Below is a conversation on Linkedin regarding the workarounds and compromises people are making to display drainage plans correctly.
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
I am looking for peoples best practices for displaying high and low level drainage layouts on presentation views. It can be quite complicated and frustrating finding a way to display underfloor, low level, and high level drainage pipes in the ceiling void without showing the underfloor drainage from the floor above in the ceiling void. So on the first floor you want to see the under floor, low level, and high level vent drainage from the 1st floor fixings. You dont want to see any high level vents from the ground floor or any underfloor drainage from the 2nd floor, which could be at similar inverts to the first floor pipes.
In the past I have used a simple hack adding a text parameter to the pipes and fittings identifying the floor or level the pipes belong to not necessarily the floor or level they are on. This worked OK but wasn't quick and was very manual.
How are people getting around this?
Cheers
MS
Stephanie Esterhuizen
BIM/Drawing Office Manager
This can simply be controlled with view ranges, set the relevant view to what you would like to see - or alternatively you can use work sets for each plumbing system.
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
Hi Stephanie,
View ranges don't work due to the vent pipes and the underslab pipes from the floor above are sometimes at the same invert level so they both show.
With regard to worksets do you mean a workset for each floor system?
Sai Kiran Koduri
Engineer - Mechanical at Neilsoft Ltd.
Yes Mark, other than view range your requirement can be reach by work sets and filters. But work sets bit easy. I am also looking for the same requirement. looking forward to see others suggestions and feedback related to this.
Cheers !!!
Sai Kiran Koduri
Engineer - Mechanical at Neilsoft Ltd.
forgot to add, worksets based on individual floor and placement.
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
Autodesk want to discuss this over a remote session. Will report any outcomes from that.
Steve Coburn
AEC Technical Specialist at US CAD, Inc.
I've only touched MEP a little, but it is like any other item in Autodesk Revit. The use of worksets are good, but there for general "categories". If you want to dial down to the details then "filters" are your best bet. Even if the view range may be awkward in order to get it set up it will be easier to control them. You also need to look at "plan regions". Inside your view you have view range, but if you need a certain section of the view to show differently then you need to utilize the regions. They can manipulate the view in the one section differently.
This is an odd issue, because I never heard of it till now.
Bruce Johnson
IT Support Analyst/Autodesk Developer at Gresham, Smith and Partners
Where appropriate, I would say a good command of worksets and filters would be your best bet...
View ranges are obviously the basis for seeing height and depth of each view, but if you want them to display differently, say under-floor is a dark shade of gray or dashed lines, etc... filters are the best way to accomplish seeing below a floor in whatever configuration you want to see them in.... or not at all if you turn off the visibility... and can be tied to systems, parameters, etc.
Once you have the configuration you like... save it as a view template so you can use it in any other project you like....and if it is common in all your projects.. put that view template into your master project template so you always have it.
If things are too complex, add another view and sheet so you have an under-floor plan, roof plan, etc. to show all these components clearly rather than trying to get everything into the fewest pages possible in a set.
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
So maybe I haven't explained the issue well enough. With worksets are you suggesting a drainage workset per floor and making sure everything is on the right workset? Then having a view template per floor displaying the right workset? That is similar to what I have been doing by adding a value to a filter parameter to identify the drainage I want to see. View range for a typical drainage view will go from approx. -600mm under the associated level to the level above. This picks up everything in the ceiling void on the associated level and the level below. I am unsure what value people are filtering to identify what pipework is to be displayed or not. As I think I mentioned the parameter 'offset' is not able to be used in a filter making displaying pipes by height difficult above the ground floor. Here is a picture looking through a typical building where I have added the filterable parameter identifying the floor the drainage belongs too. The red pipe is Level Ground, the green is Level 1 and cyan is Level 2.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zy3y162hoa9mtmt/Drainage%20Display.JPG?dl=0
This is a lot of work and means a view template for drainage per floor to display the correct drainage in plan view is required. Keeping on top of the model and maintaining the display settings is more work than I think necessary.
If the offset parameter was able to be filtered or the associated level parameter then it maybe easier but it would still need a view template per floor.
Just to be clear This is not about how elements are displayed its about what is displayed.
Steve Coburn
AEC Technical Specialist at US CAD, Inc.
Okay, so I think since viewing your image and re-reading your post, I still agree with using filters is the best way to go here. Here are a few things that are being assumed.
All views are on the right discipline and sub discipline.
All pipes are on the correct system.
They are associated to the correct level; if level two underfloor, then they need to be associated to level two with a negative offset, not level 1 and a positive offset.
Assuming that all this is correct, use the filters to 1) filter by system - for display settings then 2) by level for what you want to see in a view. This filter will be a combination of new parameters (shared parameters is what I used). I created a "level" text parameter. It had to be a text filled one because when associating pipes with the filter it does not bring in a level parameter. Now I did have to go in and make sure the parameter was associated with all pipe categories with in the project and then have to label all pipes per level. For example, select a pipe and insert the text "Level 1" into it. So basically isolate all pipes on a level and insert that text so the filter would then work in the view needed.
If you only want to see level one systems turn on the filter for level 1, use the filter for underfloor elements to make them dashed or different color or turn them off all together.
At the beginning of my trial run I still had control over my display of elements. I would be interested on knowing how your project is set up. if you're linking in an arch model or no model at all. Do you have floors in the model so that the display of the floor hides the pipes underneath it. If there is a floor slab is it transparent, if so then take the transparency off. You could control this as well with your plan regions to a degree for view depth.
BTW your view depth doesn't need to do a lot of work, very minute changes will make a whole lot of difference. Remember not wanting to see level 2 elements will mean to take the top view range right under the level 2 height, maybe even a little more to get under the slab, if there is a floor in place.
Hopefully I have understood your issue a little better, but here is a link to an image I created to help explain what I did.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymywa1ho2m7c87n/Revit%20snap%20shot%20for%20piping.jpg?dl=0
Bruce Johnson
IT Support Analyst/Autodesk Developer at Gresham, Smith and Partners
I have to disagree a bit with Steve... just a workset per floor would solve that issue... you are going to have to select the objects and put them on the proper workset if already created, but if not created yet... set the workset and draw your systems in one floor level at a time. It is the same action by selecting objects and going to properties to define which workset it is on so there is no 'more' work... But in the filter method, you have to create the filter, set it up right and apply it to your view... then specify that you want it turned off in each view... so the filter method seems to be more lenghty.... also because you need to create a level parameter since you can't filter by level in Revit yet.... which I think is quite silly.
So, worksets would solve that problem.
The greater issue here is that you are not considering how Revit wants to work.... by level.
When I went through a major customization working for a MEP firm starting to use Revit... they always put all piping in by level. So you would see all piping on level 1 between floor 1 and floor 2. Level 2 between floor 2 and floor 3. So you are seeing your through-floor connections and piping from the level above in your current level.
If you don't do it that way, then you will always have the issue that you are having now. In a level 1 plan where there is no basement, you can still lower the view range to see underfloor, and as long as there is a floor in the model, it will represent as hidden line to show below the slab. I don't like how light that turns out so we would turn off the floor and use a filter on those objects to show them as hidden line, but with a heftier linewieght so it showed as new construction rather than existing.
So, internally within your company you should have the discussion with all users of how you want to show your piping. I got hung up on that very issue early on because of plumbing fixtures that have connections that are through the floor/slab. But the majority of objects in plumbing models are wall hosted and you would then only have to deal with penetrations in the slab in a chase or wall for sanitary and vent lines and all the connecting geometry is within the level between 2 floors.... which is easier to show in a level based plan, floor to floor.
One of the challenges in Revit is to get objects to display properly in the view that you create them in... and the more congested it gets and the harder to read... the more I suggest adding sheets and dividing up the model by systems, etc. And the more congested from that, add sections where it is bad, or 3d views in isometric.
It is easy to do...but you have to have the proper mindset to be able to change and still create clear construction documents.
Steve Coburn
AEC Technical Specialist at US CAD, Inc.
Okay Bruce, lets work this out. Would you put each system on a workset? Would you put each system's floor elements on a workset? For example: "Sanitary - Level 1", Level 2, etc. . . then "DCW - Level 1", Level 2, etc. . .
In both our methods we are still manually adding piping, fittings, fixtures, whatever to an extra level of control. Yours is "worksets", mine is "level". But I also created a parameter for those times when you want to filter your schedule out per level. You can't filter by workset can you. So we have a multi-function purpose behind this method.
Yes it may be a tedious option, but what would it hurt, to draw all pipes on a level, make your view range show the only visible elements for that floor, select all of them and then type in the parameter field "Level 1", "First Floor Plan", etc. . . I see a lot of worksets being created just to control visibility just for views/sheets. I know it is useful, but if you had the one extra parameter in your project, create a view template with that filter included, it wouldn't take you long at all to get the views, schedules etc. . . set up.
Todd Rebhahn
Mechanical Designer at TLC Engineering for Architecture
Mark, I agree with how you want to see it, but have been told that way of thinking is left over from CAD when you drew the sanitary and vent piping for the 2nd floor fixtures (floor mounted WC's, FD's, etc.) on the second floor plan, and everyone knew it was actually in the 1st floor ceiling. So now the floor mounted water closet on the 2nd floor shows its sanitary piping on the first floor plan. To clarify what it is connected to we add a keynote to the location where it rises to the second floor indicating what it is connected to. Definitely will follow this discussion.
Bruce Johnson
IT Support Analyst/Autodesk Developer at Gresham, Smith and Partners
@Steve... why would I put each system on a workset? that just doubles or triples my work and adds complexity to the model I don't need.
If you go back to his image... you can see that by color, the piping is mixed in the areas he wants to control.
This is best addressed by my second comment... change the way you represent the objects to a floor by floor representation... whatever is between the slabs... you get to see in the view. It is a much cleaner method than what he is attempting right now... And if you make a level 1 underfloor plan, you can even make an underfloor level and not have any negative offsets.
I think that would be the tell tale sign... do you connect up to the fixture or draw down from it? That could change how you think about the levels and how to represent them.
For me it became an issue of having a bunch of stuff drawn up and down in the same level and that was very hard to discern how one might go about showing it on a plan and know whether it was a level 1 or level 2 object. Going floor to floor, there is no confusion, but if you do it any other way... there are quickly complications that you have to manually manage. That takes time and knowledge of the user to set up the sheets and have others understand it correctly.
You can make it as hard as you want... but I use the KISS principle. : )
Steve Coburn
AEC Technical Specialist at US CAD, Inc.
I'm wondering myself why I stated that because you have filters in the setup already to handle the system types, there wouldn't be a need to have each system on their personal workset. Making sure that each system per level is on the right workset is important and making sure the view range is set correctly.
Mark's comment: You don't want to see any high level vents from the ground floor or any underfloor drainage from the 2nd floor, which could be at similar inverts to the first floor pipes.
I agree with Todd on this as well that he is thinking like 2D CAD, but the point I was trying to make is that the filter option that he is already using, is the best option when you don't have a project needing worksets. if it a central model then okay let it ride with worksets. I also think that Mark's issue is with the view range not being set up correctly. There could be another issue of the floor not being set with the right visibility allowing the pipes underneath to show. Even though this should all be corrected with the visibility range, if this is messed up all we can do is put these two options out to use in the particular need that arises.
Do you agree though that the extra parameter adds more value than the workset?
Bruce, I don't disagree with the use of worksets, used right they work beautifully, but if they are not needed or couldn't be used you would have to use something else. That's where the filter would come in.
KISS - Why make it a central model just to get worksets enabled?
Good discussion!!
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
Good to see I have opened a can of worms and I haven't missed something easy 🙂
Firstly I am not prepared to change the way we have been displaying sanitary layouts for god know how many years purely because Revit cant do what we want it to. At the end of the day its the contractors installing the kit that need it displaying in a way that is clear to them.
I understand that if I was standing on a floor I can only install the pipes on that floor and not the pipes under it but wouldn't it be more confusing having WC's and WHB's from the floor you are on but the drainage pipes connecting to different fixtures above them? I can see the RFI's now, why isn't that WC connected, or can you move that pipe so its connected to that WHB? "No but you don't understand I am displaying it different because Revit cant do what we have always done." I think that would be harder to sort out!
So looking at the solutions it seems we are doing similar things in a round about way, I am starting to prefer the workset per floor option and making sure you are on the right workset (no different to any other situation) when creating the layout. It still needs managing once the design gets modified by different members of the team. The downside is you cant filter worksets so the control over the view would be a manual one?
I hope we have all sent Autodesk technical requests for this to be addressed? 🙂
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
To respond to Steve, we show the drainage associated with the floor the plan view is displaying. So the under slab drainage connected to the WCs on that floor, the risers from above and to below, and the vent pipes to the stacks. So typically the view range is set up to be -600 ish under the associated floor with a default cut plane and the top set to the floor level above. Now if the underslab pipes and the vent pipes are at clear different inverts then view range will work fine but in congested ceiling voids 9 times out of 10 they are at similar inverts so view range doesn't work.
The floor to floor option is almost a RCP for drainage? So when physically standing on a floor only draw what you would physically be able to see. That might work if all the fixtures where in identical locations on each floor but if they weren't aligned it would just look wrong.
Bruce Johnson
IT Support Analyst/Autodesk Developer at Gresham, Smith and Partners
I would have to counter that for a moment Mark... If all the piping is up above a reflected ceiling plan in a plenum that spans the whole floor...that might be ok... but what do you do about walls that go from slab to slab? Your backgrounds are then showing 1st floor and 2nd floor on your 2nd floor plumbing plan sheet... and if the floor layout is different as you said... it is no longer just about the plumbing plan fixtures not lining up and being confusing... but you may have 1st and 2nd floor walls on the same plan.
And if you are not doing architecture in house... will you have to call your architect and tell them to put their walls on worksets by level so you can turn those off also?
If your plumbing fixtures were wall hosted, you can use chases to run your vertical piping and the majority of your horizontal piping to get it to the stack. But if your fixtures flush through the floor and you have to lower your bottom plane to -600.. there has to be some walls, chases, etc that are going to be in different places due to the slope of the pipe (probably) and if you are seeing walls from floor 1... what do you do with them?
It is the same problem as your pipes,but compounded with the fact that they are likely in a linked file. You can probably filter them off also... but lets say for instance that you have a block wall or precast concrete on level 2 that you are not going to core drill so you route your pipe around it. But say on level 1, there is another similar wall that is in a different location... again that you are not going to put a hole in to route pipe... but you show going through one but not the other. There is no real interference there, but because of your view ranges, you are stuck with it or have to jump through hoops to not show the 'clash' on the printed sheet.
Or another instance... level 1 has a curtain wall and level 2 shows a masonry finish but your view range includes both... Now your wall is looking all messed up because of that.
This is why I am saying that in my opinion, a floor to floor view range is the best method because you are not working alone on the project... you have to also have structure and architectural folks working with you... and ideally you want your plans to look as close to theirs as you can for plan readability.
One of the worst things you can do is try to make Revit do it "the way you have always done it". I am not going to say that I am right and there is no other way... because I wanted to do this just the way you are describing it... but the only way I could do it is to make my use worksets for layer control... that is basically what it boils down to.
I do agree that floor plans that don't follow the same patterns might look and feel funky to print without the fixutre connected... but would you really want to show all your underfloor piping as hidden line objects? Or do you want to show them bold and new construction weighted linework?
I can almost guarantee that this won't be the end of your questions to ask about how to represent views the way you want... pipes today... walls, and other objects next time... whether to try to control more with filters and how to get a proper snapshot of what you want... it really is a difficult task to accomplish... the more I tried, the more defeated I felt... but that was 4 years ago and the software is better and I know more now..
For me the question is not "can I do that?"... it is "should I do that?"
And @ Steve again... you asked if it is worth it to enable worksets and make it a central model just to gain access to worksets...? Yes... I HATE models that are not central models. Can't stand em. The whole point of Revit is to be able to have more than one user working on a model at the same time. That is why we dumped 2d cad and moved to Revit... in every firm I have worked at since 2008... why would I NOT want a central file based model?
Mark Silcock
BIM Manager (Nottingham) Opus International Consultants
Top Contributor
I agree that showing walls from below is a pain and something we didnt have to worry about in the CAD days.
I disagree strongly that the worse thing we can do is try and make Revit do what we want it to do! Shouldn't we be telling Autodesk what we want it to do instead of them telling us how to do things? We have national and international drawing standards don't we? Should we change them just because of the Revit developers think differently? AutoCAD MEP doesn't behave like this. You have much better control of displaying pipework, by size, by elevation etc.
Looking at all the workarounds and compromises we have to make with Revit I sometimes fail to see the efficiencies people bang on about. Unfortunately the longer you the more you use the software the more you give in and start thinking its the way to do it.
