Multi-section panelboards - rejected by plan review

[adam.jw]

Martin Schmidt did his best here:

http://inside-the-system.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/09/documenting-multi-section-panels.html

And here:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Autodesk-Revit-MEP/Two-Section-Panelboards/td-p/2733119

And I translated his suggestions into my own version of it (a bit fancier since his video was just a proof of concept one).

But it does not matter. No matter how clearly I convey the data, plan reviewers (L&I here in Washington state) simply do not care about your data. They go by a simple check list. Their requirements are that multi-section panel boards must be show as separate panel schedules on our drawings. Or we get rejected. They are even informed that if just a few items on the checklist do not match they MUST reject, even if the data is correct.

If we get rejected from L&I, and have to resubmit, this will put the job on hold, and we'll most likely get fired from the project. I might get fired.

WHILE I DO AGREE IT IS NOT ENTIRELY REVIT'S FAULT: I.E. people who work at plan review only care about their check list. 

I DO SUBMIT THAT: Revit MEP must either

A: Allow you to connect a MLO panel, to the “bottom” lugs of a MCB panel without taking up a breaker position in the panel board.

or

B: Allow you to split a panel schedule into TWO panel schedules and change the title to be  “P1 – SECTION 1” and “P1 – SECTION 2”

Finally, this is what currently is impossible to do correctly in Revit, but needs to be possible in order for the diversity (Load Classifications) to be calculated correctly.

So my question to more experienced MEP-ers who have submitted jobs to plan review in your various jurisdictions: Has this problem ever come up for you?

Thanks.

(Attached is how we show multi-section panel boards, for what it's worth).

EDIT: Cleaned up the mean things I said about plan reviewers 

[CoreyDaun]

Explained below is my work-around method to satisfy the above stated need to have two distinctly separate Panel Schedules whilst maintaining a continuous Circuit Numbering sequence between them. See attached PDF. Note that this appearance is based off of the Revit OOTB Panel Schedule Template, and can be easily customized. (This method was developed in Revit MEP 2013)

The instructions here are for creating a two-section panelboard, 42 CCTs in each section. This is essentially accomplished through the use of two customized Panel Schedule Templates that overlap on the Sheet View. (See attached PDF #2)

Part I: Setting Up Panel Schedule Templates

These instructions must only be done once. (Except if another size of panel sections is needed, such as 2 36-CCT sections).

Create Section #1

Start by going to the Manage tab » Panel Schedule ▼ Templates Manage Templates. Duplicate your typical branch panel template and name it to indicate the specific section and size. I named mine "Branch Panel 42 (1 of 2)". Now, open that template for editing. The primary goals here are to create a "hole" in the schedule in which section #2 will be overlaid, and to include the header for the second section.

Under Template Options, ensure that "Number of slots shown:" is set to "Fixed to a constant value:" of 42.

Click 'OK' to close the Options dialog.

Click on the row just below the "Total Amps" and insert three rows above it.

Top Row: select and merge the cells over the load columns. Set the height and format of the top row to match the "title text" format. Mine just reads "Section 2", but  any amount of effort can be applied to this.

Middle Row: Recreate the field headers (i.e. "CKT", "Circuit Description").

Bottom Row: As for the bottom row, leave it blank as this will be used to create the gap for section 2. Set the height of this row to be the sum of the row heights for the "circuit" rows. In the case of the default schedule, the row heights are 0.1875", so this bottom row will be 3.9375" (21 circuit rows x 0.1875")

Click 'Finish Template'

Create Section #2

Once again, go to the Manage tab » Panel Schedule ▼ Templates Manage Templates. Duplicate your typical branch panel template just like you did for section 1. I named mine "Branch Panel 42 (2 of 2)". Now, open that template for editing.

Go to Template Options and perform the following actions:

Set 'Number of slots shown:" to 'Fixed to a Constant Value:" 84.

Clear the checkboxes under 'Parts' for Header, Loads Summary, and Footer.

Clear the checkbox under 'Borders' for both options.

Click 'OK'.

For the default template, you'll have to correct the alignment for the "Circuit Description" columns for the circuits beyond #42. Select and delete all of the rows below the bottommost circuit (#83/84) and remove all of the text for the column titles. Now, select all of the cells across the width of the template for all rows above circuit #43/44 and perform the following actions:

Click 'Edit Borders' and remove all borders except for the bottom horizontal line.

Click 'OK'

Click 'Edit Shading', and select white.

Click 'OK'

Click 'Edit Font' and change the font to RomanS** and clear all 'Font style' options. Change the font size to 1/512". WARNING: Making it any small may result in Revit crashing!!

Click 'OK'

Click 'Finish Template'

Note: Changing the font to RomanS takes advantage of Revit's total inability to print that particular font (RomanS.ttf). When viewing the Panel Schedule Graphics, you will notice tiny dots. These will ultimately be virtually invisible. Did you notice them when you first opened the PDF file?

**An alternate method to using the RomanS font is to install and use the attached "GhostText" true type font (attached as a .zip), which is essentially a blank font. In order for this to be used effectively, this font will have to be installed on all computers that will need to view the model properly. This method is favored if the models remain "in-house".

[CoreyDaun]

Part II: Setting Up Panelboard Elements

These instructions must be done to setup each instance of a multi-section panel setup.

When placing the Panels elements, you do not need special families. Place two instances of your typical panelboard as you typically would. Prior to circuiting, there are two steps that need to be taken.

Circuit Sequence for Section #2

Set the "Max # 1P Breakers" parameter to 84. If you just start circuiting to this panel, it will start at #1. No good. Create a Panel Schedule for panel section 2 using the appropriate template. Change circuits 1 through 42 to SPACES and blank out the description field. This will force the new circuit to begin at #43.

Linking the Sections / Hiding the Breaker

Set the "Max # 1P Breakers" for the primary section to 48. Select the second section and create the power circuit to the first panel. Create a Panel Schedule for that Panel and choose a template that shows the number of slots based on this parameter, rather than a fixed value. Now, move the 3P circuit breaker down to the bottommost three circuits, such as 43-45-47. Now change the panel's Template to the one that was created in step 1. Ignore the message regarding hidden circuits. This will hide the breaker and create the appearance of a feed-through panel.

When the Panel Schedules are placed on a Sheet View, align the schedule for Section 2 in the open gap in Section 1. As noted previously, tiny dots will appear (if using the RomanS method) but they will be virtually invisible when printed.

[adam.jw]

I'm in two days of training and out of the office at the moment. I'll go through your procedure when I get back in and let you know what I think.

I think the biggest problem is going to be the load classifications. As murphy would have it, we need to show the demand factor calculations on the panel schedule.

On top of this. We have to have each panelboard section split out explicitly. So nudging them up next to each other won't work out. 

Reason it's a problem: How do you show the demand factors per section? Because the way the Revit trick works, connect each section together with a hidden 3 pole breaker means the first section might have a load 4000VA of receptacales on it. The 2nd section might have an additional 4000VA recpt load (totalling 8000VA), then the final section might have another 4000VA - totalling 12,000VA (the derating begins at 10,000VA).

Only the final section of the panel will show the correct load classification calculations on it 😞

When in reality, the grouped sections of panels function as a single panel.

Anyway. I will experiment Friday (when I'm finally back in the office) and let you know what works.

Thank you for spending the time to play around with this cadastrophe 🙂

[CoreyDaun]

Alright - take a look at the first attached PDF. I just altered the formatting steps a little bit: I kept the load info above the "spacer" for section #1 and then included the load info in the section #2 template.

Regarding the loads, the total load for the entire setup is shown in Section #1. Here, we display the overall total load under the last section, as it's treated like a single panelboard. This can easily be done - essentially by reversing the dependency. So instead, connect section #1 into section #2 and hide it. For the purposes of connecting to upstream panels, treat section #2 as the primary section. See the second attached PDF file.

[cmillard]

Sorry to change the topic a bit, but are you telling me that every 42 poles has to have it's own separate panel schedule? How do you handle the change in the 2008 NEC that allows more than 42 poles to be in a single enclosure?  I have been specifying 126 pole panels in a single enclosure for several years now.  Is this something that is still not allowed in Washington?

[adam.jw]

I can't say why because I only just am getting into electrical design. I'll have to ask one of the engineers why we do this.

[adam.jw]

Sorry I haven't had time to test all these suggestions out Corey. I will get to it this week sometime.

[CoreyDaun]

---

cmillard wrote:

"Sorry to change the topic a bit, but are you telling me that every 42 poles has to have it's own separate panel schedule? How do you handle the change in the 2008 NEC that allows more than 42 poles to be in a single enclosure?  I have been specifying 126 pole panels in a single enclosure for several years now.  Is this something that is still not allowed in Washington?"

---

I would assume that it's not based on a static "42-poles", but rather each separate physical section would have a dedicated Panel Schedule. So theoretically, you could have a 24 CCT section with a feed-thru 42 CCT section, and you'll end up with a 24 CTT Schedule and a 42 CCT Schedule.

[adam.jw]

Yes. And the reason, btw, we mainly to 42 or 84 section panels linked up in multiple sections (as opposed to a fatty 126 pole panel) is space constraints.

According to one of the engineers, having a 126 pole panel can really increase the wiring density in the sides of the panel. And, if your circuits are exiting the panel from the top, you reduce the surface area for conduits by having just a single large panel board. If you have two panel boards (each with 42 poles) you double your surface area for connecting conduits and reduce the wiring density per panel.

[cmillard]

I run into the opposite problem quite ofen, where wall space is at a premium so that using an 84 pole or 126-pole panel is the better option.  I was just curious that if you showed your panels differently on your 1 line, if the AHJ would look at them differently as to requirements for panel schedules.  I know this doesn't solve your problem, but I'm in the process of putting together some con docs for a franchisee in Spokane, and this info is pretty important.

[adam.jw]

If we have multiple sections, we show each section on the one-line
diagram.



Then, we show each section as a separate panel schedule.



This has been our standard practice.

[adam.jw]

The fact that we show each panel section separately in the following locations:
Floor Plans
One-Line
Schedules

Presents a problem in Revit. As you can't show each section separately in Revit. Well you CAN, but when you connect panels together it ALWAYS ALWAYS assumes a breaker position must be taken up to connect the sub-fed panel. Which is fine when you're literally sub-feeding another panel (maybe a single phase 12 pole panel in an out building or something).

Anyway I've already ranted about that. Sometime this week I'll experiment with Corey's suggestions and post the results back. Must. Find. Time.

(FYI: It's not an emergency at this point, we just went back to our Excel panel schedules for the submittal to L&I)

[CoreyDaun]

I'm sayin' just this to say it: the reason that this process is so elaborate is because it maintains the continuous circuiting count between the panel sections. So, if you're OK with it restarting back at 1 for each section (perhaps adding a prefix) then the simple solution is to just hide the breaker.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Linking the Sections / Hiding the Breaker

Set the "Max # 1P Breakers" for the primary section to 48. Select the second section and create the power circuit to the first panel. Create a Panel Schedule for that Panel and choose a template that shows the number of slots based on this parameter, rather than a fixed value. Now, move the 3P circuit breaker down to the bottommost three circuits, such as 43-45-47. Now change the panel's Template to the one that was created in step 1. Ignore the message regarding hidden circuits. This will hide the breaker and create the appearance of a feed-through panel.

---

[adam.jw]

Yup! And I don't mind elaborate solutions at all.

[Martin__Schmid]

I realize this is an old post... but there have been several Idea Station posts related to this.  We are marking those ideas as accepted, and are investigating some improvements related to this.  If you would like to provide further feedback on these capabilities, we would be happy to involve you in our beta program (Revit Preview).  Reach out to revit.preview.access@autodesk.com to join!

[amarkovFEPNL]

So, Is there any solution to connect 2 section panel through main logs and forget about breaker located in a primary panel? Or we just have to hide breakers in the schedule?  Is there better options?

[Martin__Schmid · Accepted solution]

Hi -- thanks to those of you that provided comments here participated in our preview program on this. Note that the new release of Revit 2020 now includes a feed through lugs option, and the ability to have circuit numbers that continue from one panel to the next.

If after you've had a chance to utilize the new functionality there are additional capabilities you are looking for, please post them to Revit Ideas.  

[amarkovFEPNL]

AND WHAT CAN I DO, I WE ONLY USE REVIT 2018? DOES BEND-WORKS WORK WITH REVIT 2020 VERSION?