All system-ed elements maintain their connection after being demolished

[casquatch]

I created an idea already for this and piping, but forgot that is is not just piping.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/pipe-duct-demolition-keeps-system-designation-and-stays/id...

All elements should keep the connection to their original system, or somehow maintain the relationship to the original system designation.

Within electrical if you demolish something that element is removed from the panel. If you have multiple phases and show elements on the panels at an early phase, you can't do this. So you have to just work around the phasing for those elements. NOT ideal.

If this was handled a bit differently then we could still use the native Revit systems and the native Revit phasing tools.

If a wall can infil after a door is demolished, I'd think something could be done about the phasing on the MEP side of things.

[casquatch]

I think we have become so used to this one that we forgot to add it to the list, it's still a big deal.

-Keep some kind of system designation when you demo a systemed element.

We use filters to clean up our drawings, in a demo plan it becomes chaos as soon as things start getting demo'd.

-Also, keep the network connected as much as possible.

There are times that you might decide you didn't want to demolish all of that pipe, so now you have to delete it and recreate to make it behave and pull the correct system, etc.

[Anonymous]

They need a parameter for 'previous system' to retain the info across time.  As of now you need to copy or x-clip the pipes and paste aligned 'to same place' to reset the parameters after demo.

[aledgerwood_starrelectric_net]

Electrically at least, what we would need is a panel schedule by phase. I don't know how this would be programmed, but you should be able to make 2-3 panel schedules on the same panel, that could repopulate based on which phase is selected per schedule.

For example:

Phase Core & Shell - only has a couple circuits

Phase upfit - fully populated.

Or

Phase demolition - shows circuits to be removed and their load, as well as existing.

Phase new construction - shows new circuits and not the demo circuits.

After all it doesn't make sense to create a ghost panel and loads just to show this in your sheets.

[MarkK_EEA]

The fact that Revit disconnects everything when a system is demolished is a HUGE issue and makes multi-phase projects for MEP impossible to accomplish with Revit phases.

[Martin__Schmid]

>>All elements should keep the connection to their original system, or somehow maintain the relationship to the original system designation.

What would keeping the connection or maintaining the relationship help you do that you can't do now?  Do you really care if the elements are 'connected' to the system (e.g., no disconnect marker where a demo pipe was connected to a existing-to-remain pipe?  Is that the main part of the problem?)

>> The fact that Revit disconnects everything when a system is demolished is a HUGE issue and makes multi-phase projects for MEP impossible to accomplish with Revit phases.

What are the issue(s)?

Focusing on pipe (not ignoring elec.. just I think that showing phased panel schedules is a different problem - and not necessarily specific do demolish):  I suspect that the general problem is that when a pipe is demolished, that your view filters no longer include (or exclude) what you want for a given view.  E.g., all the demolished pipe elements result in their  'System Type' and 'System Classification' = Undefined, and thus, makes it hard to separate out hydronic heating or cooling pipes from their demo-mechanical view from the domestic and sanitary pipes from the plumbing views. 

[MarkK_EEA]

The huge issue I was referring to is that once the duct/pipe/conduit has a demo phase set, all physical connectivity is lost. This result pretty much precludes any possibility of being able to easily modify these systems (e.g. resize, move a segment). In a multi-phase project, things that get demolished may not be existing (e.g. temporary or phased systems), so the need to modify the systems occurs during design. However, since it lost connectivity, if any temporary or phased work changes, it has to be redrawn.

It appears that the working assumption was that anything that gets demolished would be static and not require any modification.

The lack of logical connectivity is also an issue. Temporary or phased systems require design calculations too.

Just wanted to get a response out there. I will follow up with more details when time permits.

[Martin__Schmid]

Hi Mark_TGCE-- thanks, that makes sense.

Can you say more about the 'Temporary or Phased' systems needing calculations?  

One of the underlying issues today is that demolished elements are not in a system because it is system flow that propagates.  E.g., if you had two air terminals, one demo'd and one new (or existing to remain) connected to a main duct, and connectivity were retained, the total flow on the main duct would be a sum of the two air terminals.. and I don't think that is what you want, either... so understanding more about the scenario(s) in which you would want flow to propagate through temporary/demolished elements would be helpful.

Seems like there are at least four separate issues:  what is the order of importance (these should likely be separate 'Ideas', ultimately, but more important, I think, is defining what the problems (and thus the ideas) actually are:

1. Be able to easily move (aka Sticky Move) interconnected demolished objects.

2.  Be able to set the size of multiple interconnected demolished objects (may be the same 'solution' as #1, but it is a different problem).

3.  Control visibility of demolished objects (e.g., the right pipes on the right 'discipline' views)

4.  Flow / Pressure drop on temporary / demolished parts of the model.

[Anonymous]

8 years later this is still an issue. 

[MarkK_EEA]

Order of importance:

1.  Control visibility of demolished objects (e.g., the right pipes on the right 'discipline' views)

2.  Be able to easily move (aka Sticky Move) interconnected demolished objects.

3.  Be able to set the size of multiple interconnected demolished objects.

4.  Flow / Pressure drop on temporary / demolished parts of the model.

Edit:word choice

[casquatch]

Agreed on Mark's order.

1.  Control visibility of demolished objects (e.g., the right pipes on the right 'discipline' views)

2.  Be able to easily move (aka Sticky Move) interconnected demolished objects.

3.  Be able to set the size of multiple interconnected demolished objects.

4.  Flow / Pressure drop on temporary / demolished parts of the model.

As for the elec side of things, it is entirely different, but hopefully still something to be considered. For elec, it's all about the system properties and connected/disconnected loads, etc., but I'm sure you figured that out. For phased projects, we'd like to have a single panel throughout the entire project. Shown differently and updated at each phase, depending on what is connected to it at the moment in time of the project. As of now, that isn't possible at all and in order to get things to read properly, an entire panel and all of it's connected elements might have to be duplicated.

[MarkK_EEA]

Martin,

Calculation would be helpful for temporary/phased systems in general. They need to be sized/calculated just like any other system that is being designed. Temporary ducts need to be the right size, temporary circuits need the right load, etc. This issue goes back to a multi-phase project too. For example, there is a system that is created in phase A and is demoed in phase B. That system needs to be size/calculated to be constructed for phase A, but then as soon as you want to show the system actually demoed in phase B, that system in phase A, along with all that information, disappears. Why would you want to get this information after you have 'finished' the design? Changes in field conditions during construction, Owner directed changes (which tend to come at the most inopportune times), Record Documents, etc.

It would also be nice to have these temporary/phased systems assigned their actual created/demolished phases from the get go. Right now, if you want Revit to do the work it is designed to do, you have to get everything designed and then at the very end you set the phasing (at lease the demolished phase). You can imagine the hoops you have to jump through for things to look right before the actual phases can be assigned.

Sounds like the sticking point is that systems need to be made 'phase aware' somehow, because you are right, we do not want flow, loads, etc. coming back from the dead (i.e. propagating from demolished systems in a previous phase).

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

 I just posted the electrical version of this idea here:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/retain-electrical-circuit-system-information-after-demoli...

Based on what Martin is saying, it sounds like these are two completely different issues at the programming level, even though the fundamental idea is the same.

[d_smith]

Martin,

This issue is much bigger than just phasing.  the same issue applies to design options.  Currently to show an entire system in various phases, the entire system and all of its components must be duplicated for each design option.  Unfortunately, since many objects, like AHUs are connected to multiple systems, this means that ultimately all of MEP must be duplicated for each design option, even if a single element, like a different diffuser is the only change.

Ultimately, just like schedules are capable of reading the model based on the design option(s), phase, and phase filter needed to be displayed.  Systems need to have this same functionality. Calculations and graphics are critically important, but in essence, this comes down to a pure lack of ease in workflow. It is not currently adequate. 

If an engineer cannot demolish a run of duct or pipe from any point in a system, with the ability and option to provide one or multiple design options, each with its own system and calculations, then the work flow is flawed. Demolished elements should still know what system they came from when demolished, as graphic filters are critical to isolating specific system types for certain drawings. 

As one of many examples, I may only want oxygen, nitrogen, and med gas piping in one drawing, sanitary, in another, domestic supply (hot, cold, and temperate) in another, sprinkler piping in another, and hydronic piping in yet another.  All of it is piping. When a pie system is new, it is possible to see the system and isolate through filters which are seen in a view. Unfortunately though, systems cannot span phases, allowing a new pipe to connect to an existing one, and the demoed system loses its affiliation with the previous system. Unless the system can be understood in all design options and phase states (demo, temporary, new, existing, these filters cannot be established and a work around is required.

PLEASE!! This is really the number ONE MEP issue in Revit. Until it is resolved, the software will be considered incomplete and in many ways inadequate for renovations and projects with alternates.

[NateBrush]

This also applies to rooms and room separations. It seems like there is an inherent issue in how Revit "sees" phases. Existing, Demo, New really need to be reflected and editable at intermediate stages by phase filter.

1. Existing - rooms, MEP systems appear per phase filter. (it would be great if electrical panel schedules could be filtered by phase)

2. Demo - existing rooms, existing mep systems appear per phase filter (existing and demo). Systems still exist per "phase created".

3. New - rooms, MEP systems appear per phase filter (existing and new)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Revit treats "Demo" Like "Phase New -.1" rather than "Existing +.1" so to speak. This is very clear with rooms. Demo drawings, at least for us, always are forced to show the new rooms.

I hope Autodesk re-writes the Revit engine from the ground up soon. Computing technology has come a long, long way since it was first released in the early 2000s, as has BIM. There is a good list of necessary functionality issues that have piled up over the past 10 years or so. I hope they hit all the biggies in one fell swoop by re-coding it as one integrated BIM tool rather than a conglomeration of tools. 

[jkarben]

Order of importance.

1.  Control visibility of demolished objects (e.g., the right pipes on the right 'discipline' views)

2. Be able to easily move (aka Sticky Move) interconnected demolished objects.

3.  Be able to set the size of multiple interconnected demolished objects (may be the same 'solution' as #1, but it is a different problem).

4.  Flow / Pressure drop on temporary / demolished parts of the model.

[jonathanroy8676]

This is an ongoing problem! I can't believe, this is still stuck in the "idea" section! 

I'd like to know what progress has been made in the past Years, not weeks or months, to address this initial programming flaw for MEP. I agree with @d_smith "PLEASE!! This is really the number ONE MEP issue in Revit. Until it is resolved, the software will be considered incomplete and in many ways inadequate for renovations and projects with alternates."

[Anonymous]

This needs to be fixed. It has been years. Come on Autodesk.

[Anonymous]

I'm joining the crowd, this issue has to be considered. 

When in existing phase, the system must keep its properties (visibility, discipline, type, connections, flow....)

Order of importance :

1.  Control visibility of demolished objects (e.g., the right pipes on the right 'discipline' views)

2.  Be able to easily move (aka Sticky Move) interconnected demolished objects.

3.  Be able to set the size of multiple interconnected demolished objects (may be the same 'solution' as #1, but it is a different problem).

4.  Flow / Pressure drop on temporary / demolished parts of the model.

[Anonymous]

This is a major problem. In overlap views of phasing (most phases are not rectangular but follow existing wall layouts, another problem that should be corrected) the demolished pipes in the NEXT phase show up light and the system abbreviations turn to question marks. We have to insert keynotes to indicate the pipe types being demolished in the current phase. This is A LOT of extra work, tags already made in existing phase that need to be erased and re-done using keynotes (another over-complicated process in Revit that needs to be addressed).

[Anonymous]

Chiming in to say I would also like to see this functionality added, and adding to the consensus of order of importance of manipulation of demolished objects (controlling visibility, sticky move, sizing, flow/pressure). 

I get that when you look at real world demolition, when it's gone it's gone, but for multiphase/temporary phases being able to mass manipulate objects which will be demolished down the road would remove a big headache that currently exists when dealing with demolished objects in Revit.