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

[dtiemeyer]

In post 36 you explicitly suggest that I proposed "making demolition phases" as in, creating a line item in the phases dialog that is separate from from the new work happening post-demo. That was NEVER suggested. Go back and read the OP, not just the title.

[Anonymous]

@RobDraw I don't think you understand what we are saying. You are basically saying that you understand that the Demolition hammer breaks the systems, which basically makes the objects unusable, and to you that is ok and makes sense? your solution is to figure out a work around, instead of using Revit as it was meant to be used. All these solutions people may come up with filters or work sets are not fixes but a work around to the real issue. 

Everything that we draw we cant even demolish a pipe or duct in a phase because it breaks the object. so in program it thinks that everything drawn is to remain, nothing is getting removed, and on top of that once we send our models to architects the phasing wont work for them because we had to come up with some BS work around just to have it work. Never mind the fact that we need to still come up with another work around to get the piping to print out correctly as in line types, and line thickness. 

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

@RobDraw I don't think you understand what we are saying. You are basically saying that you understand that the Demolition hammer breaks the systems, which basically makes the objects unusable, and to you that is ok and makes sense? your solution is to figure out a work around, instead of using Revit as it was meant to be used. All these solutions people may come up with filters or work sets are not fixes but a work around to the real issue. 

Everything that we draw we cant even demolish a pipe or duct in a phase because it breaks the object. so in program it thinks that everything drawn is to remain, nothing is getting removed, and on top of that once we send our models to architects the phasing wont work for them because we had to come up with some BS work around just to have it work. Never mind the fact that we need to still come up with another work around to get the piping to print out correctly as in line types, and line thickness. 

---

What would you do if you tried something and it didn't work the way you expected it to? Try something else or demand and wait for someone change something that works as designed. I took the initiative and applied my experience to the correct tool for the job. You can join the others who gave up and wait for Autodesk to change something that they stated works as designed.

[Anonymous]

@RobDraw No one here has said that they just gave up. I am more then capable of figuring out a work around. We are all here to make it known to Autodesk that what they say "works as designed". is not working for MEP firms it is that simple.  Also you didn't take the Initiative and applied your experience. The only thing you did was did what everyone else here had to do is figure out a work around to the broken function in Revit. I don't understand how you don't see what I am talking about. I looked at your post earlier with the screenshot, and it does not resolve the issue, because you will still have to go back and make Worksets for your demolish work in order to turn that work off in the next phase. Revit was not intended to work like that. you are suppose to draw your work, pick what is to be demolished, and select what phase of the project that is to be removed, so when you get to the next phase it wont show up. That is how Architects are using Revit, and it works fine for them. 

[RobDraw]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I looked at your post earlier with the screenshot, and it does not resolve the issue, because you will still have to go back and make Worksets for your demolish work in order to turn that work off in the next phase. 

---

Yeah, I avoid using worksets for visibility. It's the wrong tool for the job.

And I'm the one not using Revit the way it was intended...

[Anonymous]

If you didn't use worksets then you used filters. No matter what way you went you didn't use Revit the way it was intended lol. I prefer to use work sets, with the combination of View Templates, and I find that is the simplest way to keep things organized for the company I work for.

Now I know why the other person just stopped responding to you. Your brain dead, and uncapable of understanding another person's point of view. In your head your doing everything correctly, even though you are simply doing the same thing everyone else here had to do. you have no more experienced nor smarter than anyone here... You just think your smart. Instead of simply saying I find by doing this, that, and this. it is a good work around. then people would see if it fits their needs. So if you could remove yourself from this post, and let everyone else here discuss the issue that you don't seem to understand. Thank you

[s.borello]

Revit Phasing has some issues... I use filters to achieve desired appearance. Demo, Existing, New, Future.  

[Charles.Ball]

Just so I understand this. I'll give an example and tell me if this is the problem that needs a solution. 

you have two rooms A & B 

   There is a large duct in the hallway with a branch that feeds these two rooms. Off that branch is a run-out for a single diffuser in each room. 

   In phase 1 Room A will be demolished, its diffuser, the runout, and the section of the branch duct will need to be demolished. The diffuser, runout and branch serving Room B will remain in use. 

   In phase 2 Room B be will be demolished. Its diffuser, the runout, and the rest of the branch will be demolished. 

from what I understand of the OP is that when he does phase 1 the whole branch becomes disconnected from the system, is that correct? 

[RobDraw]

That is one of many possible scenarios. The issue is quite clear.

BTW, why did you dig up such awful thread without offering up a solution for the diluted?

[Charles.Ball]

I wanted to understand the issue before I offered a solution that didn't work.

I don't think this issue is quite as clear as you think. 

The scenario I posted has an easy solution. If it was a different scenario, say Room A is demo'ed first keeping the ducting for B intact and then the new ducting is attached to the existing (in B) all in Phase 1.

In phase 2 they are demo'ing Room B including the ductwork and then replacing that section in the same phase. That would require a different solution and isn't as straight forward.  

The OP's post made sense, the answers didn't. If I am demo'ing a duct in March why would it disconnect from the system in January?

[iainsavage]

@Charles.Ball I’m responding only to your post and not getting involved in any of the previous parts of this thread.

At the time when you are going to demolish A you would, in Revit and in the real world, insert a split in the duct just beyond the branch to B. Demolish the stuff beyond the split. Cap the open end at the split.

If B is being demolished first, demolish the branch to B but keep the tee or shoe, cap the open end.

Or, if you wanted to create more work on site, take down (demolish) the lot and then recreate the bit that you want to keep operational.
It is how the contractor would do it on site.

[curtisridenour]

Has anyone tried working with the new view filters by phase in Revit 2022 for this issue yet?

I think a more reliable graphical workaround is now possible. The analytical issue is still a "pipe dream."

My firm is currently experimenting with pipe types to maintain the system information and now using view filters to apply demolition overrides. I would love to compare notes.

[jonathanroy8676]

What was the factor to make a way where "there was no way"... 2023 = IMPLEMENTED... ~10years to adresse this major MEP issue. Better late than never! 😉

[RobDraw]

More like adding functionality than addressing an issue. 

[curtisridenour]

Did something change in R2023 to have systems maintain their system when they get demolished?

[iainsavage · Accepted solution]

Yes

https://help.autodesk.com/view/RVT/2023/ENU/?guid=GUID-E78DAD6E-7A02-40A0-9B1A-F1AB2558D425

[curtisridenour]

Well that is exactly what i was hoping for since 2014.

[iainsavage]

If it works as expected, haven’t tried it yet.