Core and Shell with Interior Buildout

[Anonymous]

I am wondering what is considered best practice for doing phases.

Project: Brewery (60,000sf warehouse, 12,000sf office/restaurant)

Phase 1: Core and Shell

Phase 2: Interior

Possible Phase 3: Coordination of brewery equipment

Method 1: Use Revit phases and keep everything in one project.  Name sheets as A201.1 and A201.2 to avoid duplicate sheet numbers. Any views from phase 1 that I also want to use for phase 2 will get duplicated and switched to the correct phase.  This way I can have a complete set of documents for phase 1 and it will remain unchanged as I work on phase 2 documents within the same file. Additional headache of making sure you are drawing on the correct phase.  Larger file size with everything in one file but should be fine given the size and complexity of the project (probably end up around 180MB)

Method 2: Split phases into separate revit projects and link Phase 1 into Phase 2.  

I am curious what are any other advantages and disadvantages that may exist between these two methods.

Is one better for other MEP or Structural consultants? Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

[L.Maas]

I have worked on project files about twice the size. Of course it gets slower but was still workable.

I normally put all the phases in a single project file. Quite often you will find that you will have to interact between the phases (e.g. demolition, temporary walls). I you are afraid the project is getting  to big use worksets so that you can (un)load parts needed. It is quite common to separrate the MEP from the Building as they are often done by different companies/departments.

You also can look at separating the warehouse and office in separate projects and link when necessary.

Further possibility would be to separate the model(s) from the sheets.

However do not separate the project out in dozens of different files. Try to keep it limited to a few if possible

[rosskirby]

Definitely keep everything in one file and use phases.

[Anonymous]

1.)   How do you do revisions with phases?  I was thinking you would have to change the revision tag to use the 'issued to" or "issued by" paramater instead of the "sequence" parameter so that that you can number the revisions similar to sheets (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2...). Is this how you would do it?  It seems like you can either do it that way or just live with phase 1 and 2 revision numbers being disjointed.  Phase 1 might have a revision 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and Phase 2 might have revision 4, 6, 7, 9 (this seems like a really bad idea).  Are there any other ways around this that I am overlooking?

2.)   Is it a problem to give someone a revit model for the core and shell that also has phase 2 work in it that is incomplete

3.)   What would you do if you had to give someone a revit model for the phase 1 work but it also has phase 2 work in it that they may not necessarily have the rights to?

4.)   Should I also use worksets for the different phases?  

[rosskirby]

1)  Are you issueing the documents in separate packages at different times, or issuing everything at once?  Phases won't really help you in the first case, since they're primarily a tool for indicating a sequence of events, not a grouping of objects.  So revisions are revisions, regardless which phase the drawing with the revision belongs to.  If you must have different revision numbers for different phases, yes, you can use sequences.

2) Depends on what they want it for, what the terms of use are, and how well they know Revit.  In general, no, it's not a problem.

3) Same as answer to 2.

4) No!  Worksets and phases are two separate means of controlling two separate things.  Don't use worksets or phases like you would layers in AutoCAD.

[Anonymous]

Thank you in advance for helping me understand!

Let me preface my next few questions by clarifying/identifying the project and the people involved.  We have an owner who wants to build a building.  They don't want to take out a construction loan to build an entire building, so a developer has joined the project and is going to hire a builder to build phase 1 which is "basically" the core and shell of the building.  The developer now has an empty building that meets the program needs of the owners brewery.  The owner will now lease the building from the developer.  The owner who is now the tenant to the building will make the necessary improvements and build out the interior office/restaurant and build out the warehouse with their ancillary space (some portions may be included in phase 1) and brewery equipment.  We do not know as of right now to what extent and level of completion the developer will take phase 1: core and shell.  There may be some portions of the interior that the developer includes as part of the core and shell phase 1 package (that is being worked out between the owner and the developer).  We also don't know the timing of these different phases.  Will we submit package 1 and start breaking ground while we complete the rest of the interior package? Will we complete both packages at the same time and submit for review at the same time?  Will the owner select the same builder as the developer for phase 2? We do not have definite answers to these questions at this point. 

If this previous explanation somehow changes your opinions of whether we should use phases or separate projects let me know.  

If it changes your thoughts on how to handle revisions disregard my question below.

1.)   Bare with me here, not sure I understand what you are suggesting I do.  Regardless of when they get submitted they will be submitted in two different packages.  So if a revision gets added to the phase 1 package it will never show up in the phase 2 package.  So how do you avoid having the first revision of the phase 2 package be "revision 2" because "revision 1" is already used in the phase 1 package? Or are you saying its ok to have it work this way because it is meant to be a sequence of events?  All i'm suggesting is because we have two phases and we don't necessarily know the timing of the two phases or if both phases will be handled by the same builder we basically have to handle it as two sequences of events. 

"Phases won't really help you in the first case, since they're primarily a tool for indicating a sequence of events, not a grouping of objects."

Are you suggesting that if these packages get submitted separately then is it better to link phase 1 into phase 2 rather than do phases? 

Thanks again.

[Anonymous]

Good discussion. Revit seems to just not have a good way of doing complex core & shell projects that go out as separate projects.  The big issue I've run into is that you need to simultaneously keep things together and connected (especially in electrical / MEP) and up-to-date but be able to freeze things at the same time.

If anyone finds a good definite workflow, please keep us posted.  In the meanwhile, I've suggested that Revit improve this in with this Revit Idea:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/make-core-and-shell-projects-less-painful-in-revit/idi-p/...

[chrisplyler]

Workflow as follows:

Create the full project model up through the completed shell as if that were its own project. All sheets and everything. Save it as shellproject.rvt or whatever.

Then do a save-as and give it the name finishout.rvt or whatever. Then create the next phase and keep on modeling it out. New views will show "previous+new" and therefor have the shell as the existing and the interior as the new work.

[kadmonkee]

we have had success using phasing with multiple packages (separate projects) within 1 model.

at the beginning of the project we define our Phasing scheme.

assign our views and sheets to align to that phasing scheme in the project browser. (using shared Parameters)

we use the Unicode control characters as needed in order to repeat drawing numbers per deliverable.

after creating your sheets and assigning them to the correct phasing group you rename it and insert the Unicode character assigned to that particular phase.

with your cursor in front of the first character in you Drawing number,right click and select insert Unicode control character.

the list will display 17 options.

the workflow we used is as follows

EXST phase does not use the Unicode control Character.

SHELL phase uses the first Unicode control Character (LRM)

so all sheets that are part of the SHELL package will use this in the drawing number.

INT phase uses the second Unicode control character (RLM)

all sheets that are part of the INT package use this designation in the drawing number. etc. etc.

as far as revisions go you issue all your revisions by sheet and be sure to only cloud those specific views and or sheets that relate to the Phase.

yes this does require a bit more management, but currently the only solution we have been able to use

the contractor certainly will have issues with keeping up with this (which package should I have?) so file management and structure along with communication will be critical.

each package will have the same drawing numbers

each package will have a project designation on the title block to distinguish it from other packages

EXST A201

INT A201

[Anonymous]

Doing a save-as will quickly set up both sets of sheets.  But once you have two models with two sets of sheets that look alike, and maybe show some of the same things....congratulations now you have to do double work.  In some cases you'll have to do work four times. 

[Anonymous]

Using the unicode control character is a good idea! Thanks for sharing. 

I've used patterns like this:

E-XXX for C&S

E.XXX for TFO.

[sdurkee_sa]

A coworker sent me this thread.

Our current process is to have a Base file with phases for each Tenant. We then have project files for each Tenant with links to the Base file. Views are created in the Base file for each Tenant phase. The Tenant files are used to manage sheets and revisions. Views in the Tenant files are By Linked View from the Base file. Your preliminary shell project can be either in the Base file or treated like another Tenant file.

Works well unless you have attached nested links from Consultants. See https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture-forum/visibility-graphics-by-linked-view-do-not-sy... in which case you would instead use Consultant overlays in both the Base and in the Tenant files.