MEP Systems and Connections Across Linked Models

[jboehning]

It would be nice to have MEP connectors be available for connection in a linked model. Also, these connectors should be able to be added to a system or circuit. There are many projects where mechanical, electrical and plumbing are split into multiple models in various ways. It would be helpful to have the same system creation functionality across linked models.

[cindy_wang]

Revit objects / components should have the ability to connect within a linked model with different disciplines.

suggested by: BAM

[jeribonvillain7060]

Yes, we do all of our projects with each discipline in separate models, and it would be great to have these connections to work between files!

[szilagyi.balazs]

The idea is not new, but still good! However I have a tested workaround:

Place a "plug" family with proper connector calculations in the linked project, and another at opposite direction with a connector set to preset in yours. (You can use Copy/Monitor)
With an easy (getparam-setparam) Dynamo script keep them synced.

[jboehning]

@szilagyi.balazs I agree, Dynamo is a great workaround! 

I searched for the idea but did not find it posted on here. Please post the link so that we don't split the votes. 

[Martin__Schmid]

Hi Jason-- thanks for posting.. I'm guessing that your goal isn't actually to connect through a linked file... that's just a means to an end, right?

What you want for circuits is that the load from in one file to be able to be tabulated on a panel in a different model?

For pipes/ducts, is it that you want to be able to propagate flow from one model into another, so you have total flow aggregated back to fans/pumps/equipment that is another model, to get a total flow/pressure drop?

What are the other things that you are hoping that 'connecting through a link' would do that you can't do now?

[jboehning]

Hi Martin, thanks for reaching out. I think you're pretty spot on with your assessment of the requested idea.

An example on the electrical side is when the equipment is in a linked model and needs to be circuited in the host model. The goal is to create a circuit with the link's equipment's connectors and then wire the circuit in the host model. 

Continuing with that example, the same would go for duct and piping systems. If the equipment was in a link, it would be nice to be able to create a system in the host model and then connect duct/pipe to the connectors on the equipment in the link. Then as you stated, the flow should propagate through the system, back to the fan/pump/equipment.

One thing I would add is that it would be helpful to have the circuits and systems be visible in both/all models. So if the mechanical equipment is in one model and then there is an electrical model that contains all the circuits, I think it would be nice to have the circuit information be available in the model with the mechanical equipment. I'm not sure how this would be handled (it's still an idea!), but I'm thinking the mechanical model would also have to link the electrical model for this to be able to happen. In theory, the mechanical model could be linked to several electrical models with varying circuits/panels, so there would have to be a means to communicate the correct information back.

In the case of extremely large projects with multiple models, it is important to have a method to keep track of all the system/circuit information.

[hobyrne.ca]

This is a great idea, and it has been an issue that has resulted in different workarounds.

I've heard some form of copy-monitoring can be done, but that doesn't always work very well. Another strategy, at least with plumbing fixtures, is there can be invisible box families with extrusions and connectors that can be placed throughout the model and over top of the fixtures in the architectural model.

The concern I would have about using the linked fixtures and connecting to them is the quality of the families the other parties are modelling. Since mechanical or electrical may still responsible for whatever linked item at the end of the day, parameters like fixture units, tagging, voltages, flow rates, etc. are all more important to the consultant than they are to the architect.

If there could be a way to use the linked family so there is only one 3D object between the models, but where the designer concerned with it could have control over the connectors and other important parameters in the model that concerns a particular discipline. So on a lab bench the mechanical consultant might have a parameter called Hot Water Fixture Units for a sink and the Electrical consultant might have one called Line Voltage.

[Anonymous]

@szilagyi.balazs I'd be interested to hear more about that workaround.  But I'd be hesitant to do it in a project working with multiple people ina  team because they wouldn't know how to maintain it or understand it. 

Revit should just add the feature.

[szilagyi.balazs]

You just have to pair "TO DEVICES *" and "TO EQUPMENT *" Families in you host and linked projects. 

["TO EQUPMENT *" family connectors should be "System" or "Calculated", "TO DEVICES *" family connector should be "Preset"]

I use shared parameters for all involved connector families. 

In the device's (hydronic radiators, fancoils) project you have to make the connector families to System Equipments:

In the other project, the connector families act like devices: 

Pairing can be done by a custom parameter value for example in Comments parameter (GetParameterValueByName node), or they can be identified by common insertion point (Element.Location node). 

After you have the pairs, it is easy to get Flow and other values from "TO EQUIPMENT *" family and set the parameters on the other. 

[Anonymous]

I think this is a super interesting topic since nowadays we are forced to use linked models, due to unbearable file's size. I'm work on a big project dealing with several building and one main skyscraper, so we had to split to model first into HVAC Electrical and so on, and than divide each one into block of 10 floors.
How would you approach this situation (in order to create a unique(the real one) system) in the coordination MEP model? Do we have any news or the @szilagyi.balazs 's solution is still the better one? 

[Anonymous]

---

@szilagyi.balazs wrote:

Place a "plug" family with proper connector calculations in the linked project, and another at opposite direction with a connector set to preset in yours. (You can use Copy/Monitor)
With an easy (getparam-setparam) Dynamo script keep them synced.

---

Could you add some more info or maybe a short screencast with the Dynamo nodes? How would you use a copy/monitor to access all the data?

Once you've made all the connections you should have in both models the same complete information of the system; with the only differences that without the respective linked model you only have the right information on loads and calculation, but not the geometrical part. And again in no way you could be able to select all the complete system, since part of it reside in a linked model, and that's a pity, isn't it? 

Thank you very much

[HFA.Heath.Brown]

We are working on a Proto for a client. The building has a couple of areas that remain the same no matter what proto option is choosen. There are quite a few tenant options as well. 

We are creating a KOP (kit of parts) for the site adapt teams to select the separate revit model options for their site and link into the main revit model.

This prevents the circuiting and panel schedules from showing up in the main model. If the circuits could be re-linked when linked in to the main file, that would be great. We are looking into a work around currently. The only option that is full proof is to create and entire proto for each possible option of the proto. The downfall is that we would have to maintain upto 15 protos if there was a small change.

We have tried copy/paste and that only lets a few circuits remain circuited to its panel, but most become undefined...

Please create a connection for electrical circuits to read linked files.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

I would also like to have the ability to connect to connectors (electrical, duct, and pipe) across linked models. I work in a firm where mechanical and electrical disciplines share models, but we are considering splitting these disciplines into their own models. The current proposed workflow involves using placeholder families to transfer connector data between models, but this introduces the potential for error. I would really like to be able to connect elements in a linked mechanical model to the circuits in our electrical model.

[Martin__Schmid]

@Anonymous - do you have a well established methodology by which you ensure that the mechanical model elements have the required electrical data in them (proper voltage, poles, load classification, load, etc..)?  Who populates that information into the mechanical model elements, do the electrical folks trust the mechanical folks to do this properly?

[bnydam]

In a similar vein, I would also like to be able to access the Electrical System of a linked project.  We are a small company, who is starting to invest more time into some more involved Revit modeling.  We do some design, but more often we are responsible for the coordination and construction.  I would like to be able to match conduits to electrical loads in a  linked file, without having to hijack a copy of the Engineers model.  If I could access the electrical system of a linked file, I could keep our file separate from theirs.

Also, we get all our electrical requirements for mechanical loads from the mechanical folks (although we generally double check the cut sheets)

[Mark.Friis]

@Martin__Schmid

A well designed Family with a Hyperlink to further product documention, schould be enough for the electrical folks

[Anonymous]

@Martin__Schmid  - We are a firm with both electrical and mechanical departments, so we coordinate directly and use the same shared parameters file. In some small projects, we work in the same model and directly connect mechanical equipment to our circuits. In larger projects, however, it is necessary to split the model by discipline to maintain speed and stability. In those cases, we lose the circuiting functionality that we have in smaller projects. We are exploring using Dynamo to populate parameters on a placeholder motor element, but we would prefer not to use a workaround.

[Mark.Friis]

The Architechts  in our Firm places all the sanitary/electrical objects like Bathtubes, Kitchens, Freezers and etc.. We MEP-Engineers always link the Architecht-Model into our MEP-Host-Model. Sadly we then need to add all the Sanitary Objetcs into the Host-Model to get the Sanitary Information which we need for the Pipe-Network-calculation.

[hobyrne.ca]

This is one of the primary issues and what we have done at our MEP firm with respect to plumbing fixtures in linked models in the past is used 'avatars' or basically cheater fixtures. These families contain no physical geometry other than reference planes, the connections required for interfacing with our systems, and all the other metadata about the fixtures that would matter for scheduling etc. These can be hosted or non-hosted.



It's a pain to do it this way but it has allowed us to keep integrity in the model without doubling up on modeled elements.

[szilagyi.balazs]

Hi, 

Thank you for your interest in our workaround. I have to say, the suggested method should be used as last option only. In general more links you have more pain you cause yourself. 

Try to separate te model to Worksets and open only the group affected by your actual changing will. 

@Anonymous in your case, when everyone is inhouse, Worksets should be loaded or unloaded to keep the amount of data in your RAM on a reasonable level.  

@Anonymous If you place multidisciplinear families to a workset (or a bunch of worksets, based on the levels or wings of the building) not permanently owner by anyone, can solve your problem in one project file. 

@bnydam  I think, you are looking for the Copy/Monitor tool. 

@hobyrne.ca & @Mark.Friis  Copy/Monitor's Coordination Settings can automate you the mapping of "Architectural" and "MEP" families. One with the geometry, the other is with the proper connector settings. https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Revit-Collaborate/files/GUID-F6C13AE9-07D2-47FD-A1B7-2A591DAF3E53-htm.html 

@Martin__Schmid is absolutely right: parameter modifications and updates yould be done with the argeement of all affected parties at all cases above. 

If you continue to insist on linking your models, you should pay attention to the followings at Duct Systems and  Piping Systems: 

1. Connector in the family collecting a branch: Flow Configuration must be "Calculated" 
2. Connector in the family at branch connections: Flow Configuration must be "Preset" 
3. If you do not want to manage internal IDs, just pick (or create) a paramater to pair the connector families in the separated project files. 
4. If you do not want to run the Dynamo script constantly, simly write the values to a text file and use it as an input for the other project.  

I hope I hear about your successes according to the topic. Good luck