Chapter 3 Discussion Questions (Continued)
4.5 BIM TOOL GUIDE FOR OWNERS
building model (Sullivan 2007). In both cases, the critical success factor was attributed to bringing the resources onsite and mandating participation by all project participants.
Integration with custom cost/component databases. BIM - based esti- mating often requires establishing links between BIM components and estimating items and assemblies via a specifi c component attribute or through a visual interface. This may require signifi cant setup and stand- ardization.
Manual intervention. The ability to manually modify, adjust, or enter quantity take - off information is critical.
Model aggregation support. The ability to import multiple models and combine take - off and estimate information from different models. Tools like U.S. Cost allow owners to aggregate and re - use estimating items across projects. With BIM - based estimating, an owner may need to perform the quantity take - off from multiple models, multiple facilities, or multiple domain models, i.e., architectural, structural, etc.
Versioning and comparison. One of the most important potential fea- tures of a BIM quantity take - off and estimating tool is the ability to com- pare versions and track the differences between any two or more design scenarios or versions. For example, Exactal CostX ® provides a visual comparison between two versions of a design to show where changes have been made and their impact on quantity take - off information. This feature is potentially invaluable for owners seeking to understand the cost impact of design changes.
Reporting features. Most estimating tools provide reporting features to print hard copy reports of the take - off and estimate. Some estimating software tools provide a viewer, as shown in Figure 4 - 14 , to enable an owner to interactively view the cost information and review it in 2D, 3D, or spreadsheet format.
4.5.2 Model Validation, Program, and Code Compliance
An emerging group of BIM software tools is called model checkers . These tools are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 , as many of the features are related to services provided by the designer. From the owner or construction manager ’ s perspectives, these tools perform a variety of important functions:
Check against program requirements. This type of feature compares owner requirements with the current design (See Chapter 5 for further discussion of these tools). These may include spatial, energy, and distance and height requirements for specifi c spaces or between spaces as well as adja- cency requirements. Owners may have their own staff do these checks, or they may require that the design team or a 3 rd party do them.
•
•
•
•
•
c04.indd 121
c04.indd 121 12/19/07 1:57:22 PM12/19/07 1:57:22 PM
Validate building information model. Today, owners are able to quickly and thoroughly assess the quality of a building information model or, if an owner requires specifi c types of information input, determine whether that information exists and is in the specifi ed format. Tools such as Solibri Model Checker ™ (Solibri 2007) (Figure 4 - 15 ) provide both types of valida- tion. At a generic level of validation, the owner can test for duplicate com- ponents, components within components, or components missing critical attributes or that do not comply with standards established by the team.
The Solibri Model Checker also allows users to provide more sophisticated queries and tests; for example, whether the model contains specifi ed infor- mation types. These features are relevant to owners who are considering using the model during post - construction phases or require operation - specifi c information.
4.5.3 Project Communication and Model Review Tools
Project communication occurs formally and informally on a variety of levels.
Through contractual requirements, owners dictate the format, timing, and method of communication related to project deliverables. In this way, they often establish: the baseline project documentation format, modes of project information exchange, and expected project workfl ows. Within this formal communication is the daily exchange of information between project participants; and this is often impacted by the contractual relationship between those participants and the overall procurement method. Traditional
FIGURE 4-14 Screenshot of the Exactal CostX® Viewer that (a) allows owners to view the project in 2D or 3D along with its related cost items and (b) view detailed information for the cost estimate.
c04.indd 122
c04.indd 122 12/19/07 1:57:23 PM12/19/07 1:57:23 PM
single - stage delivery methods tend to limit exchange between disciplines, and each individual discipline develops their own internal methods of project communication.
Thus, BIM - based project communication as it relates to the exchange of building information model data is quite different compared to traditional paper - based or ‘ publish ’ modes of information exchange. Consequently, the team (including the owner) needs to establish the protocols and tools that support the ongoing exchange, modifi cation, and review of the building information model. In some cases, the owner may opt to control this commu- nication, as was done by Swire Properties in the One Island East Offi ce Tower case study. In other cases, such as the General Motors Production Plant case study, the design - build team jointly develops and maintains the communication and model management tools.
Within these different structures of communication are detailed technical issues and protocols for managing that communication. Our discussion of these issues is limited to the exchange of building model information and does not address the challenges of managing communication and storing a wide variety of project information, such as contracts, specifi cations, RFIs, change orders, etc.
There are four different types of communication exchange related to the building information model (these are different in nature and format than the content in the exchange discussed in Chapter 3 ):
FIGURE 4-15 Snapshots of Solibri Model Checker™
showing: A) the validation of escape routes for a design;
and B) the validation of model integrity.
Image provided courtesy of Solibri.
c04.indd 123
c04.indd 123 12/19/07 1:57:23 PM12/19/07 1:57:23 PM
a) Published snapshots are one - directional static views of the building information model that provide the receiving party with access only to the visual or fi ltered meta - data, such as bitmap images.
b) Published building information model views and meta - data provide the receiving party with viewing access to the model and related data with limited capabilities to edit or modify data. PDF or DWF are such examples that allow users to view 2D or 3D and to mark - up, comment, and change certain view parameters or perform query functions on the model.
c) Published fi les of the building information model include proprietary and standard fi le formats (.dwg, .rvt, .ifc), where access to the native data is possible.
d) Direct database (DB) access provides users access to the project data- base either on a dedicated project server or distributed project server.
The model data is controlled through access privileges and may allow only those users that create the content to edit it, or alternately the DB may provide more sophisticated edit and change capabilities.
The “ publish ” methods of BIM exchange are common in BIM practice today. The use of a project database accessible by project participants is less common, but the General Motors Production Plant case study describes such a scenario. Figure 4 - 16 shows a sample information workfl ow for a BIM - based project that includes all four of these information exchanges. Most projects will continue to use a variety of exchange methods to support various roles within a project team.
While service providers may select the tools and perform many of the func- tions related to communication and management of the building information model, they must do so in compliance with the needs and requirements of the owner and the project. As a rule of thumb, for every designer or engineer that uses a BIM tool, there will be another ten individuals seeking to view and review the building information model. Communication methods (c) and (d), which require proprietary tools and steep learning - curves to implement, may be imprac- tical. Likewise, limiting methods of exchange to methods (a) and (b) will hinder any ability to collaboratively create and modify the building information model.
In the following section, a review of the tools that support these communi- cation methods is organized into two categories: model viewing and review tools and model management tools.
4.5.4 Model Viewing and Review
Two types of digital model viewing technologies are increasing in use. The fi rst are specialized model viewing tools that run on the desktop and can import and
c04.indd 124
c04.indd 124 12/19/07 1:57:24 PM12/19/07 1:57:24 PM
integrate a variety of model formats. These tools allow users to navigate through the model and query it interactively as well as to see sections or to view parts of the model; these support exchange methods B, C, and D. The second type includes Web - based viewing tools that import a standard format, such as Adobe ® PDF or DWF ™ and supports methods A and B. These tools also offer interactive navigation but require the model creator to publish in these formats.
Owners will most likely encounter both types of tools on their projects and should consider what types of features the project team will use, including:
comments/markup, take - off (dimensional queries), viewing, presentation, round - trip markup, and who will have access to the model. Examples of model viewers are Adobe ® Acrobat ® Professional, Autodesk ® Design Review, and NavisWorks ™ Roamer. Examples of Web - based model viewers are NavisWorks ™ Freedom and Actify Spinfi re ™ Reader.
When evaluating these tools an owner should consider the features listed in Table 4 - 3 .
Designer
Interested Party
Owner
Contractor
Snapshot of
Model Model
components
Model file
C
Engineer
D
Model components
Project Database Building Information Model Repository
Fabricator
Model components Published
Model
A
B
Model file
FIGURE 4-16 Conceptual diagram of the different types of communication exchange that might occur on a typical BIM-based project.
This scenario shows a project using a central repository for the project, with the architect, owner, and contractor having access to that model. The architect publishes (A) snapshots and (B) models for interested parties and owners to review. The engineer exchanges model fi les (C) with the designer such as a .dwg, .rvt. or .dgn fi le. The contractor exchanges published views of the model, (D) such as PDF or DWF for their subcontractors.
c04.indd 125
c04.indd 125 12/19/07 1:57:24 PM12/19/07 1:57:24 PM
4.5.5 Model Servers
Model servers are designed to store and manage access to the model and its data either at a host site or on an internal server and network. Today, most organizations use fi le - based servers that utilize standard fi le transfer protocols to exchange data between the server and client. From the BIM perspective, fi le - based servers do not yet directly link to or work with building information models or building objects within those models, as they store data and provide access only at the fi le level.
Today, most collaboration management for BIM projects involves a model manager manually integrating the models and creating project model fi les. The case studies in Chapter 9 illustrate the challenges many companies face in setting up work processes to manage models. In most cases, the organizations Table 4-3 Model review features to consider.
File import features
What formats does the tool import?
(See Chapter 2 for a list of fi le formats.)
Integrate models Can the tool merge and integrate different types of fi le formats into one view and model?
Data import types What types of non-geometric data does the tool import, and how can the user view the meta-data or model properties?
Multi-user support Does the tool support multi-user access to a fi le or model or
“shared” viewing of a model over the network?
Mark-up and comment tools
Can users mark up and comment in the tools? Are these mark-ups time stamped and tracked for review?
Model view support Can the user view multiple views simultaneously? For example:
plan, section, and 3D views?
Document view Does the tool support viewing of related documents, such as text fi les or images or spreadsheets?
Dimension queries Can a user easily measure in 2D and 3D?
Property queries Can the user select a building object and view the object proper- ties or perform a query to fi nd all objects with a specifi c property or property value?
Clash-detection Does the model review tool support clash-detection? If so, can you track the status of the clashes or classify the clashes?
4D Does the model review tool include features to link the model objects to schedule activities or support other types of time-based simulations?
Re-organization of the model
Can the user re-organize the model into functional or user-defi ned groups and control viewing or other functions with these custom-defi ned groups?
c04.indd 126
c04.indd 126 12/19/07 1:57:25 PM12/19/07 1:57:25 PM
work with their internal IT groups to set up and maintain a server to host model fi les. In the General Motors Production Plant case study, the company used Bentley ’ s ProjectWise ® ; the One Island East Offi ce Tower used Digital Project ’ s ™ built - in features to support model management.
Off the shelf commercial model server solutions are not yet widely imple- mented and often require custom installation and trained IT staff to operate and maintain. Examples of model servers are:
Bentley ProjectWise ® ( www.bentley.com ) Enterprixe Model Server ( www.enterprixe.com )
EPM Technology EDMserver ( www.epmtech.jotne.com ) Eurostep modelserver for IFC ( www.eurostep.com ) SABLE developed by EuroSTEP (Hobaux 2005)
4.5.6 Facility and Asset Management Tools
Most existing facility management tools either rely on polygonal 2D informa- tion to represent spaces or numerical data entered in a spreadsheet. From most facility manager ’ s perspectives, managing spaces and their related equipment and facility assets does not require 3D information; but 3D, component-based models can add value to facility management functions.
Building models provide signifi cant benefi ts in the initial phase of entering facility information and interacting with that information. With BIM, owners can utilize “ space ” components that defi ne space boundaries in 3D, thus greatly reducing the time needed to create the facility ’ s database, since the traditional method involves manual space creation once the project is complete. The Coast Guard Facility Planning case study recorded a 98% reduction in time and effort to produce and update the facility management database by using a building information model.
Today, few tools exist that accept the input of BIM space components or other facility components representing fi xed assets. Some of the tools that are currently available are:
ActiveFacility ( www.activefacility.com )
ArchiFM ( www.graphisoft.co.uk/products/archifm )
Autodesk ® FM Desktop ™ ( www.autodesk.com ) (see Figure 4-17A) ONUMA Planning System ™ ( www.onuma.com/products/
OnumaPlanningSystem.php )
Vizelia suite of FACILITY management products ( www.vizelia.com ) (see Figure 4-17B)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c04.indd 127
c04.indd 127 12/19/07 1:57:25 PM12/19/07 1:57:25 PM
In addition to the general features that any FM system should support, owners should consider the following issues with respect to the use of such tools with building models:
Space object support. Does the tool import “ space ” objects from BIM authoring tools, either natively or via IFC? If so, what properties does the tool import?
Merging capabilities. Can data be updated or merged from multiple sources? For example, MEP systems from one system and spaces from another system?
Updating. If retrofi t or reconfi guration of the facility takes place, can the system easily update the facility model? Can it track changes?
Leveraging a building information model for facility management may require moving to purpose - built BIM facility tools, such as Autodesk ® FM Desktop ™ or to third - party BIM add - on tools.
The use of BIM to support facility management is in its infancy and the tools have only recently become available in the marketplace. Owners should work with their facility management organizations to identify whether current facility management tools can support BIM spaces or whether a transition plan to migrate to BIM - capable facility management tools is required.
4.5.7 Operation Simulation Tools
Operation simulation tools are another emerging category of software tools for owners that use data from a building information model. These include crowd
•
•
•
FIGURE 4-17A Autodesk®FM Desk- top™ showing a visual interface of the facility spaces and data views.
Image provided courtesy of Autodesk, Inc.
c04.indd 128
c04.indd 128 12/19/07 1:57:26 PM12/19/07 1:57:26 PM
behavior (Still 2000), manufacturing, hospital procedure simulation, and emergency evacuation or response simulations. Many of them are provided by fi rms that also offer the services to perform the simulations and add necessary information. In all cases, the tools require additional input of information to perform the simulations; and in some cases, they only extract the geometric properties from the building information model. Table 4 - 4 summarizes some of the commercially available simulation tools.
FIGURE 4-17B Screenshot Vizelia FACILITY Space showing the 3D, color (shaded) coded view of spaces by type.
Image provided courtesy of Vizelia, Inc.
Table 4-4 Summary of commercially available operation simulation tools.
Simulation Type Company and Software Name Input BIM?
Crowd behavior Legion Studio (www. legion.com) No eRENA ViCROWD
(www.erena.kth.se/crowds.html)
No
Crowd Dynamics (www.crowddynamics.com)
No
Evacuation IES Simulex
(www.iesve.com)
Yes (via gbXML Model Builder
environment or DXF fi le) buildingExodus
(http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus/)
No (DXF fi le)
Operation Common Point OpSim
(www.commonpointinc.com)
Yes (geometry)
buildingExodus (fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus/) No (DXF fi le) SIMSuite (www.medsimulation.com)
Flex-Sim: (www.hospital-simulation.com)
c04.indd 129
c04.indd 129 12/19/07 1:57:26 PM12/19/07 1:57:26 PM
More typical examples of operation simulation tools do not involve spe- cialized simulations but the use of real - time visualization or rendering tools that take the building information model as input. For example, the fourth author participated in the development of a 3D/4D model for Disney California Adventure. With specialized tools and services, the same model was used to simulate emergency scenarios and the ride rollercoaster (Schwegler et al. 2000).
Likewise, the Letterman Lucas Digital Arts center team used their model to evaluate evacuation and emergency response scenarios (Boryslawski 2006;
Sullivan 2007).