best practices for multiple phases of demolition with MEP objects

[dtiemeyer]

I knew that when you set the 'Phase Demolished' of an object it would disconnect every element along the chain of ducts/pipes. But I was surprised that if, say, you have 4 phases, and you set a duct to be demolished in Phase 4, that it will become disconnected in Phases 1-3 as well. That's kind of a huge flaw, because those ducts could still need to be manipulated in Phases 1-3.

How does everyone deal with this?

I'd like to avoid some convoluted 'Filters' solution, and use the Phasing technology native to Revit, but there are serious drawbacks. Just wondering how others have approached this issue.

Thanks!

Dustin

[kadmonkee]

this example of a workflow may be oversimplified but it has worked.

what we have done in the past is

1. set all the phases and phase filters.

2. apply all content to the correct phases.

3.create views for each phase and set the correct phase filter for each view, set your Project browser to sort by Phase

4.begin with splitting components for demo in the correct view and set the phase demolished in per view.

5. confirm phasing and phase filters are responding correctly, and then apply new construction to where it needs in the new phase.

6.keep the sequencing of demolition moving forward (knowing there may be instances of overlapping components) in time, so the progression of DEMO to New should be minimized in the previous (Phases) in your views.

this can certainly create issues and a large model to manage quickly so as long as all users understand the PHASE Mapping it can work.

[Anonymous]

@kadmonkeeThis seems to me like it is jsut using phasing like any other phasing element. The issue as I understand it is that the analytical systems don't have a way of staying connected through the phasing.

Have you found a way to deal with the connectivity of element throughout the phasing?

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/all-system-ed-elements-maintain-their-connection-after-be...

My main issue is that I am told by our engineers that phasing does not work for their analysis in Revit, so they have to use crazy workarounds to deal with it. Namely placing everything on separate worksets, which we then have to deal with.

[kadmonkee]

"The issue as I understand it is that the analytical systems don't have a way of staying connected through the phasing."

correct they can NOT be connected if they DO NOT exist once demolished they are gone.

"Have you found a way to deal with the connectivity of element throughout the phasing?"

no I have not found a way other than applying filters to my views and NOT use the demolition phase in my model.

simply put in a Revit Model when something is demolished it no longer exists in (TIME) that phase.

so the disconnect you are dealing with is closer to reality in the field.

"My main issue is that I am told by our engineers that phasing does not work for their analysis in Revit, so they have to use crazy workarounds to deal with it. Namely placing everything on separate worksets, which we then have to deal with."

correct, as stated in previous post, you can't analyze something that does not exist in that particular view.

if your views are created properly with the correct phase filters and are displaying the correct design intent you should be able to analyze your systems as they are considered new in that Phase.

if you use the split tool to identify where the demo starts and stops you will need to apply in the new view the new component that was replaced due to demo

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the detailed response 🙂

[RobDraw]

I thought that I had already responded with my thoughts on the real topic at hand. I have in other threads but this one got under my skin before I had the chance. No one is forcing you to use the "demolished in" parameter. It does what it's supposed to, break things. When I was learning the basics of the construction process in the old days before Revit, I always considered demolition it's own phase and it happens between existing and new. Revit's demolition tool didn't make sense to me. It is not a phase. It happens during other phases. and it didn't work in projects that had multiple demolition phases. At that point, I was only concerned about graphics and the functionality of the "physical" model. We weren't using Revit for calculations or scheduling of any sort.

Another reason I didn't respond to the OP was because I didn't want to say that my solution was in the stated topic. A question that answers itself. Kind of hard to beat that. So, I left it alone hoping someone would state the obvious. "multiple phases of demolition", think about it.

[kadmonkee]

as a follow up to my previous post.

the method works well as long as you archive your models in sequence of Phase.

1. Model 1 Phase 1 complete (Archive model as a detached model) Time stops for this model .

2. New Copy of Model 1 for Phase 2 New =phase 1 existing with Demo. (After complete Archive this Model) Time Stops for this model

3. New Copy of Model 1 Phase 3 = Phase 1 and Phase 2 existing + Demo.

this works well as long as the models are managed and Archived properly.

this can become more complicated if the sequence of Projects (Phases) are simultaneously being designed/ built

so a good Phase mapping plan is important.

[Anonymous]

Do you know if there are places that document this problem and potential solutions better?

The thing that angers me is that the phasing does not seem to work like it does on other elements and required view filter (beyond phasing) and worksets to hide elements that should've been deleted. I am not sure if this is getting convoluted with people who simply do not understand phasing.

From an architectural perspective, using a workset workflows to accommodate a lack of MEP software functionality is unacceptable.

To me it sounds like the systems don`t recognized phasing, which is causing the issue. Still, I am not 100% clear on what is preventing phasing from working properly to require the use of worksets to manually hide elements through the phases.

[kadmonkee]

i set up shared Parameters and apply it to all my families and Projects

New , Existing, Future, and Demo assign these Shared Parameters to all categories and use Filters to sort selected items by the assigned Parameter

New = all New components are the color Blue

Existing = all Existing components display as  grey or screened

Future = all Future components display as Dashed Tan

Demolition = all Components to be demolished display as (line Pattern Demo) Red

it is trial and error and preferences 

it works with some patience and follow through with training the staff in how to use the filters and families

this method does not use worksets or Phasing this method is an Island approach to solve multi phase multi demo and multi scheduling projects within one model.

[dtiemeyer]

Well, after my OP, I went to Europe for a month of vacation, and hadn't looked at this thread again until today. Anybody on here is welcome to join me for a beer in Vegas next week, first round is on me, and we can all get back to being friendly with each other again. 

It seems that most others are using a similar method for approaching this as we are. One minor issue of note, just wondering if anybody else has experienced it: it seems some of the ducts/pipes that are being 'not displayed' because of their workset can sometimes still be snapped/connected to, even though they are not in the currently displayed view. 

My suggestion would be that if the 'calculations' are the primary roadblock for enabling systems to remain physically connected, that Autodesk configure the 'None' setting for calculations to then allow 'system info' and 'sticky move' to survive being demolished and continue to function with the knowledge that calculations are disabled. My reasoning is that every project needs to be drawn, but calculations can be handled via traditional means. The 'drafting' must be accomplished regardless - and in many of our projects the 'scope of demolition' is very fluid even into perhaps 50% CD's, due to owner uncertainty, value engineering, and many other factors outside of our control. Losing the ability to 'roll-back' an object to simply 'Existing' after having been 'Demoed' is really a deal-breaker for us. 

[Anonymous]

Still no evolution on this problem?

[RobDraw]

This "problem" as you call it has been working as designed for many years. I would focus on alternatives instead of expecting it to change. If something were to change, it would probably be in a future version and not an update.

[s.borello]

Nothing is ever going to be perfect... it's a work in progress. Chill.

[Anonymous]

Just because a employee makes a post saying that it works how it is suppose to work, does not mean it is "Right". The Demolition phase is for SURE broken in a MEP/FP Stand point. It works great for Architects i get it. The AutoDesk Employee response was a horrible response. The Reason being instead of actually listening to the issue i am sure every MEP Engineering firm is having problem (Unless you only work on new buildings). he says that it is how AutoDesk wanted it to work, and if you want it to work how it should work then figure out a work around. 

To say that since it is being demolished it don't need any back end information is nuts.

- If i'm working on a job and have a bunch of pipe to be demolished it makes the piping undefined, now i cant even label the piping because it does not have a system. so all my labels change to "?". 

- When i go to print out my Demolition plan now since all my pipes are not connected the drops and pipes are trimming all the pipes at the connection points. The way to fix this is to turn off the hidden lines under MEP Settings, but if you turn that off then you mess up your plans because now the pipes wont show the break when one pipe is higher than another. So to fix one thing you have to break something else just as important.

- When you are working on a plumbing or fire protection job there can be may different system. and once you demo a piping you can even go back to see what system that pipe was. so now you have to go back and see what was that pipe before.

I can come up with a million different reasons why it is flawed. Never mind that in plumbing or fire pro we don't use dashed lines to show demo work!! 

[RobDraw]

Look, the tool works as designed. It doesn't work for what you want so why are you still trying to insist that it should change instead of finding a different way?

The demolition tool in Revit is not a phase. It marks certain objects for demolition during a phase. It is a global project type of parameter meaning that the demolished property exists in the model, not as a timeline within the project. That is the way it was designed, no matter who says it. Unfortunately, this means the objects cannot be used for calculations and need to be disconnected, end of story. There is no way this tool will work for what you and many others want. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think the solution is to modify the tool. MEP needs to either utilize other tools to that retain the intelligence for tagging and scheduling. I figured that out when I did one of my first projects which had multiple demolition and construction phases. Since my AutoCAD workflow already treated demolition as its own separate phase, I saw almost immediately after apply the sledgehammer to my ductwork that the demolition tool probably wasn't the right onel for the job and went looking for a way to create my own demolition phases.

[Anonymous]

@RobDraw What is the solution you propose? This is still unclear to me. What workflow do you propose to the engineer so that they can use phasing like every other Revit users?

If you can clarify this, this everyone will be grateful. Thanks.

[RobDraw]

The answer is in the topic of this thread. I already said that the demolition tool is not a phase. What part making demolition phases don't you get? You won't be happy with the results any way. It doesn't use the demolition tool which is what you are complaining about.

[dtiemeyer]

Rob, you've misunderstood the question. I NEVER proposed creating actual 'Phases' for demolition. My question was in regards to multi-phased projects where demolition occurs several times throughout the project. 

[Anonymous]

@RobDraw If you don't use phases, then what do you use? Filters?

Can you show me an article that describes this way of working or describe it?

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@RobDraw If you don't use phases, then what do you use?

---

Wait, what? Where did I say I didn't use phases? Did you read my post?

[RobDraw]

---

@dtiemeyer wrote:

Rob, you've misunderstood the question. I NEVER proposed creating actual 'Phases' for demolition. My question was in regards to multi-phased projects where demolition occurs several times throughout the project. 

---

It says "multiple phases of demolition" in the topic. The demolition tool does not create a demolition phase. It's the wrong tool for the job.