Dividing a project into existing and new phase with 2 models

[Kimtaurus]

We have a project which is a renovation of a large office building.

We modelled the existing situation, determined what needs to be demolished and modelled the new elements.

The file size is now +600MB. (30 stories, +100.000 square meters). The facade is already modelled in a separate file.

Our project-partners have asked to split the model into 2 models: existing and new. Mainly to lower the file size and make uploading and downloading the models faster.

Does anybody know a good strategy on how the split the model? The model with the existing (and demolished) situation will be linked into the model with the new situation.

We can't just copy the file and delete the existing/new elements, cause some new doors, openings, etc have been made in existing walls, and these will then be deleted as well.

How would you tackle the Rooms?

[RobDraw]

The only way for this to be successful is to ensure the models are constructed properly. Identify the mistakes and correct them.

[Sahay_R]

That's a toughie - especially as you mention - there are new features that have been placed in existing walls. Can you just split your model into Shell and Fit Out?

Another thought - model the Existing with New Construction features that are hosted to the existing walls. So the Existing model will have some New features in it. 

[Kimtaurus]

We have some door families that are level based, so they can be placed in existing openings.

I was thinking to create new openings (empty doors) in the existing phase file. And then place these "unhosted" doors in the renovation phase file.

[RobDraw]

Sorry, I misread your post and didn't respond correctly.

You may need to have the existing portion in both models. One model will be existing and demo, the other will be existing to remain and new.

[Kimtaurus]

Having both phases in one model leads to a large model. To make demo plans, we'll link the model with the existing phase into the model with the renovation phase.

We're trying to bring the file size down. Preferably to around 400 MB.

[Sahay_R]

Have you checked some of the regular delinquents - over modeled families, linked / imported DWGs, unsheeted views?

[RobDraw]

---

@Kimtaurus wrote:

Having both phases in one model leads to a large model. To make demo plans, we'll link the model with the existing phase into the model with the renovation phase.

We're trying to bring the file size down. Preferably to around 400 MB.

---

Then you are going to lose the benefits of having multiple phases in the models and find some workarounds which are going to include having duplicate parts of phases in multiple models. It sounds like it's not your decision but I would recommend breaking up the building by floor or area rather than phase.

[Viveka_CD]

Hi @Kimtaurus 

Have you considered using worksets to split the model?

Check out this AU class: Revit Project Setup: Making the Most of Your Model

Regards,

[Kimtaurus]

We already use worksets, but this does not lower the file size.

Our project partners have requested a lighter model to work with. 

[RobDraw]

Before a final decision is made, test projects should be set-up using different methods of breaking up the model.

I've never heard of breaking up a project into phases unless it was to provide more of a timeline of the building but, again, the existing to remain has to be carried forward to the new phase. Otherwise, you are going to lose some of the functionality of phases and will have fragmented models. You've already mentioned one difficulty with door openings in existing walls.

When breaking up a project for file size, it is much more common to break up the building physically and maintain the phases is all areas. This way makes more sense from a Revit and coordination perspective.

[AFatRat]

I definitely would not try to split the model up by phase. As others have said, it introduces too many opportunities for pitfalls, especially this far along in the process. Depending on how you have your worksets set up it may be easier to turn certain worksets into model groups and convert them into links with their own project file (furniture, equipment, etc.). With a vertical building however, it's probably best to split the model vertically. Especially since the facade, which I assume includes the entire shell, is already a separate model.

[ToanDN]

"to lower the file size and make uploading and downloading the models faster"

If that is the main intent then, in my opinion, it is a lot of work for a very little gain. Unless your project partner is holding all the cards in his hand then I would say you should make him/her change his/her mind.

[Sahay_R]

@Kimtaurus - all of the above. Especially what @ToanDN says.

All else failing - Why not Shell+Core (core can be split into floors - or even 5-10 floors at a time)+FitOut (split the FitOut as you have split the Core)? This should give the benefit of being able to work on a level without waiting to load all of them.

[Kimtaurus]

We've put the facades (existing and new) in 2 separate files.

Splitting by floor makes the project hard to manage: if a type changes in one file, you need to update it in the other files as well.

I guess for now we're just gonna filter out the structural elements, as the engineer will provide a model for them.

Maybe even put furniture in a different file.

[Kimtaurus]

@AFatRat  Splitting the model into phases gives us the advantage that the existing phase is "locked".  A modeller can't accidentally change/delete an element of the existing phase. If an element needs to be demolished, you have to go to that file and do it. 

[RobDraw]

I'm wondering why you opted for splitting up the project in a way that is not a recommended workflow. What was the reasoning for not following recommended best practices?

[Kimtaurus]

We don't want to split up the model. It's our project partners who are requesting this. They want us to deliver files which are maximum 400 MB.

For now, only the facade is in a different file. When we get the file from the engineer, we'll delete our structural elements. Which will also lower the file size.

When we started the project, it wasn't supposed to be a Full BIM project, so it didn't matter so much how the project was divided.

[Sahay_R]

@Kimtaurus - that's what I meant, Furniture (and other Interior items) = Fit-Out. That definitely is a recommended practice. 

I fully understand and sympathize with the need to provide a tamper-proof existing model. Was that created by you or from a point cloud? Possibly Existing Shell + New Shell + Existing Core + New Core + Fit-Out. 

[AFatRat]

---

@Kimtaurus wrote:

Splitting the model into phases gives us the advantage that the existing phase is "locked".

---

Well now we're talking about something else. If that's your intent along with reducing file size, that may be the way to go, just know where you're going to run into problems (which it sounds like you do).

If you were just trying to lock the existing phase, I still wouldn't do it as a separate model though. I would put all existing elements on their own worksets (keep whatever workset convention you have, just add "Existing" in front), then lock those worksets by using an "Admin" or "Lock" user name to check them out, save, close, and don't relinquish. That way, you have to change your user name to "Admin" or "Lock" to edit the existing model. Easiest way though is to create an existing view, highlight everything, and pin.