Multiple components in a Family

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to make an electrical family in Revit LT (since it doesn't come with electrical) and I would like to put things like a single outlet, duplex outlet, direct connection, etc. all in one family.  I tried using both shared and nested families, but they don't seem to work because they all show up as separate categories in my project.

Anyone know how to do this?

[Alfredo_Medina]

Welcome to the forum.

Do one simple family for each purpose.

[Anonymous]

That's not a very organized way to do it, it doesn't seem.

[Alfredo_Medina]

What is the organized way, then?

[Anonymous]

The organized way is to group it by family (Electrical) and not have a separate family for each component.

[Alfredo_Medina]

Autodesk provides the families like this, one simple family for each purpose. Do you mean this is not the organized way?

[Anonymous]

Sure looks it.  But I don't know how it appears in Revit--is there a separate family for each component?  Or does it somehow group it into an electrical category.  I'm guessing the latter.

[Alfredo_Medina]

The families that you see above are all of them of the same category, but each file is an individual, simple, family that serves one purpose.

[chrisplyler]

They are grouped into the electrical device category, because each separate family file has a "category" parameter that tells it what it is. So when you have several in your project, and you create an electrical device schedule, they all show up in it. But they still all have different family names, so that the schedule doesn't just contain a whole bunch of the same item.

Taking your theory to the extreme...every electrical device in your whole building would have the same family name. And that one family would be a nightmare of complexity that you could probably never build.

It doesn't make sense if you think about it like that.

[MKFreiert]

Let me start out by saying this is a bad idea for data intensive BIM.  But we do it- sort of.

We have a face based family with annotation elements that designers use to quickly place electrical devices in early CD late design development project phases.  This is before the EE comes fully on board, but it allows client and designers to see an outlet or data point, and it's then used by the EE to locate their actual electrical elements, and we'll then filter our families out once the electrical model is showing them in the correct location.  

I've also used this on single family residences where the electrical contractor is just doing takeoffs by counting outlets on the few sheets of plans and we don't have an EE involved, just a sparky. 

In terns of how the family works, circles and lines that have visibility controlled by yes/no type parameters that get turned off or on as appropriate for each type.  IIRC the circle is almost always on, the 2 vertical lines are on if "duplex" is checked, the 2 horiz turn on for quad, (which also gets duplex ticked on)  etc.  

Once you're actually scheduling electrical devices, or you're working with an electrical engineer, this becomes a potential source for errors, so you want to make sure this isn't going to schedule, and it's graphically different enough that you can see if they're still in use - or delete the entire family from the project.  

[chrisplyler]

metisdesigns,

That sounds like a reasonable use...but you still have one family for 120v recepts, one family probably for 120v light switches, etc., right?

I've got Building Design Suite (includes the MEP stuff) so i just go ahead and drop in the actual device families where I want them.

[MKFreiert]

yes, switches are a separate family, mostly because they want to default in at a different height, and graphically display significantly differently on elevations.  the switch family includes a few permutations of numbers and gangs, decora, sliders and switches

we have BDS as well, but for our user workflow, its often the interior designers who just want to show that there will be an electrical gizmo.  having fewer families loaded for them to work with (and get frustrated by scrolling past) makes them happier.   it also means that i've got something gently but noticeably different from our EEs so that when we've got an electrical model we can compare visually.  

again, for a data rich, fully modeled system, using a family like i've described is a *horrible* idea other than to possibly flag a location for coordination, - but then it's better to put in the right component and have the EE copy it in to save them hassle.  but for small projects, and non-engineering studies, it's pretty slick.

(n.b. the family wants to be face based so you can slap it on a floor, ceiling or piece of casework/furniture and still use the same one, which is invariably where it'll end up.)  

[Anonymous]

I'm still not sure I found a suitable answer for this.  I appreciate your responses, but maybe if I describe what the situation is it would make more sense.

I work at a commercial restaurant equipment retailer and as a service we provide to clients (architects, designers, developers, etc.) we layout kitchens with the equipment that we are specifying for them on our quotes.  In addition to the equipment plan we also provide an electrical plan and a plumbing plan detailing where the connections are for the equipment that will be required.

In the past, we have work almost entirely in AutoCad, but now some clients want us to use Revit.

I am the drafter/standards manager and I'm trying to find a way to create a simple file or two with all of the information for the electrical and plumbing components we need in Revit.  I support a team of about eight sales engineers who specify the equipment for different clients.  Traditionally, we have only had about 10 different symbols or so total for all of the electrical and plumbing we are showing on our plans.

To me, it seems like it would be simple to have one family for electrical (about 5 or so components) and one family for plumbing (about 5 or so components).  Is there any way what-so-ever that this can be done?

Thanks.

[ToanDN]

Okay, if you insist.  Let's say you need a family consists 5 different electrical fixtures.

- Create 5 generic annotation families, each represents the symbol of a electrical fixture, e.g. Duplex, Quadplex, GFI, 220V, and Whatnot.

- Create an electrical family.  It can be wall based, face based, or non hosted.  I would use face based for flexibility.

- Load the 5 symbols in one by one.  For each, add a Type Visibility parameter, name them following the Types, e.g. Show Duplex, Show Whatnot, etc...

- Add 5 family Types.  Name them same or similar to symbols.

- Edit each Types and check the corresponding Visibility Box, uncheck the rest.

- Load it in your project and start populate.

FYI: This has no benefits over creating 5 different families.  More visibility parameters.  More work upfront.

[MKFreiert]

no.  no no no.  no no.  no.   please no.

(i'm a bit biased in that a recent project had *amazingly* uncoordinated drawings provided by the KE supplier.  they had conflicts of information between their cutsheets, drawings, schedules on sheet -- each listing different information for individual pieces of equipment.  i've never seen anything so uncoordinated.)

from a workflow perspective what's grossly going to happen for projects with architects on them is this (where you're not just prepping an equipment remodel):  architect sends you a base building model(possibly with a linked MEP and structural models), you link in their model(s) into your project file, you model stuff, send your model to the architect who links in your model and shares it with the engineers who link your model into their model.

you have 2 options here:  you can use placeholder connections like i described (what you're asking for help on)  or you can use the standard MEP connections that will connect to well modeled families, and MEP systems.    

the first option you could build a custom family and schedules to look at instances, which gives you the advantage of being able to only have a couple of families, but will drive your architects and engineers nuts, and have them tell horror stories about you.  this will be marginally easier for you, but actually give you less information unless you rebuild all of the behavior of the stock families from scratch.  the MEP team will have to place stock families for each of the placeholders you placed.

with the second option, the engineers will copy/monitor your connections into their model and can just run with the information, not having to duplicate your work, and where they need changes, they can make them in their model or let you know to make the change.  you'll be making everyone else's work easier.  which means that instead of telling your clients to never use you again, they'll tell the clients you're useful, and helpful team players.

to not drive your architects and engineers nuts, *please* model everything *accurately* and use stock families for the MEP connections.

for your own sanity, build a starter project or template that is pretty thin. purge out everything you don't need.   do NOT hold onto your old CAD graphical standards with a tight fist and "make it look right" by faking information or adding a horrible workflow to revit to match something.  do match things, but if you can use a smart schedule, do that instead of a "dumb" one.

[chrisplyler · Accepted solution]

Thanks for detailing your situation a bit better. My suggestion is as follows:

Make them separate families. Load them all into a template project file. Bingo, your designers have just "one file" they have to open and start their layout in. The families they need are already in there...they don't have to go hunting for files to insert.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Chris, I think this will work best for our situation.  I set up a template like you described.

[MKFreiert]

you may find a starter project more useful than a template - it lets you build in worksets to every project (more or less just a template that's been started as a project and then you do a save as before adding any new content)