Fix the issue regarding multi-pole loads on a switchboard

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

On switchboards, it's quite common to feed not only transformers and other panels but also large loads such as an RTU.  Currently, by setting the number of one-pole breakers parameter in a switchboard, it sizes the panel schedule correctly.  For example, if I enter 16 into the max # of one-pole breakers, the panel schedule shows 16 circuits.  However, I cannot circuit 16 3-phase loads.  This is a serious problem because I would like to feed the disconnects for my larger equipment (an X-ray, an MRI, some pumps, etc.), along with some other panels, from a switchboard.  I have two panels circuited to the switchboard, and I would like to circuit six or seven more 3-phase loads along with a couple of 1-phase loads.  On a switchboard, this should only take up 10 or 11 slots, so 16 should have room for spares.  However, I can only circuit five 3-phase loads before I'm told the panel is full.  The panel schedule shows 11 empty slots, but I cannot choose the panel when I'm circuiting my loads.  If I increase the number of breakers to 18, I can fit six loads now.  If I increase to 21, 7 loads.  The loads only take up one slot (as they should), but in some calculation happening on the backend, Revit thinks the panel is full when it is 1/3 full.

[Anonymous]

this is a very imperative fix, that we are struggling as well with, it will be great form Autodesk to rectify this...

[BDezayas]

<>

[Anonymous]

Is there a solution to this yet, by chance?

[Martin__Schmid]

Hi Guys-- thanks for the suggestion and comments.  I'd like to understand a bit more about what your expectations are for this.. as at present, it is working as designed.. so there is clearly a disconnect between that, and what you expect the behavior to be.

From the original post:  " if I enter 16 into the max # of one-pole breakers, ....  However, I cannot circuit 16 3-phase loads. "

This is the designed behavior... you'd be able to connect 16 one-pole loads, or 5 (16/3) three phase loads (leaving room for an additional 1-pole load)... or some other combination totaling 16.

" I have two panels circuited to the switchboard, and I would like to circuit six or seven more 3-phase loads along with a couple of 1-phase loads.  On a switchboard, this should only take up 10 or 11 slots, so 16 should have room for spares. "

Assuming the two panels are 3-phase, you are trying to connect 7 more 3-phase loads, that is a total of 9 three phase loads, requiring 27 breaker slots... so you'd need to set 'Max # 1 Pole Breakers' to at least 27.

It seems to me that the problem is that, for a switchboard, the notion of the number of rows in the schedule being controlled by "Max # 1 Pole Breakers" may not make sense, and instead, the schedule rows should reduce for each multi-pole breaker in the board... for example, if you had Max # 1 Pole Breakers = 12, and had 3x3-pole circuits connected, you'd have 6 rows in the resulting schedule... one row for each of the 3-pole breakers, and one row each for the remaining 3 1 pole breakers).  If you then connected one more 3-pole load to those remaining breaker positions, the schedule would show just the 4 rows.   (in other words, you have Max #1 pole breakers = 12, which corresponds to a maximum # of 3 pole breakers = 4).

Would that solve the problem, or am I mis-understanding what your goals are in having this fixed?

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

@Martin__Schmid, I think that would solve the problem.  However, I think that workflow would be confusing, especially to new users.  Ideally, I would like a "Number of Schedule Rows" parameter that would allow the user to set the number of circuit breakers/spaces installed into it, whether 1, 2, or 3 pole.  This would be in lieu of the "Max # 1 Pole Breakers" (only for switchboards; branch panels work properly).  This is a typical workflow that most electrical engineers are used to in other panel schedule programs, and seeing the rows disappear as multi-pole circuits are added would most likely confuse & concern them.

Both solutions would resolve the main issue with the design, though - if the user has multi-pole circuits on a switchboard, it creates unusable rows that take up space on the sheet.

[Martin__Schmid]

Hi @aaron.jonesSAP83 - good points.

What do people do today to work around this issue? 

[aaron.jonesSAP83]

@Martin__Schmid, most people I've seen take their base panel schedule template and set the number of rows to a fixed value.  They'll repeat this for however many different sizes of schedules they need.  By the end of a project, this quite often means we'll have several different templates (i.e. "Distribution Panel - 5 circuits", "Distribution Panel - 6 circuits", ... "Distribution Panel - 25 circuits").  We then set the "Max # of 1 Pole Breakers" parameter to three times the number of rows we need.  Each panel schedule then has the template assigned to it associated with the number of circuits required.  When we need to add/subtract a circuit, we create a new template, change the template settings to show the correct number of rows, and apply the new template.

[Anonymous]

Aaron and Martin, so glad to see this being discussed actively.

This is a *CRITICAL* flaw in revit.  The reason this is critical rather than just an inconvenience is that Revit doesn't do a good job of checking the number of breakers vs what's attached to the panel.   If you've got a switchboard with 10 3-pole loads and you set the parameter to 10, it doesn't just throw an error and say "hey there's more connected than that", it doesn't do anything right then.  The panel schedule still looks fine with ten rows......until later (I think upon saving and synching) you get random disconnections without warning.  Revit will just dump the last seven loads off the panel.

I just recently moved away from one template per panel schedule length approach that Aaron just described because I thought this was fixed in 2018.  I did some basic testing and didn't see a problem.  Well I was wrong and I found that out this week.  

[Anonymous]

Hi Martin,

I ran into the issue today using a switchboard template. What i feel like could be the solution is if the Template options for the Panelboards and Switchboards could be treated differently rather than have both function exactly the same. Mainly, have an option under the general section for the switchboard to to adjust the Max number of 3 pole breakers rather than 1 pole. If the switchboard content and schedules functioned by treating each row as a 3 pole breaker, this could resolve this issue. Would love to hear others thoughts my suggestion. 

[dvilleneuve]

Hello @martin.schmid,

A few things that I do not see mentioned which may better answer your question about current workaround are as follows:

"This is the designed behavior... you'd be able to connect 16 one-pole loads, or 5 (16/3) three phase loads (leaving room for an additional 1-pole load)... or some other combination totaling 16."

In this scenario the panel schedule being set to "Variable based on maximum number of one-pole breakers" would have the resulting number of available slots show as 16 in the switchboard panel schedule. 5 of which would be labeled and the resulting 11 would "display" as empty to the unknowing eye.

"Assuming the two panels are 3-phase, you are trying to connect 7 more 3-phase loads, that is a total of 9 three phase loads, requiring 27 breaker slots... so you'd need to set 'Max # 1 Pole Breakers' to at least 27."

In this scenario the same displayed results of 27 slots will show on the schedule but again seemingly show 18 of those as empty slots to the unknowing eye.

Now to answer the question of the current workaround (at least the best one found to date). In order to show only the labeled slots and not the blank slots:

1. we have the schedule itself set to "Variable based on maximum number of one-pole breakers"
2. Set the Distribution Panel "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to match the number of connected labeled slots. Our examples above would be 5 in the 1st example and 9 in the 2nd example. To continue with this example I will use 5 connected 3 phase loads.
3. At this point we are displaying only what we need displayed (5 slots) in the schedule with no great difficulty. Adding an additional 3 phase load at this point is tricky. Since we have the "Max #1 Pole Breakers" set to 5 to match the desired number of labeled slots we need to modify the setting before connecting additional load.
4. Next step is to change "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to 0 (explanation of why "0" to follow).
5. Now we can connect the additional 3 phase load.
6. Increase "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to 6. 

The result is that you now have you panel displaying a single slot per connected 3 phase load. In step 4 if we were to increase the "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to 18 (6*3) we could also connect without error but we could not at that point reduce the number of "Max #1 Pole Breakers" back down to 6 without requiring disconnect. This is a specific one way street that only works in a very specific and unclear manor.

Hope this clearly describes both what we are being required to show from our Engineers as well as the difficulty in having to achieve these results.

[sgermanoZ2Y2F]

@Martin__Schmid  We are experiencing the same exact issue. @dvilleneuve has described it exactly right and also noted the workaround. This feature needs a redesign, as indicated above. I do hope this is addressed in a 2020 update as it is very difficult to deal with currently. 

[Anonymous]

Has there been any fix for this?  "Merging multi-poled circuits into single cell" option within "Electrical Settings" seems to exclude switchboard style panel schedules.  A single line for multiple-pole circuits would be nice, even if this meant having to designate a new column with number of poles to clarify:

1.  Ckt 1   100A-3P

2. Ckt 2   60A-2P

3. Ckt 3   30A-2P

4. Ckt 4   20A-1P

[jill_chen]

Hi Guys,  thanks for the feedbacks and comments.

If I understand correctly, you would like to count the circuits number on switchboard, and on panelboard, you would like to keep counting the number of poles on panelboard, something like below, is that right?

and are there any scenarios that you would like to count the number of poles in switchboard schedule like the panelboard schedule? Thanks again!

Switchboard: one row one circuit one number, no matter the circuit is three phase or single phase 

Panelboard: for 3 phase circuit use 3 numbers to represent the number of poles

[Anonymous]

Yes, Jill.  It looks like you've got it pretty much right for the switchboard and even that branch panel schedule.  However I'd say that format for the branch panel schedule isn't used so much these days.  Usually they show branch panel boards as one line per pole and a 3 pole breaker would show as 3 lines grouped together (just like revit does by default with branch panels).  This style of branch panel schedule is an older one that was commonly used when doing hand drawn panel schedules.  I like it, but it's not very popular these days. 

Unfortunately I think Revit needs to be able to support all these formats and operate correctly.

I think it would be a big help if Revit's out-of-the-box panel schedules were improved and distributed with Revit.  Along with that example projects that actually use the circuiting, panel schedules, etc. should be provided as well.  

-Glen

[jill_chen]

Thanks @Anonymous, yes, the panelboard could be configured to show 3 lines for 3 pole breaker, the above image is just an example to compare with switchboard, for the existing behavior of panelboard, you could configure the panelboard to two columns or one column, and could show the 3 pole circuit in 3 lines as you mentioned, like below, is that what you common used?

---

[Anonymous]

Yes Jill,

The switchboard schedule as you've shown is what is what I would like to be capable of doing. 

In the above switchboard schedule you show, I would like the schedule to have the capability to be "variable" based on the number of Max #1 Pole Breakers specified.  That's where a lot of the trouble happens with switchboard schedules as well.  What i'm getting at is that the parameter "Max #1 Pole Breakers" is not very applicable to switchboard schedules.  It would be more intuitive to call it "Max Number of Circuits" or "Max Number of Spaces"  and have that value match the number of circuits shown on a switchboard schedule exactly, regardless of 3-pole or 1-pole circuits.

Thanks for looking into this.  

Rolando

[Anonymous]

Hi Jill,

The switchboard schedule that you show is what i would like to achieve in Revit. In a perfect world, there would be an option to change between 'number of 1 pole breakers' and 'number of 3 pole breakers'. i could set the 1 pole breaker option for my panelboards and the 3 pole option for my switchboards. 

BJ Warren

[dvilleneuve]

Hi Jill,

Thanks for putting attention towards this issue. I think the part of the conversation that is being missed is that the desired display is to not show blank slots in the panel schedule. In your example above it is showing blank slots and the available circuited slot is not taking up the next sequential slot available. I believe this is due to not having the "Circuit Table" setting of the panel schedule template set to "Total Load Only per Circuit". This is typically the desired preference (from my experience). This allows a simplification by just showing a single circuit of the 3 line, 3 pole breaker without showing the blank slots.

Now that the blank slots are cleared with the suggested change above we can (with a great deal of workaround) create a schedule showing only the populated slots. 

Following these steps posted in my previous response we can achieve the variable workflow but only by performing manual steps. With that said it raises a great concern in that we can circuit past the point of visible circuits displayed in the schedule causing a huge potential for missed design data. 

"In order to show only the labeled slots and not the blank slots:

1. we have the schedule itself set to "Variable based on maximum number of one-pole breakers"
2. Set the Distribution Panel "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to match the number of connected labeled slots. 
3. At this point we are displaying only what we need displayed in the schedule with no great difficulty. Adding an additional 3 phase load at this point is tricky. Since we have the "Max #1 Pole Breakers" set to 5 to match the desired number of labeled slots we need to modify the setting before connecting additional load.
4. Next step is to change "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to 0.
5. Now we can connect the additional 3 phase load.
6. Increase "Max #1 Pole Breakers" to 6."

In addition I agree with Rolando's reply and suggestion of the naming change to "Max Number of Circuits" as this would more consistently reflect all available options we can perform in Revit. But that is besides the point.

I hope you find this additional information helpful.

[Anonymous]

Agreed,

Circuiting past the point of visible circuits on a panel/switchboard schedule is definitely a engineering liability that should be programmed out of Revit's functionality, again in that ideal world we are looking for.

[Martin__Schmid]

Hi Folks-- We've marked this as Accepted as we've made some progress on this in our preview release.  We would very much appreciate it if you could register with our preview site to validate that things are on the right track.  Please reach out to us at revit.preview.access at autodesk.com if you accept the challenge!