still need to specify the
design requirements w/ regard to flow, etc, based on the thermal load...
i.e., there is no relationship between the building/space load and the
piping flows.
I have seen a some instances where the MEP was prime on a project, and it
was a relatively simple building, that they modeled it on their own... but
this would be the exception rather than the rule.
software allows you to build one but I didn't see that it allowed you to add
the building structure. Is the structural steel only available in Revit
Structure? Meanwhile I have resorted to using AutoCAD MEP.
news:5875092@discussion.autodesk.com...
There really is not a recommended workflow where you use Revit MEP where you
don't have a Revit Architecture model.
The whole initial benefit of using RMEP with the Architectural model is that
you have the entire building defined to be able to do initial
heating/cooling load analysis, area take offs, study the building's geometry
by easily creating sections, etc. If you have no architectural model, you
really have none of this data to work from.... thus, there is no potential
to run heating/cooling loads, etc.
Revit MEP provides no functionality w/ regard to Sprinkler Calculations.
You can use Elite Fire with AutoCAD MEP to do sprinkler calculations,
however. In addition to Velocity and Friction calcs found in AutoCAD MEP,
Revit MEP also provides Static Regain and Equal Friction based calculations.
However, via 3rd party tools such as Trane Duct or Elite Ductsize, I believe
you can achieve the same in AutoCAD MEP.
I'm not sure what you mean by plumbing according to heating and cooling
calculations. Piping in Revit is sized similar to duct, using friction or
velocity as the basis of the calculation. You still need to specify the
design requirements w/ regard to flow, etc, based on the thermal load...
i.e., there is no relationship between the building/space load and the
piping flows.
I have seen a some instances where the MEP was prime on a project, and it
was a relatively simple building, that they modeled it on their own... but
this would be the exception rather than the rule.

