multi-stage project - how to work on it?

[remigiuszCNFU2]

Hi. I'm starting a residential multi-family large project which has 3 stages. I wonder how I should conduct it in Revit - is it better to work on a single file? If so, how to manage project? Phasing seems to be wrong approach because it is for new/existing buildings, not for an empty plot with many stages. Stage parameters? Seems difficult, because every time somebody adds a wall they have to remember stage parameters. What is theory behind conducting multy-stage projects in Revit? Should I rather split files? Each building has its own levels, but for me it doesn't seem to be a problem. 

[blank...]

Definitely multiple files. One file for each building and another one for site plan, in which you link building files.

[RSomppi]

---

@remigiuszCNFU2 wrote:

Hi. I'm starting a residential multi-family large project which has 3 stages. I wonder how I should conduct it in Revit - is it better to work on a single file? If so, how to manage project? Phasing seems to be wrong approach because it is for new/existing buildings, not for an empty plot with many stages. Stage parameters? Seems difficult, because every time somebody adds a wall they have to remember stage parameters. What is theory behind conducting multy-stage projects in Revit? Should I rather split files? Each building has its own levels, but for me it doesn't seem to be a problem. 

---

I've done projects of new buildings with multiple new phases but I've never heard of the stage parameters that you mentioned. 

For multiple buildings, I would definitely use separate models.

[lucdoucet_msdl]

@remigiuszCNFU2 

To best understand answer your question requires clarifications on the details of the construction "timing" and bidding/contracting framework . I use the work "timing" as there seems to be confusion about stages vs phases.

For example:

1. all 3 buildings are to be sequentially built one after the other on the same plot by the same contractor from the same set of construction documents;
2. fast track project management scenario with documents being developed/issued as the previous building closes out;
3. each building by a different contractor;
4. etc.

As to the terminology, it seems to me that

• Stage = a step in the development of a construction project , the project is in the design stage vs construction stage. The non-Revit definition phase is also synonymous with the term stage with respect to a development stage but can cause confusion with the use of the work in Revit;
• Revit Phasing = is a set of steps in the sequential order of construction work with a progression of Existing towards the delivery of one or more parts of a building. Also know as "construction phasing".

In Revit, a project file with start at some stage of the project development (depending on when the building professional gets a mandate) and will progressively be updated at stages of the process. The same project could contain multiple construction phases for which the Revit Phases are used.

So could you clarify if your mandate is:

1. To produce one set (same contractor) of construction documents versus several (same contractor or several different)?
2. The buildings are free standing versus physically adjacent? IE the individual buildings may move relative to the other on the same lot depending on the stage of development of the projet;

This will all help in proposing a workflow suited to the requirements of stages and/or phases.

-luc

[RSomppi]

I was trying to ask the OP if they were referring to something already available in Revit for stages that I am not aware of. I think we need them to describe in more detail what these stages represent in thier project. I think it may be about an order of installation which could be very doable with phases. They don't have to be Existing, (cough) Demo and New. They could be used as an order of construction instead of life of building.

Since stages (as I understand it) do not exist in Revit, they cannot be considered a viable workflow wihout some customization.

Without more details from the OP, it seems to me that the they are not using Revit phases and maybe not realizing that they could be a reasonable substitute for "stages" despite your very complex interpretation, which is not unreasonable. I just think it's overblown for what the OP is asking.

If, on the off chance, that the OP is looking at something close to what you are describing, I think a hybrid approach of phases and a custom parameter and/or worksets for the stages could be doable. Phases for timeline type stuff and worksets for the stages as you descrive them. Not ideal but it could get pretty close.

[lucdoucet_msdl]

@RSomppi 

I agree, that's why my response is addressed to the OP! 😉

-luc

[remigiuszCNFU2]

Thank you for the long, thorough answers. I'll try to clarify.

I've been working on many revit tools, but I've never used phasing, therefore I'm concerned about later problems which I can't predict by lack of experience.

There is one contractor and all the buildings have repeatable elements, they are going to be built one after each other. So in the first phase we created a masterplan and the building A, then building B, then building C. They are separate, but obviously they act as a single complex and are connected in the ground level. However in certain moments the schedule will overlap and we'll be working simultaneously on the three stages. We build a stone age country, therefore our industry-specific designers work in 2d (autocad or something, it is the device used for drawing 2d long long ago 🙂 ) Therefore it's tempting to use single file to make life easier.

Phasing, is an instance "parameter" of each element and helps to create schedules and each time when somebody starts working on certain element, he or she has to switch on proper phase  and keep going. Do I get it right? 

Workset is rather for filtering elements of certain use, for example enscape elements which we don't want to see on our project. 

What I mean "stage parameters" is custom parameters to filter elements of stages.

Phasing seems attractive then, for now I am creating concept sketches in the single file, then I'll be thinking whether the "hybrid" work of combining phases, worksets and custom parameters is doable. In this case it seems so, but I'm not sure yet.

[lucdoucet_msdl]

@remigiuszCNFU2 

In this context, I would recommend two project files with the following division for modelling/documenting:

1. A site file with the toposurface, lot lines, and anything relating to site works (parking, paths, landscaping, excavation);
2. A single main project file for the infrastructure (foundations and below grade construction) and superstructure (above grade) modelling, scheduling, detailing and documentation.

The single main project file will have the following benefits:

1. The relative position of each building are less likely to move as they are meant to be connected. The risk of design decisions to move one building relative to the other are low;
2. All the common Revit families will be in one file making revisions to graphics standards, building components and statistics easier to adjust/compare/manage;
3. Reuse the same typical detail/legend sheets for each part of the building;
4. Reduce the complexity of managing multiple linked project files.

I cannot understate the confusion that comes from Revit functions such as "phasing" when compared to the same word in the design and construction industry. You are correct in wanting to distinguish the two by using "staging" as a distinction in the use of project/shared parameters, but this might be redundant when "Revit phases" are used to separate the "stages" you are referring to. 

For example, the single main project file would be set up with the following "Revit phases"/Stages:

Existing : Existing site conditions, no building (if green field construction)
Stage A : All building modelling for part A of the build to be executed first

Stage B : part B to be executed second

Stage C : part C to be executed third/last

Legend : copies of families common of all stages to be modelled for use in schedules, legends, etc.

By modelling each successive stage in the same file, you can control the appearance of previous phases using phase overrides in the graphics settings, show demolition of temporary construction executed in a prior stage and demolished in a subsequent stage.

Multiple stage schedules can be tricky while distinct stage schedules are quite easy to setup. When wanting to generate a total schedule of all stages of work, it will depend greatly on the Revit type of information you are wanting to schedule. For areas, you may be required to using area plans rather than Revit Rooms.

Hope this helps,

-luc

[lucdoucet_msdl]

@remigiuszCNFU2 

Workset is rather for filtering elements of certain use, for example enscape elements which we don't want to see on our project. 

---

Actually, Autodesks reccommended use of worksets is to manage the softwares memory usage and not necessarily a means to control the visibility of objects. I'm not saying it can't be used for visibility graphics but it usually makes it harder to manage with view templates.

In thecase of your three stages, it would benefit the team working on the single main file to have a workset for each "stage" A, B, C and possibly a seperate stage for the common elements on the ground/basement level even if they are assigned to different Revit phases.

The reasoning behind a single workset for stages that will be built in physical contact with each other will be clear when you need to coordinate adjacent work (openings between common walls, alignement of ceiling equipement and floor finished, etc). This common workset would still have it's object assigned to each appropriate Revit phase.

-luc

[ToanDN]

Phasing is not wrong. It works well for projects with multiple phases (or stages if you prefer to call them that).  Aside from that, I agreed with using separate models for different buildings.  Link them in a composite model then you can even map the phases to set which one to be built first etc...