Panel Warning "...Max # of 1-pole Breakers..."

[Anonymous]

Here is the warning:

We have changed nothing with our panel templates and/or the equipment circuited to the panels. We are now getting this warning on all our Switchboards. No idea what happened. What we need is a panel schedule to look like this:

This is after I changed the the fixed max to 22.

The max on the family obviously has to be set to at least 61 to accommodate the circuits needed.

To not get the warning (ABOVE). I have to set the fixed max in the template to 61. But, then I get empty space all the way to 61.

How do I get the panel schedule to only show circuits to 21? Not having all these empties. We have not had any issue with this until this week. I'm probably missing something simple. But, starting to get a headache because of this.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

This is why we use a modified branch panel template for our distribution/switchboard schedules.

The problem is that Revit's switchboard schedule doesn't merge lines in the schedule according to the number of pole spaces a breaker/ckt is using, so in the schedule it looks like you've got a bunch of space left, but in reality you've maxed out your panel.  So your options are to have a bunch of empty blank lines in the schedule, or modify a branch panel schedule so it behaves mostly properly.

Take the default single column 3 phase branch panel schedule template, duplicate it, name it "distribution panel schedule" or whatever, and modify it so it looks (mostly) how you want it too.  There will be compromises.  Ours looks like this.

To avoid that "max # breakers" line you can adjust that parameter in your panel properties or adjust the value in the schedule template to correspond to it.  With DB's it probably won't make a difference because you will rarely use 42 1P breaker spaces in a single panel.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info. I will give this a go. Makes sense. 

[Anonymous]

So your Switchboard families are actually panelboards?

[Anonymous]

I was a little quick to check this as a solution. I'm getting the same results using a panelboard schedule and a panelboard family. Same warnings. I must be missing something

[Scott_D_]

If you create 20 circuits and load a schedule that will only show 18 you will get this error, this is when you change the schedule to one that has less available total ways than that required.

To fix your formatting error and get rid of this error edit the board template to have a very large number of ways, set the text justification and size for each column then change it back to display the ways based on the number of ways the panel is set to have rather than a prefixed quantity.

[Anonymous]

Could you post a screencast or some pictures of what you are describing? I'm getting a little lost with the wording.  

[fabiosato]

Hello,

From Revit 2017 the setting in the panel schedule template will group the lines into one.

[Anonymous]

Look at your very first set of screen caps - in the panel schedule template settings, you have chosen "set to a fixed number of breakers (22)".  Choose "variable based on Max # 1 pole breakers" instead.  Or set that value to 22 in the properties of the panel itself.

That error is popping up because the number of breakers in your panel (presumably the default 42) is larger than the number of lines you schedule template will display.  You have to make those values match, or make the schedule template adjust itself automatically to each panel (I very strongly recommend the latter).

[Anonymous]

Exactly. My question is how to get the panel schedule to adjust itself automatically to each panel? To only show the slots that have information being pulled into the panel schedule.

If I have a switchboard with 12 panels circuited to it, each at 3 poles. That switchboard would need to have the, "Max #1 Pole Breakers" set to 60.

I set the number of slots shown in the panel schedule to, "Fixed to a constant value" of 20 to only show the necessary information in the panel schedule.

In my panel schedule only 20 lines need to be shown. Not 60. Because I am showing the "Total Load Only per Circuit." Which produces the warning we are discussing.

If I set the Number of Slots Shown in the panel schedule to "Variable based on maximum number of one-pole breakers." The results in the panel schedule now shows 40 empty spots after the last panel in the 20th spot. Which is exactly what I don't want. 

[Anonymous]

Refer to my original response - there is a glitch in the switchboard schedule that causes this behavior - you have to do both of the things I recommended to avoid this behavior.  First, adjust your schedule template to flex based on the max # of 1 pole breakers in each panel.  Then create a new SB schedule using the Branch Panel Schedule template and use it in place of the SB schedule.  

You do need to change the part type in the family from switchboard to panelboard.  As far as I can tell, the only difference in Revit is which schedule templates are available to them.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I got the same results as you did in your panel schedule above. The issue now, is that the circuits in the Switchboard are labeled 1, 2, 3, etc... Not 1,2,3 , 4,5,6, etc... One 3 pole panel circuited to the switchboard is labeled circuit 1, (not 1, 2, 3). So, the information can be shown in the panelboard schedule template. But, its not giving me the "actual" circuit labeled in the switchboard. The only way I can see getting around this. Is making a custom project parameter called CKT# or something and apply it to "Electrical Circuits". Then place that parameter in the panel schedule and number it correctly. But, then human error comes into play. Which we are trying to avoid. This is becoming a mess. I may just have to live with the template warning until something changes in the software. 

[Anonymous]

Step 1: Edit switchboard family.  Change part type from "switchboard" to "panelboard".

Step 2: Create new panel schedule template.  Use the type Branch Panel and the configuration "One column".

Step 3: Format schedule however you want it to look - the only caveat is that you will have separate lines per phase with single circuits as shown in my image above.

Step 4: Set schedule template to display number of lines "variable according to Max #1 Pole Breakers".

Step 5: Name schedule template "Switchboard Schedule" or whatever you want.

Step 6: Choose this schedule template when creating a new switchgear schedule.

This isn't a perfect solution, but it's the ONLY one I've found that gives us the information we need in the schedule and gets closest to the appearance we want.

[Anonymous]

That is exactly what I did. With the same results. 

Step #3: The result with separate lines per phase is unacceptable per my engineering and field team. I've discussed this whole issue with them. There response was, "Figure it out." So, I have that going for me.

The only way I see getting them the results they want. Is to have that warning. Thanks for the help. 

[Anonymous]

"The result with separate lines per phase is unacceptable per my engineering and field team. I've discussed this whole issue with them. There response was, "Figure it out." So, I have that going for me."

They have a choice to make - a feces load of extra lines at the bottom of the schedule or separate lines per phase.  Show them the image of my schedule - it's still a single line for the circuit name/breaker/etc., it's just the phases that are separated.

There's another danger with that extra lines method - if you trust that schedule too far, it'll start disconnecting circuits from the switchboard when you sync, because it looks like there's breaker space remaining even if there isn't.  That's actually how we initially discovered the problem - half of my branch panels kept disconnecting and we couldn't figure out why.

I mean, I get the set in their ways "we've always done it like this" mentality, I've had to fight it many times myself.  But if they want to use Revit they have to accept one or the other suboptimal outcome.  Personally I recommend the one least likely to cause errors in design, which is the method I laid out that we use.

[Scott_D_]

Based on the start of the thread and the discussions so far it looks like getting rid of the switchboard schedules and swapping your equipment to panelboards like @Anonymous suggests would be the way to go.

Switchboard schedules don't work properly because whoever decided how they work in the first place when they were first created didn't understand how they should work. I don't know why we even have a 'switchboard' type of schedule to choose from apart from having a couple of extra columns you could easily include in a panelboard schedule.

Its not even a panelboard schedule, its just a schedule. God only know why there are different types.

[Anonymous]

In theory what they tried to do with the switchboard panel schedule is correct. If you have a 3 or 2 pole panel circuited to to switchboard it technically should only show as taking up 1 circuit in the switchboard. Where the  schedule fails, is how it tries to organize the # of poles in the schedule. Each circuit in the switchboard should be able to take 1 thru 3 poles without adding "ghost" circuits in the schedule. Leaving 10+ empty slots. 

[Anonymous]

"Where the  schedule fails, is how it tries to organize the # of poles in the schedule."

Yeah, the entire problem is that the "merge multipole circuits to a single cell" option in the schedule template does not apply to switchboard schedules.  If they could fix that everything would be kosher.  I've asked.  So far no joy.

My approach is to leave that Max #1 Pole Breakers parameter at 42 for each DB/SB instance and circuit everything I need to them, then adjust that number down based on the catalog so I can identify the size and number of prepared spaces I want included.  So a SB with (6) 3 phase circuits will have 18 1 pole breakers + however many I need for prepared spaces.  Usually between 22 and 30 depending on the size of the connected circuits.

[martinTstewart_Adsk]

If you have recommendations or suggestions on improving this functionality in Revit, please consider posting a new Revit Idea  (or vote up an existing one).

Looks like some great suggestions could be made from this thread!

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Here's the idea for rampant upvoting.

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-ideas/fix-the-issue-regarding-multi-pole-loads-on-a-switchboard...