Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 35 – uploaded by Marzia Bolpagni

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 3.22. Clash detection between MEP and structural models (COBIM, 2012, Series 6, p: LI). Quality Assurance: the check of the project is one of the most powerful utilisation of BIM, because it allows discovering and solving problems in the design phase instead of during the construction (Figure 3.22). Thanks to model checking tools, it is also possi- ble to validate the building with a rule-based validation programme based on rules which have been specified in accordance with BIM requirements (COBIM, 2012, Series 6). This approach is useful for the client, who can control if their requirements have been respected but also for the Building Supervision staff to carry on code reviews such as fire safety (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008; Dimyadi and Amor, 2013) and accessibility (Bellomo, 2012).

Figure 3 22. Clash detection between MEP and structural models (COBIM, 2012, Series 6, p: LI). Quality Assurance: the check of the project is one of the most powerful utilisation of BIM, because it allows discovering and solving problems in the design phase instead of during the construction (Figure 3.22). Thanks to model checking tools, it is also possi- ble to validate the building with a rule-based validation programme based on rules which have been specified in accordance with BIM requirements (COBIM, 2012, Series 6). This approach is useful for the client, who can control if their requirements have been respected but also for the Building Supervision staff to carry on code reviews such as fire safety (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008; Dimyadi and Amor, 2013) and accessibility (Bellomo, 2012).

Related Figures (154)

Figure 2.2. DBB diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13). Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is a very popular project delivery system (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 4) and for this reason it is also called ‘Traditional’ method (Turner, 1990, p. 48; Lahdenpera, 2001). In DBB the designs are provided directly to the client and the contractor is involved only in the construction phase (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 27) (Figure 2.2). Therefore, different parties are responsible for design and construction, and drawings have already progressed far when the contrac- tor is selected. Bidders calculate quantities to estimate costs and usually the winning contractor is the one who presents the lowest responsible bid (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 5). Moreover, periodic maintenance is commissioned sepa- rately or performed by the client (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Figure 2.2. DBB diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13). Design-Bid-Build (DBB) is a very popular project delivery system (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 4) and for this reason it is also called ‘Traditional’ method (Turner, 1990, p. 48; Lahdenpera, 2001). In DBB the designs are provided directly to the client and the contractor is involved only in the construction phase (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 27) (Figure 2.2). Therefore, different parties are responsible for design and construction, and drawings have already progressed far when the contrac- tor is selected. Bidders calculate quantities to estimate costs and usually the winning contractor is the one who presents the lowest responsible bid (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 5). Moreover, periodic maintenance is commissioned sepa- rately or performed by the client (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Design-Build (DB) is a project delivery system where a contractor is responsible for the client for both design and construction under a single Design-Build contract on stand- ards provided by the client (Koppinen and Lahdenperd, 2004, p. 32) (Figure 2.4). A single entity may perform all of the design and construction or it may subcontract to yther companies and periodic maintenance is commissioned separately or performed oy the client (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 32; Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Design-Build (DB) is a project delivery system where a contractor is responsible for the client for both design and construction under a single Design-Build contract on stand- ards provided by the client (Koppinen and Lahdenperd, 2004, p. 32) (Figure 2.4). A single entity may perform all of the design and construction or it may subcontract to yther companies and periodic maintenance is commissioned separately or performed oy the client (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 32; Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Figure 2.8. DBO diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13). tives would be weakened in any case (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12). This method moti. vates the service provider to estimate the full cost to complete the construction as soor as possible and to ensure a good quality level of the facility (Koppinen anc Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36). Moreover the client gives bidders an output specification ot the service required and later the bidders provide a solution how to satisfy the client’s requirements (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36). For this reason, in DBO the service provider has more risk, but at the same time they can manage the risk and ado value for their own benefit (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36).
Figure 2.8. DBO diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13). tives would be weakened in any case (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12). This method moti. vates the service provider to estimate the full cost to complete the construction as soor as possible and to ensure a good quality level of the facility (Koppinen anc Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36). Moreover the client gives bidders an output specification ot the service required and later the bidders provide a solution how to satisfy the client’s requirements (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36). For this reason, in DBO the service provider has more risk, but at the same time they can manage the risk and ado value for their own benefit (Koppinen and Lahdenpera, 2004, p. 36).
Figure 2.9. DBFO diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13) Design-Build-F inance-Operate (DBFO) is a project delivery system very similar to the DBO because the responsibility is assigned through a single contract to design, build and maintain the asset for the contract period. However, the service provider arranges the financing and the client repays the investment as part of the service fee starting after commissioning (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12) (Figure 2.9). Also in this case the de- sign is always in the same package with construction because no one accepts life- cycle liability for someone else's project (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Figure 2.9. DBFO diagram (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 13) Design-Build-F inance-Operate (DBFO) is a project delivery system very similar to the DBO because the responsibility is assigned through a single contract to design, build and maintain the asset for the contract period. However, the service provider arranges the financing and the client repays the investment as part of the service fee starting after commissioning (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12) (Figure 2.9). Also in this case the de- sign is always in the same package with construction because no one accepts life- cycle liability for someone else's project (Lahdenpera, 2008, p. 12).
Figure 2.12. Interests of the contracting parties (Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera, 2012b). for Proposal’. The client analyses the tender narratives which have been submitted and reduces the number of tenderers through an assessment process including interviews. After that, only two competing teams reach the next stage involving workshop tasks, which are evaluated. In addition, the client estimates the combined team fee (including overhead plus profit) and these elements form the basis for selection of the best ten- der. The selected team enters in a ‘development agreement’ with the client for the de- sign of the project and they agree the project's target cost. After that, the actual ‘im- plementation contract’ can be signed (Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera, 2012a, pp. 12-13). Furthermore, Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera (2012a, p. 15) say that PA is not for every project but it is more suitable for projects, which involve a lot of challenge, uncertainty and interfaces, because these challenges make the integration of competencies profitable.
Figure 2.12. Interests of the contracting parties (Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera, 2012b). for Proposal’. The client analyses the tender narratives which have been submitted and reduces the number of tenderers through an assessment process including interviews. After that, only two competing teams reach the next stage involving workshop tasks, which are evaluated. In addition, the client estimates the combined team fee (including overhead plus profit) and these elements form the basis for selection of the best ten- der. The selected team enters in a ‘development agreement’ with the client for the de- sign of the project and they agree the project's target cost. After that, the actual ‘im- plementation contract’ can be signed (Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera, 2012a, pp. 12-13). Furthermore, Petajaniemi and Lahdenpera (2012a, p. 15) say that PA is not for every project but it is more suitable for projects, which involve a lot of challenge, uncertainty and interfaces, because these challenges make the integration of competencies profitable.
Figure 2.13. Early BIM Partnering delivery method (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 208). The process is featured by five stages: Planning phase, Modelling phase, Partnerinc award phase, Early BIM partnering phase and Construction phase (Figure 2.13).
Figure 2.13. Early BIM Partnering delivery method (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 208). The process is featured by five stages: Planning phase, Modelling phase, Partnerinc award phase, Early BIM partnering phase and Construction phase (Figure 2.13).
A lot of work should be done also to increase the transparency and cross-border procurement for below threshold contracts (Racca, 2012, pp. 25-26). e-Procurement could promote it, not just through greater publicity of contracts, but also thanks to a certain degree of language independence and standardising certain practices, which nowadays limit cross-border participation (Racca, 2012, p. 51). Another interesting is- Sue is the e-Procurement solution for the automatic evaluation of bids. Indeed, elec- tronic means seem to be one of the most challenging solutions, especially in the case of the criteria of the most economically advantageous tender (Racca, 2012, p. 35). The contracting authority can specify the characteristics of the subject of the tender and give relative weighting and set mathematical formula in order to sum the scores and more objectively define the ranking (Racca, 2012, pp. 34-46). However, this approach is not valid for all the criteria, but only for the measurable ones, which can receive an automatic score (Racca, 2012, pp. 34-46). For this reason the aspects that imply an appreciation of non-quantifiable elements cannot be part of electronic auctions (e- Auction) (Racca, 2012, p. 41). This is more evident in procurement of works, than of goods and services, because it is more complex and involves several issues which are difficult to be translated in objective and measurable criteria. Figure 2.14 shows the main phases of e-Procurement activity.
A lot of work should be done also to increase the transparency and cross-border procurement for below threshold contracts (Racca, 2012, pp. 25-26). e-Procurement could promote it, not just through greater publicity of contracts, but also thanks to a certain degree of language independence and standardising certain practices, which nowadays limit cross-border participation (Racca, 2012, p. 51). Another interesting is- Sue is the e-Procurement solution for the automatic evaluation of bids. Indeed, elec- tronic means seem to be one of the most challenging solutions, especially in the case of the criteria of the most economically advantageous tender (Racca, 2012, p. 35). The contracting authority can specify the characteristics of the subject of the tender and give relative weighting and set mathematical formula in order to sum the scores and more objectively define the ranking (Racca, 2012, pp. 34-46). However, this approach is not valid for all the criteria, but only for the measurable ones, which can receive an automatic score (Racca, 2012, pp. 34-46). For this reason the aspects that imply an appreciation of non-quantifiable elements cannot be part of electronic auctions (e- Auction) (Racca, 2012, p. 41). This is more evident in procurement of works, than of goods and services, because it is more complex and involves several issues which are difficult to be translated in objective and measurable criteria. Figure 2.14 shows the main phases of e-Procurement activity.
Figure 3.1. Alternative Meaning of BIM (Saxon, 2013, pp. 6-7).
Figure 3.1. Alternative Meaning of BIM (Saxon, 2013, pp. 6-7).
Figure 3.2. Some common connotations of multiple BIM terms (Succar, 2009, p. 359). Indeed, BIM describes the process of improvement and adoption of a computer gener- ated model to simulate all the phases of a facility such as the planning, design, con- struction and operation (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008). The Building Information Mode! is ‘a data-rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of the facility, from which views and data appropriate to various user’s needs can be extract- ed and analyses to generate information that can be used to make decisions and im- prove the process of delivering the facility’ (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008) (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2. Some common connotations of multiple BIM terms (Succar, 2009, p. 359). Indeed, BIM describes the process of improvement and adoption of a computer gener- ated model to simulate all the phases of a facility such as the planning, design, con- struction and operation (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008). The Building Information Mode! is ‘a data-rich, object-oriented, intelligent and parametric digital representation of the facility, from which views and data appropriate to various user’s needs can be extract- ed and analyses to generate information that can be used to make decisions and im- prove the process of delivering the facility’ (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008) (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.4.The BIM integrated process. Available at http://buildipedia.com/aec- pros/design-news/the-daily-life-of-building-information-modeling- bim? print=1&tmpl=component (last visit 15 J une 2013). The aim of BIM is to integrate and coordinate the people involved to simplify the work- flow (Figure 3.4).
Figure 3.4.The BIM integrated process. Available at http://buildipedia.com/aec- pros/design-news/the-daily-life-of-building-information-modeling- bim? print=1&tmpl=component (last visit 15 J une 2013). The aim of BIM is to integrate and coordinate the people involved to simplify the work- flow (Figure 3.4).
Nowadays a lot of people are involved in the overall process (Figure 3.3) and it is not always simple to manage and coordinate them (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, Pe 3). Figure 3.3. AEC project team and typical organisation boundaries (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 3).
Nowadays a lot of people are involved in the overall process (Figure 3.3) and it is not always simple to manage and coordinate them (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, Pe 3). Figure 3.3. AEC project team and typical organisation boundaries (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 3).
Succar (2009, p. 359) defines three fields of activity related to BIM: Technology, Pro- cess and Policy. The Technology field contains all the people who work in the devel- opment of software, hardware, equipment and networking systems useful for the AECO industry. The Process field includes the players involved in the design, construction, manufacture, use, management and operation procedures, such as owners, designers, contractors and facility managers. Finally, the Policies field comprehends specialised Organisations who manage the preparatory phase, the regulatory and contractual is- sues such as insurance companies, research centres, educational institutions and reg- ulatory bodies. Figure 3.5 describes the three fields which are related to each other. For example the generation of open standards (more information is available in para- graph 3.4.3) needs the interaction between the Policy and the Technological players (Succar, 2009, p. 360). Additionally players of the Process field can develop guidelines related to the Policy field, instead of working only in design or contraction processes (Succar, 2009, pp. 360-361). Figure 3.5. Three interlocking fields of BIM activity (Succar, 2009, p. 361).
Succar (2009, p. 359) defines three fields of activity related to BIM: Technology, Pro- cess and Policy. The Technology field contains all the people who work in the devel- opment of software, hardware, equipment and networking systems useful for the AECO industry. The Process field includes the players involved in the design, construction, manufacture, use, management and operation procedures, such as owners, designers, contractors and facility managers. Finally, the Policies field comprehends specialised Organisations who manage the preparatory phase, the regulatory and contractual is- sues such as insurance companies, research centres, educational institutions and reg- ulatory bodies. Figure 3.5 describes the three fields which are related to each other. For example the generation of open standards (more information is available in para- graph 3.4.3) needs the interaction between the Policy and the Technological players (Succar, 2009, p. 360). Additionally players of the Process field can develop guidelines related to the Policy field, instead of working only in design or contraction processes (Succar, 2009, pp. 360-361). Figure 3.5. Three interlocking fields of BIM activity (Succar, 2009, p. 361).
The Pre-BIM Status is based on 2D documentation and, even if there is a 3D model, it is not utilised to extract information. Moreover, the process is usually characterised by low technology systems, lack of interoperability and low productivity (Succar, 2009, p. 364). BIM Stage 1 is identified by object-based modelling using BIM software such as Revit, ArchiCAD and Tekla. Each discipline creates its own model and information are extracted from it, but the relationships between stakeholders are similar to the Pre-BIM Status since there is not an effective collaboration and data exchanges are only unidi- rectional (Succar, 2009, p. 364) (Figure 3.8). The stakeholders have to approach the fully adoption of BIM gradually and consecu- tively (Succar, 2009, p. 362). Succar (2009, pp. 364-365) shows three different steps needed to fulfil this aim: modelling, collaboration and integration. These steps are pre- ceded by a Pre-BIM situation and followed by the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), presented in paragraph 2.4.1 (Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7).
The Pre-BIM Status is based on 2D documentation and, even if there is a 3D model, it is not utilised to extract information. Moreover, the process is usually characterised by low technology systems, lack of interoperability and low productivity (Succar, 2009, p. 364). BIM Stage 1 is identified by object-based modelling using BIM software such as Revit, ArchiCAD and Tekla. Each discipline creates its own model and information are extracted from it, but the relationships between stakeholders are similar to the Pre-BIM Status since there is not an effective collaboration and data exchanges are only unidi- rectional (Succar, 2009, p. 364) (Figure 3.8). The stakeholders have to approach the fully adoption of BIM gradually and consecu- tively (Succar, 2009, p. 362). Succar (2009, pp. 364-365) shows three different steps needed to fulfil this aim: modelling, collaboration and integration. These steps are pre- ceded by a Pre-BIM situation and followed by the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), presented in paragraph 2.4.1 (Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.8. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 1 (Succar, 2009, p. 366).
Figure 3.8. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 1 (Succar, 2009, p. 366).
Figure 3.9. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 2 (Succar, 2009, p. 366). In BIM Stage 2 there is a Model-Based Collaboration between the players of different disciplines through the exchange of data in native and non-proprietary formats. The collaboration can be within one (e.g. interchanges of architectural and structural mod- els in the design phase) or two phases (e.g. structural model and steel model between the design and the construction phases). Data are taken from one collaborating model which contains all the data and it is possible to link this information to scheduling or cost estimating database in order to generate 4D or 5D simulations. In this phase some contractual amendments start to be necessary because the demarcation of rules, disci- plines and lifecycle phases is going to disappear, although the communications between the stakeholders are still asynchronous (Succar, 2009, pp. 364-365) (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.9. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 2 (Succar, 2009, p. 366). In BIM Stage 2 there is a Model-Based Collaboration between the players of different disciplines through the exchange of data in native and non-proprietary formats. The collaboration can be within one (e.g. interchanges of architectural and structural mod- els in the design phase) or two phases (e.g. structural model and steel model between the design and the construction phases). Data are taken from one collaborating model which contains all the data and it is possible to link this information to scheduling or cost estimating database in order to generate 4D or 5D simulations. In this phase some contractual amendments start to be necessary because the demarcation of rules, disci- plines and lifecycle phases is going to disappear, although the communications between the stakeholders are still asynchronous (Succar, 2009, pp. 364-365) (Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.10. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 3 (Succar, 2009, p. 367).
Figure 3.10. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 3 (Succar, 2009, p. 367).
Figure 3.14. Example of MDS (Bedrick, 2013b, p. 2). The MDS is a matrix made by the breakdown of the building systems in the rows and the milestones in the columns. Each building part has a LOD and a Model Element Author (MEA) (such as A for Architect or E for Engineer) at each milestone (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.14. Example of MDS (Bedrick, 2013b, p. 2). The MDS is a matrix made by the breakdown of the building systems in the rows and the milestones in the columns. Each building part has a LOD and a Model Element Author (MEA) (such as A for Architect or E for Engineer) at each milestone (Figure 3.14).
Figure 3.13. Example of steel structure at increasing LODs (Bedrick, 2013b, p. 2).
Figure 3.13. Example of steel structure at increasing LODs (Bedrick, 2013b, p. 2).
Figure 3.15. Example of Levels of Development. Available at http://practicalbim.blogsp ot.com.au/2013/03/what-is-this -thing-called-lod.html? goback=gmr_68075.gde_68075__ member_218542623 (last visit 1 J uly 2013). NS A a ee IR a a a OR i 0 a Finally, an important clarification about the abbreviation LOD is necessary. It means both Level of Development (Figure 3.15) and Level of Detail (Figure 3.16) but they are not synonymous (Bedrick, 2013a; BIMForum, 2013, p. 8). Indeed, the Level of Detail expresses how many details are contained in the model element, while the Level of Development defines the degree to which the geometry and the attached data of the element has been thought through, and it deals with the degree to which the project team members may rely on the information when using the model. For this reason the ‘Level of Detail can be thought of as input to the element, while Level of Development is reliable output’ (Bedrick, 2013a; BIMForum, 2013, p. 8).
Figure 3.15. Example of Levels of Development. Available at http://practicalbim.blogsp ot.com.au/2013/03/what-is-this -thing-called-lod.html? goback=gmr_68075.gde_68075__ member_218542623 (last visit 1 J uly 2013). NS A a ee IR a a a OR i 0 a Finally, an important clarification about the abbreviation LOD is necessary. It means both Level of Development (Figure 3.15) and Level of Detail (Figure 3.16) but they are not synonymous (Bedrick, 2013a; BIMForum, 2013, p. 8). Indeed, the Level of Detail expresses how many details are contained in the model element, while the Level of Development defines the degree to which the geometry and the attached data of the element has been thought through, and it deals with the degree to which the project team members may rely on the information when using the model. For this reason the ‘Level of Detail can be thought of as input to the element, while Level of Development is reliable output’ (Bedrick, 2013a; BIMForum, 2013, p. 8).
(based on AEC [UK] BlMprotocol v2.0 - Component Grade) Figure 3.16. Example of Levels of Detail. Available at http://practicalbim.blogspot.com au/2013/03/what-is-this-thing-called-lod.html? goback=.gmr_68075.gde_68075_memb er_ 218542623 (last visit 1 J uly 2013).
(based on AEC [UK] BlMprotocol v2.0 - Component Grade) Figure 3.16. Example of Levels of Detail. Available at http://practicalbim.blogspot.com au/2013/03/what-is-this-thing-called-lod.html? goback=.gmr_68075.gde_68075_memb er_ 218542623 (last visit 1 J uly 2013).
Figure 3.17. Architectural, Structural and MEP models (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008). GOVVIRGUVITS IVIHUVWVO. Design of the Building: BIM is adopted to design the Architectural, Structural and MEP parts of the facility (Figure 3.17) in addition to the surrounding area (COBIM, 2012, Series 2-5). Coordination: different software can be adopted to create objects of different disciplines and at the end they can be merged to find possible conflicts (Figure 3.18), however, a better solution is to work on linked models from the beginning, for example adopting cloud computing technology, moving up the identification of inconsistencies.
Figure 3.17. Architectural, Structural and MEP models (Azhar, Hein and Sketo, 2008). GOVVIRGUVITS IVIHUVWVO. Design of the Building: BIM is adopted to design the Architectural, Structural and MEP parts of the facility (Figure 3.17) in addition to the surrounding area (COBIM, 2012, Series 2-5). Coordination: different software can be adopted to create objects of different disciplines and at the end they can be merged to find possible conflicts (Figure 3.18), however, a better solution is to work on linked models from the beginning, for example adopting cloud computing technology, moving up the identification of inconsistencies.
Figure 3.18. Merging of BIM models (COBIM, 2012, Series 6, p. 7).
Figure 3.18. Merging of BIM models (COBIM, 2012, Series 6, p. 7).
Support for decisions: BIM can be adopted to study different alternatives (Figure 3.21) by comparing several parameters such as functionality, scopes and costs. For example it can be useful as a support for investment decisions (COBIM, 2012, Series 1, p. 5).
Support for decisions: BIM can be adopted to study different alternatives (Figure 3.21) by comparing several parameters such as functionality, scopes and costs. For example it can be useful as a support for investment decisions (COBIM, 2012, Series 1, p. 5).
/isualisation and Communication: the 3D model is very useful for a better understand- ng of the design solutions both for designers of the same discipline but also for differ- nt stakeholders who are not familiar with other experts’ work (Barker, 2011) Figure 3.20a). It is possible to walk through the model, create animations and see 3D mages or rendering (Figure 3.20b) taken from the model (COBIM, 2012, Series 8). Moreover, BIM can help the estate agents to sell homes through a strong visualisation ind the buyers are able to easily customise the design of the house (Saxon, 2013, p. 49). Figure 3.20. (a) Structural details (COBIM, 2012, Series 8, p. 13) and (b) Photo-realistic illustration (COBIM, 2012, Series 8, p. 6).
/isualisation and Communication: the 3D model is very useful for a better understand- ng of the design solutions both for designers of the same discipline but also for differ- nt stakeholders who are not familiar with other experts’ work (Barker, 2011) Figure 3.20a). It is possible to walk through the model, create animations and see 3D mages or rendering (Figure 3.20b) taken from the model (COBIM, 2012, Series 8). Moreover, BIM can help the estate agents to sell homes through a strong visualisation ind the buyers are able to easily customise the design of the house (Saxon, 2013, p. 49). Figure 3.20. (a) Structural details (COBIM, 2012, Series 8, p. 13) and (b) Photo-realistic illustration (COBIM, 2012, Series 8, p. 6).
Figure 3.24. 4D simulation. Available at http://www.mrasbuiltcom/MAB_BIM_Navis.htm (last visit 9 J une 2013).
Figure 3.24. 4D simulation. Available at http://www.mrasbuiltcom/MAB_BIM_Navis.htm (last visit 9 J une 2013).
Figure 3.30. Visualisation of system zones (COBIM, 2012, Series 12, p. 10).
Figure 3.30. Visualisation of system zones (COBIM, 2012, Series 12, p. 10).
Figure 3.31. Interoperability between different platforms. Available at htto://www.harpa ceas.it/sito/simple.nsf/PagO K/P illoledi-BIM (last visit 3 J une 2013). In Italian. and loss of data increase when exchanges within different software are taking place. Therefore, the improvement of open standard remains one of the main issues related to BIM (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 135), because it requires interdisciplinary col- laboration strategies to overcome the actual defects of the process (J ardim-Goncalves and Grilo, 2010b), thereby it cannot express all its potentialities if there are still multiple proprietary formats not compatible to each other (Venugopal, Eastman, Sacks and Teizer, 2012, pp. 411-412). Moreover, Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston (2011, p. 103) underline the importance of the modification or extension of the model information for different users. One example is the possibility for a structural designer to obtain the useful information needed for structural analysis directly from an architectural model. Currently there are several models for several purposes, because the translation of the information to fit different goals is not possible. Thereby each discipline elaborates its own model with regular synchronisation of the changes with the other models, using a common ‘reference model’ (Varkonyi, 2010). However, the automatic updating of data when changes are made to one model is not always allowed and manual corrections, which facilitate the number of errors, are made.
Figure 3.31. Interoperability between different platforms. Available at htto://www.harpa ceas.it/sito/simple.nsf/PagO K/P illoledi-BIM (last visit 3 J une 2013). In Italian. and loss of data increase when exchanges within different software are taking place. Therefore, the improvement of open standard remains one of the main issues related to BIM (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 135), because it requires interdisciplinary col- laboration strategies to overcome the actual defects of the process (J ardim-Goncalves and Grilo, 2010b), thereby it cannot express all its potentialities if there are still multiple proprietary formats not compatible to each other (Venugopal, Eastman, Sacks and Teizer, 2012, pp. 411-412). Moreover, Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston (2011, p. 103) underline the importance of the modification or extension of the model information for different users. One example is the possibility for a structural designer to obtain the useful information needed for structural analysis directly from an architectural model. Currently there are several models for several purposes, because the translation of the information to fit different goals is not possible. Thereby each discipline elaborates its own model with regular synchronisation of the changes with the other models, using a common ‘reference model’ (Varkonyi, 2010). However, the automatic updating of data when changes are made to one model is not always allowed and manual corrections, which facilitate the number of errors, are made.
Figure 3.32.Schema and schema language (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 106).
Figure 3.32.Schema and schema language (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 106).
Figure 3.34. IFC data file formats and icons. Available at http://www. buildingsmart- tech.org/specifications/ifc-overview/ifc-overview-summary (last visit 4 J] une 2013). In 1994 a consortium of twelve US-based companies joined together for developing interoperability of BIM data between software applications (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 142). At the beginning, the consortium was defined as Industry Alliance for Interoperability, then it changed its name in International Alliance for Interoperability (IAl) and finally, in 2005 it was renamed buildingSMART (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 113). It is an intemational alliance of construction industry repre- sentatives and it develops the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) protocol which is one of the most popular interoperability standards for the construction sector (Varkonyi, 2010). Indeed, IFC is an open and neutral data format and it is written using the EXPRESS schema language. In addition to the .ifc data file, there is also ifcXML, which utilises XML document structure and it is usually 300-400% larger than an .ifc one. Finally, an IFC data file, using a compression algorithm, is available (.ifcZIP) and it is 60-80% smaller than .ifc and 90-95% than .ifcXML (http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org last visit 5 J une 2013) (Figure 3.34).
Figure 3.34. IFC data file formats and icons. Available at http://www. buildingsmart- tech.org/specifications/ifc-overview/ifc-overview-summary (last visit 4 J] une 2013). In 1994 a consortium of twelve US-based companies joined together for developing interoperability of BIM data between software applications (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 142). At the beginning, the consortium was defined as Industry Alliance for Interoperability, then it changed its name in International Alliance for Interoperability (IAl) and finally, in 2005 it was renamed buildingSMART (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 113). It is an intemational alliance of construction industry repre- sentatives and it develops the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) protocol which is one of the most popular interoperability standards for the construction sector (Varkonyi, 2010). Indeed, IFC is an open and neutral data format and it is written using the EXPRESS schema language. In addition to the .ifc data file, there is also ifcXML, which utilises XML document structure and it is usually 300-400% larger than an .ifc one. Finally, an IFC data file, using a compression algorithm, is available (.ifcZIP) and it is 60-80% smaller than .ifc and 90-95% than .ifcXML (http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org last visit 5 J une 2013) (Figure 3.34).
Figure 3.35. History of IFC development (BuildingS MART, 2013a). The first generations of IFCs, IFC 1.0, were published in 1997 (Laakso and Kiviniemi 2012, p. 147), nowadays all the major software vendors include 2x3 interface: (Varkonyi, 2010; Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 206) and recently a new version, IFC4 has released (BuildingS MART, 2013a). Laakso and Kiviniemi (2012) describe in a de tailed way the main stages of the history of the IFC standardisation proces: (Figure 3.35), which are not presented in this context.
Figure 3.35. History of IFC development (BuildingS MART, 2013a). The first generations of IFCs, IFC 1.0, were published in 1997 (Laakso and Kiviniemi 2012, p. 147), nowadays all the major software vendors include 2x3 interface: (Varkonyi, 2010; Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 206) and recently a new version, IFC4 has released (BuildingS MART, 2013a). Laakso and Kiviniemi (2012) describe in a de tailed way the main stages of the history of the IFC standardisation proces: (Figure 3.35), which are not presented in this context.
Figure 3.36. Illustration of model views as a subset of the exchange schema (Venu- gopal, Eastman, Sacks and Teizer, 2012, p. 413).
Figure 3.36. Illustration of model views as a subset of the exchange schema (Venu- gopal, Eastman, Sacks and Teizer, 2012, p. 413).
Figure 3.37. Layers of the information exchange framework (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 150). Peicnolz, sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 120). Another official element of IFC standardisation is the Information Delivery Manuals IDMs) useful to capture and specify processes and data flows during the lifecycle of a 31M project. Nowadays they are accepted as an ISO standard and they can be utilised 0 document processes and to define the associated information which has to be ex- -hanged between parties. IDMs require software to be operational because their goal s to ensure that the information is communicated in such a way they can be translated y the software at the receiving side (http://iug.buildingsmart.org/idms last visit 5 J une 2013). Figure 3.37 describes the relation between MDV and IDM. IFC is the base from which MVDs are established. Software applications are needed to support the ex- -hange and for this reason IDMs give support to enable the workflow taking into ac- -ount software solutions (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 150).
Figure 3.37. Layers of the information exchange framework (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 150). Peicnolz, sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 120). Another official element of IFC standardisation is the Information Delivery Manuals IDMs) useful to capture and specify processes and data flows during the lifecycle of a 31M project. Nowadays they are accepted as an ISO standard and they can be utilised 0 document processes and to define the associated information which has to be ex- -hanged between parties. IDMs require software to be operational because their goal s to ensure that the information is communicated in such a way they can be translated y the software at the receiving side (http://iug.buildingsmart.org/idms last visit 5 J une 2013). Figure 3.37 describes the relation between MDV and IDM. IFC is the base from which MVDs are established. Software applications are needed to support the ex- -hange and for this reason IDMs give support to enable the workflow taking into ac- -ount software solutions (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 150).
Another supporting tool for the standardisation is the International Framework for Dic- tionaries (IFD), recently renamed buildingS MART Data Dictionary (oSDD), which is still under development and testing. It is an ISO standard for terminology libraries or ontol- ogies to connect data from existing databases to IFC (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, pp. 150-151). Usually IFC tags IFD with Global Unique IDs (GUID), which can be refer- enced to a locally or remote library and produce text strings in any language (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 151). Figure 3.38 shows the three standards of buildingS MART Organisation to supporta BIM process. Figure 3.38. buildingS MART standards. Available at http://www. buildings mart-tech.org/ specifications (last visit 5 J une 2013).
Another supporting tool for the standardisation is the International Framework for Dic- tionaries (IFD), recently renamed buildingS MART Data Dictionary (oSDD), which is still under development and testing. It is an ISO standard for terminology libraries or ontol- ogies to connect data from existing databases to IFC (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, pp. 150-151). Usually IFC tags IFD with Global Unique IDs (GUID), which can be refer- enced to a locally or remote library and produce text strings in any language (Laakso and Kiviniemi, 2012, p. 151). Figure 3.38 shows the three standards of buildingS MART Organisation to supporta BIM process. Figure 3.38. buildingS MART standards. Available at http://www. buildings mart-tech.org/ specifications (last visit 5 J une 2013).
General Service Administration (GSA), through its Public Buildings Service Office ¢ Chief Architect, established a National 3D-4D-BIM Program in 2003 (Khemlani, 2012a The National 3D-4D-BIM Program promotes value-added digital visualisation, simulé tion and optimisation technologies to develop quality and efficiency during the lifecycle of projects. Indeed, 3D, 4D and BIM computer technologies give the possibility to mee customer, design, construction and program requirements in a more effective way Since 2007 GSA has required spatial program BIMs for all major projects as a min mum requirement for the submission for final concept approvals. Moreover, all GS, projects are encouraged to utilise 3D, 4D and BIM technologies. GSA published Serie of Guidelines (available at htto://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105075?utm_source=| BS &utm_medium=print-radio&utm_term=bim&utm_campaign=shortcuts. Last visit 1 J une 2013) related to 3D-4D-BIM Overview (Figure 3.40), Spatial Program Validatior 3D Laser Scanning, 4D Phasing, Energy Performance and Operations, Circulation an Security Validation, Building Elements and Facility Management. Figure 3.40.GSA BIM Guide, Series 1 Overview. Available at http://www.gsa.gov/ graphics/pbs/GSA_BIM Guide v0 60 SeriesO1 Overview_05 14 07.pdf (last visit 23 J une 2013).
General Service Administration (GSA), through its Public Buildings Service Office ¢ Chief Architect, established a National 3D-4D-BIM Program in 2003 (Khemlani, 2012a The National 3D-4D-BIM Program promotes value-added digital visualisation, simulé tion and optimisation technologies to develop quality and efficiency during the lifecycle of projects. Indeed, 3D, 4D and BIM computer technologies give the possibility to mee customer, design, construction and program requirements in a more effective way Since 2007 GSA has required spatial program BIMs for all major projects as a min mum requirement for the submission for final concept approvals. Moreover, all GS, projects are encouraged to utilise 3D, 4D and BIM technologies. GSA published Serie of Guidelines (available at htto://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105075?utm_source=| BS &utm_medium=print-radio&utm_term=bim&utm_campaign=shortcuts. Last visit 1 J une 2013) related to 3D-4D-BIM Overview (Figure 3.40), Spatial Program Validatior 3D Laser Scanning, 4D Phasing, Energy Performance and Operations, Circulation an Security Validation, Building Elements and Facility Management. Figure 3.40.GSA BIM Guide, Series 1 Overview. Available at http://www.gsa.gov/ graphics/pbs/GSA_BIM Guide v0 60 SeriesO1 Overview_05 14 07.pdf (last visit 23 J une 2013).
Figure 3.41. (a) Building Information Modeling (BIM) Roadmap (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011) and (b) National Building Information Modelling Standards (National Institute of Building Science, 2007). In 2009 the Associated General Contractors of America published the second edition of ‘the Contractor's Guide to BIM’ (first edition in 2006), which analyses the implication of BIM for contractors, based on experience provided by contractors that have already adopted BIM (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 301). Also the US Coast Guard has embraced the utilisation of BIM (Succar, 2009, p. 360) and in 2007 the Na- tional Institute of Building Science has published the ‘National Building Information Modelling Standards. Version 1’ to help all participants in reaching more reliable out- comes from commercial agreements (Figure 3.41b). Later Version 2 was published in 2008 and it is a consensus-based standard which includes reference standards, infor- mation exchange standards and best practice guidelines to support users in their im- plementation of open BIM standards-based deliverables. Finally the ballot submission period for Version 3 ended in August 2013 (http://www.nibs.org/news/127862/NBIMS- US-V3-Ballot-S ubmission-P eriod-Now-Open.htm. Last visit 23 August 2013).
Figure 3.41. (a) Building Information Modeling (BIM) Roadmap (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011) and (b) National Building Information Modelling Standards (National Institute of Building Science, 2007). In 2009 the Associated General Contractors of America published the second edition of ‘the Contractor's Guide to BIM’ (first edition in 2006), which analyses the implication of BIM for contractors, based on experience provided by contractors that have already adopted BIM (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 301). Also the US Coast Guard has embraced the utilisation of BIM (Succar, 2009, p. 360) and in 2007 the Na- tional Institute of Building Science has published the ‘National Building Information Modelling Standards. Version 1’ to help all participants in reaching more reliable out- comes from commercial agreements (Figure 3.41b). Later Version 2 was published in 2008 and it is a consensus-based standard which includes reference standards, infor- mation exchange standards and best practice guidelines to support users in their im- plementation of open BIM standards-based deliverables. Finally the ballot submission period for Version 3 ended in August 2013 (http://www.nibs.org/news/127862/NBIMS- US-V3-Ballot-S ubmission-P eriod-Now-Open.htm. Last visit 23 August 2013).
Figure 3.42. COBIM, Series 1 General Part (COBIM, 2012). dealing with ‘General BIM Requirements’ (Figure 3.42), ‘Modeling of the Starting Situa tion’, ‘Architectural Design’, ‘MEP Design’, ‘Structural Design’, ‘Quality Assurance’ ‘Quantity Take-off’, ‘Use of Models for Visualization’, ‘Use of Models in MEP Analyses’ ‘Energy Analysis’, ‘Management of a BIM Project’, ‘Use of Models in Facility Manage: ment’, ‘Use of Models in Construction’. In addition, another Series related to the ‘Use o Models in Building Supervision’ will be published.
Figure 3.42. COBIM, Series 1 General Part (COBIM, 2012). dealing with ‘General BIM Requirements’ (Figure 3.42), ‘Modeling of the Starting Situa tion’, ‘Architectural Design’, ‘MEP Design’, ‘Structural Design’, ‘Quality Assurance’ ‘Quantity Take-off’, ‘Use of Models for Visualization’, ‘Use of Models in MEP Analyses’ ‘Energy Analysis’, ‘Management of a BIM Project’, ‘Use of Models in Facility Manage: ment’, ‘Use of Models in Construction’. In addition, another Series related to the ‘Use o Models in Building Supervision’ will be published.
Financial problems have pushed the UK Govemment to explore new ways of control- ling costs. Indeed, in May 2011 the Cabinet Office published its Government Construc- tion Strategy (Figure 3.43a) and for the first time the ‘Government will require fully col- laborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data be- ing electronic) as a minimum by 2016’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 14). UK Government wants to strengthen the public sector's client capability in BIM implementation so that all central government departments’ projects will be adopting at least Level 2 BIM (see paragraph 3.2) by 2016 (Cabinet Office, 2012, p. 6). Moreover, the Cabinet Office will develop standards enabling all members to work collaboratively because in its opinion the ‘lack of compatible systems, standards and protocols, and the differing require- ments of the clients and lead designers, have inhibited widespread adoption of a tech- nology which has the capacity to ensure that all team members are working from the same data’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 13). Indeed, the AEC (UK) BIM Standard Commit- tee released several BIM standards (Figure 3.43b) for BIM software such as Revit, Bentley and ArchiCAD (available at http://aecuk.wordpress.com/. Last visit 1 J uly 2013), to help the AEC UK firms in the transition from CAD to BIM (Khemlani, 2012a). Figure 3.43. (a) Government Construction Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2011) and (b) AEC (UK) BIM Protocol. Available at http://aecuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/aecukbimprotocol-v2- 0.pdf (last visit17 J une 2013).
Financial problems have pushed the UK Govemment to explore new ways of control- ling costs. Indeed, in May 2011 the Cabinet Office published its Government Construc- tion Strategy (Figure 3.43a) and for the first time the ‘Government will require fully col- laborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data be- ing electronic) as a minimum by 2016’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 14). UK Government wants to strengthen the public sector's client capability in BIM implementation so that all central government departments’ projects will be adopting at least Level 2 BIM (see paragraph 3.2) by 2016 (Cabinet Office, 2012, p. 6). Moreover, the Cabinet Office will develop standards enabling all members to work collaboratively because in its opinion the ‘lack of compatible systems, standards and protocols, and the differing require- ments of the clients and lead designers, have inhibited widespread adoption of a tech- nology which has the capacity to ensure that all team members are working from the same data’ (Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 13). Indeed, the AEC (UK) BIM Standard Commit- tee released several BIM standards (Figure 3.43b) for BIM software such as Revit, Bentley and ArchiCAD (available at http://aecuk.wordpress.com/. Last visit 1 J uly 2013), to help the AEC UK firms in the transition from CAD to BIM (Khemlani, 2012a). Figure 3.43. (a) Government Construction Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2011) and (b) AEC (UK) BIM Protocol. Available at http://aecuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/aecukbimprotocol-v2- 0.pdf (last visit17 J une 2013).
Figure 3.44. S tatsbygg Building Information Modelling Manual Version 1.2 (Statsbygg, 2011). Norway
Figure 3.44. S tatsbygg Building Information Modelling Manual Version 1.2 (Statsbygg, 2011). Norway
Figure 3.45. 3D Working Method 2006 (BIPS, 2007).
Figure 3.45. 3D Working Method 2006 (BIPS, 2007).
Figure 3.46. Rgd BIM Standard (Rijksgebouwendienst, 2012).
Figure 3.46. Rgd BIM Standard (Rijksgebouwendienst, 2012).
Figure 3.48. (a) BIM Standards Manual for Development and Construction Division o Hong Kong Housing Authority. Available at: http:/Awww.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/bus ness-partnerships/ resources/building-information-modelling/index.html (last visit 17 J une 2013) and (b) BIM Library Components Design Guide for Development and Con. Struction Division of Hong Kong Housing Authority. Available at http://www housingauthority.gov.hk/en/business-partnerships/resources/%20building-information- modelling/index.html (last visit 17 J une 2013).
Figure 3.48. (a) BIM Standards Manual for Development and Construction Division o Hong Kong Housing Authority. Available at: http:/Awww.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/bus ness-partnerships/ resources/building-information-modelling/index.html (last visit 17 J une 2013) and (b) BIM Library Components Design Guide for Development and Con. Struction Division of Hong Kong Housing Authority. Available at http://www housingauthority.gov.hk/en/business-partnerships/resources/%20building-information- modelling/index.html (last visit 17 J une 2013).
New Zealand Figure 3.50. (a) Building Industry Performance Measures - Part One (Page and Curtis, 2012) and (b) New Zealand National BIM Survey 2012 (Masterspec, 2012).
New Zealand Figure 3.50. (a) Building Industry Performance Measures - Part One (Page and Curtis, 2012) and (b) New Zealand National BIM Survey 2012 (Masterspec, 2012).
Sweden Figure 3.52.BIM - Standardiseringsbehov. Available at htto://www.openbim.se/~/ media/%20F iles_OpenBIM/P rojekt/130620 BIM_rapport.ashx (last visit 17 J uly 2013).
Sweden Figure 3.52.BIM - Standardiseringsbehov. Available at htto://www.openbim.se/~/ media/%20F iles_OpenBIM/P rojekt/130620 BIM_rapport.ashx (last visit 17 J uly 2013).
Figure 3.53. BIM policy stage by adopting rating in EMEA (Kiviniemi, 2013). Moreover, even if the Government's strategy remains the most effective way to imple- ment the BIM diffusion, also advance public clients of institutions can introduce BIM in their requirements. One example is the USA public university Georgia Institute of Technology, which in J une 2013 published the ‘Architecture and Engineering Design Standards For Building Technology’ supporting BIM standards (Board of Regents Uni- versity System of Georgia, 2013, pp. 12-28). Indeed, all construction projects (new and renovation) from$5 million and all new construction form $2.5 million must develop a Building Information Model conformed to AIA (2008) document E202 (Board of Re- gents University System of Georgia, 2013, p. 12). Moreover, also the New York City School Construction Authority has published a ‘Building Information Modeling Guide- lines and Standards for Architects and Engineers’ (SCA, 2013), which shall be utilised by all the parties involved to ‘provide a Project's design in BIM, describes the process- es, procedures, and requirements that shall be followed for the preparation and sub- mission of BIM Models (...), as well as to produce, release, and receive data in a con- mandatory BIM requirements, which become a strong pull for research and develop- ment (Wong, Wong and Nadeem, 2009; RIBA, 2012, p. 24). An example of this is UK, which is reaching a leading position, after the Government's decision to adopt a BIM Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2011). Usually the implementation of a BIM strategy within Public Sector is part of a renovation of the overall system to improve effectiveness (RIBA, 2012). Figure 3.53 graphically illustrates the BIM policy stage of different coun- tries of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA). The bubble size describes the gross domestic product and the image shows the ascent of UK in the last two years.
Figure 3.53. BIM policy stage by adopting rating in EMEA (Kiviniemi, 2013). Moreover, even if the Government's strategy remains the most effective way to imple- ment the BIM diffusion, also advance public clients of institutions can introduce BIM in their requirements. One example is the USA public university Georgia Institute of Technology, which in J une 2013 published the ‘Architecture and Engineering Design Standards For Building Technology’ supporting BIM standards (Board of Regents Uni- versity System of Georgia, 2013, pp. 12-28). Indeed, all construction projects (new and renovation) from$5 million and all new construction form $2.5 million must develop a Building Information Model conformed to AIA (2008) document E202 (Board of Re- gents University System of Georgia, 2013, p. 12). Moreover, also the New York City School Construction Authority has published a ‘Building Information Modeling Guide- lines and Standards for Architects and Engineers’ (SCA, 2013), which shall be utilised by all the parties involved to ‘provide a Project's design in BIM, describes the process- es, procedures, and requirements that shall be followed for the preparation and sub- mission of BIM Models (...), as well as to produce, release, and receive data in a con- mandatory BIM requirements, which become a strong pull for research and develop- ment (Wong, Wong and Nadeem, 2009; RIBA, 2012, p. 24). An example of this is UK, which is reaching a leading position, after the Government's decision to adopt a BIM Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2011). Usually the implementation of a BIM strategy within Public Sector is part of a renovation of the overall system to improve effectiveness (RIBA, 2012). Figure 3.53 graphically illustrates the BIM policy stage of different coun- tries of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA). The bubble size describes the gross domestic product and the image shows the ascent of UK in the last two years.
5earches for the registered exporter services and gives back an appropriate exporter t he importer, who opens a communication to the selected exporter. Finally, the exporte sends back the tender document to the importer and/or sends it to selected supplier: Thus, the SOA4BIM Framework gives the possibility to move beyond current traditioné 2-Procurement systems and public e-Procurement platforms which are portal-centri client/server models. The integration of SOA with MDA will allow transformations an services which will automatically create Platform-S pecific Models (PSM), such as We services, to each of the agents involved in the process (client, architect, specialist de signer). Therefore, each time a service is required by any agent, there will be an autc mated transformation of the PIM to the specific PSM, through mapping. On the othe yand, whenever a construction agent asks the PIM-BIM model to be enriched with ne\ nformation generated by their applications (e.g. specifications or bill of quantities), ne\ services would be made available, transforming the new PSM requirements into th enriched PIM-BIM model. However, there must be a process to check the conformanc n order to validate whether the enriched data conforms to the initial PIM-BIM model, o ‘equires an adaptation to the initial model. SOA4BIM Framework develops these mode ransformations in a Cloud Computing approach. This approach allows constructio agents who have services implying the exchange of data, information or tender docv nents with other agents, they will trigger Web services (or other SOA-based mechanisrr over the cloud, and model transformations and compliance testing will be performe within the cloud, regardless of the physical location of the applications, databases, opel ating systems, or hardware. In this way each actor will have the required informatior Nithout having to know which conversion processes occurred and the enrichment of th ?IM-BIM model will dynamically take place without major human intervention. Figure 3.54. Generic SOA4BIM Framework (Grilo and J ardim-Goncalves, 2011, p. 112).
5earches for the registered exporter services and gives back an appropriate exporter t he importer, who opens a communication to the selected exporter. Finally, the exporte sends back the tender document to the importer and/or sends it to selected supplier: Thus, the SOA4BIM Framework gives the possibility to move beyond current traditioné 2-Procurement systems and public e-Procurement platforms which are portal-centri client/server models. The integration of SOA with MDA will allow transformations an services which will automatically create Platform-S pecific Models (PSM), such as We services, to each of the agents involved in the process (client, architect, specialist de signer). Therefore, each time a service is required by any agent, there will be an autc mated transformation of the PIM to the specific PSM, through mapping. On the othe yand, whenever a construction agent asks the PIM-BIM model to be enriched with ne\ nformation generated by their applications (e.g. specifications or bill of quantities), ne\ services would be made available, transforming the new PSM requirements into th enriched PIM-BIM model. However, there must be a process to check the conformanc n order to validate whether the enriched data conforms to the initial PIM-BIM model, o ‘equires an adaptation to the initial model. SOA4BIM Framework develops these mode ransformations in a Cloud Computing approach. This approach allows constructio agents who have services implying the exchange of data, information or tender docv nents with other agents, they will trigger Web services (or other SOA-based mechanisrr over the cloud, and model transformations and compliance testing will be performe within the cloud, regardless of the physical location of the applications, databases, opel ating systems, or hardware. In this way each actor will have the required informatior Nithout having to know which conversion processes occurred and the enrichment of th ?IM-BIM model will dynamically take place without major human intervention. Figure 3.54. Generic SOA4BIM Framework (Grilo and J ardim-Goncalves, 2011, p. 112).
Figure 3.55. Cloud Platform of the BIM-IF/STEP for Clash Detection processes (J ardim-G oncalves and Grilo, 2010, p. 396).
Figure 3.55. Cloud Platform of the BIM-IF/STEP for Clash Detection processes (J ardim-G oncalves and Grilo, 2010, p. 396).
Figure 3.56. Advantages of BIM technology in answer to the increasing pressure on the Building Process (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 20). BIM changes the overall process of design and build and improves the technology itself (Yan and Damian, 2008). Indeed, because BIM is a revolutionary approach and itis in its early phase of development and adoption (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, pp. 2, 19), it brings both possible improvements and challenges. Some of these ad- vantages are the result of increasing pressures on the Building Process, which push the traditional practise to change (Figure 3.56) (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 20). Below there is a list of the main benefits and challenges related to the BIM adoption.
Figure 3.56. Advantages of BIM technology in answer to the increasing pressure on the Building Process (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 20). BIM changes the overall process of design and build and improves the technology itself (Yan and Damian, 2008). Indeed, because BIM is a revolutionary approach and itis in its early phase of development and adoption (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, pp. 2, 19), it brings both possible improvements and challenges. Some of these ad- vantages are the result of increasing pressures on the Building Process, which push the traditional practise to change (Figure 3.56) (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 20). Below there is a list of the main benefits and challenges related to the BIM adoption.
Figure 3.57. Comparison between traditional DBB paper-based process and collabora- tive BIM-based delivery process (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 153).
Figure 3.57. Comparison between traditional DBB paper-based process and collabora- tive BIM-based delivery process (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston, 2011, p. 153).
Figure 4.1. Diagram of the main aspects of the client’s obligations in DBB. In addition, the BIM Addendum considers a fourth option that the client can adopt to specify a different level of reliance between the model and the 2D drawings. Finally, another interesting topic is the most suitable file format to be included in the tender documents. The implementation of standards and protocols with a common lan- guage is essential in the adoption of BIM in public works. In fact, adopting file formats not bound to specific software packages is very important because the information can remain ‘open and non-proprietary’ (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 206). Nowadays IFC is Supported among the major BIM software vendors also thanks to different public sec- tor property owners’ desire to support BIM with IFC standards (for more information see paragraph 3.4). However, there are still problems in generating IFC files, which, for example, do not always correspond to the native ones. For this reason, at the moment it would be better to provide the tenderers with the native file as well. Moreover, if the purpose of BIM is only a better visual understanding of the complexity of the project and it will not be used for quantity take off (QTO), an alternative to the IFC format would be a non-editable file. Indeed, the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) in its Standards for Design-Bid Build Projects (2001, p. 19) affirms that ‘as part of documents delivered to potential bidders, Design Team shall provide non- editable version of the coordinated BIM for reference and visualisation of the building’ and only ‘after Contract is awarded, the coordinated Design BIM and all native BIM files will be provided to the General Contractor’. However, in this case BIM cannot express all its potentialities and these formats usually are not supported by the majority of visu- alisation tools (e.g. Solibri Model Viewer). Figure 4.1 shows the main points dealing with the client’s tasks: they should include BIM in the tender documentation, together with model specifications and possible 2D drawings in compliance with the Model.
Figure 4.1. Diagram of the main aspects of the client’s obligations in DBB. In addition, the BIM Addendum considers a fourth option that the client can adopt to specify a different level of reliance between the model and the 2D drawings. Finally, another interesting topic is the most suitable file format to be included in the tender documents. The implementation of standards and protocols with a common lan- guage is essential in the adoption of BIM in public works. In fact, adopting file formats not bound to specific software packages is very important because the information can remain ‘open and non-proprietary’ (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 206). Nowadays IFC is Supported among the major BIM software vendors also thanks to different public sec- tor property owners’ desire to support BIM with IFC standards (for more information see paragraph 3.4). However, there are still problems in generating IFC files, which, for example, do not always correspond to the native ones. For this reason, at the moment it would be better to provide the tenderers with the native file as well. Moreover, if the purpose of BIM is only a better visual understanding of the complexity of the project and it will not be used for quantity take off (QTO), an alternative to the IFC format would be a non-editable file. Indeed, the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) in its Standards for Design-Bid Build Projects (2001, p. 19) affirms that ‘as part of documents delivered to potential bidders, Design Team shall provide non- editable version of the coordinated BIM for reference and visualisation of the building’ and only ‘after Contract is awarded, the coordinated Design BIM and all native BIM files will be provided to the General Contractor’. However, in this case BIM cannot express all its potentialities and these formats usually are not supported by the majority of visu- alisation tools (e.g. Solibri Model Viewer). Figure 4.1 shows the main points dealing with the client’s tasks: they should include BIM in the tender documentation, together with model specifications and possible 2D drawings in compliance with the Model.
Figure 4.2. Ruleset Manager tool in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.2. Ruleset Manager tool in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.3. Model layout in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.3. Model layout in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Affinity
Affinity
Figure 4.9. Example of dProfiler desktop window. Available at http://oeck-technology com/assets/dp06_mixed-use.png (last visit 25 J une 2013).
Figure 4.9. Example of dProfiler desktop window. Available at http://oeck-technology com/assets/dp06_mixed-use.png (last visit 25 J une 2013).
Autodesk NavisWorks
Autodesk NavisWorks
Figure 4.11. Example of Tekla BIMsight desktop window. Tekla BIMsight
Figure 4.11. Example of Tekla BIMsight desktop window. Tekla BIMsight
Bentley Projectwise Navigator Figure 4.12. Example of detect and resolve clashes tool in Bentley Projectwise Naviga- tor. Available at http://www.bentley.com/NR/rdonlyres/A12E E 3B3-4347-4E 19-A6B4- 7F 049A0D08D8/0/nav03.jpg (last visit 11 May 2013).
Bentley Projectwise Navigator Figure 4.12. Example of detect and resolve clashes tool in Bentley Projectwise Naviga- tor. Available at http://www.bentley.com/NR/rdonlyres/A12E E 3B3-4347-4E 19-A6B4- 7F 049A0D08D8/0/nav03.jpg (last visit 11 May 2013).
Riuska Figure 4.13.Example of Riuska desktop window. Available at http://appsl.eere. energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/screenshots.cfm/ID =239/pagename_submen u=/pagename_menu=/pagename=alpha_list_sub (last visit 11 May 2013).
Riuska Figure 4.13.Example of Riuska desktop window. Available at http://appsl.eere. energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/screenshots.cfm/ID =239/pagename_submen u=/pagename_menu=/pagename=alpha_list_sub (last visit 11 May 2013).
Vico Cost Planner Figure 4.16. Example of Vico Cost Planner desktop window. Available at htto://www.vico software.com/products/vico-office-cost-planner/tabid/85288/Default.aspx (last visit 11 May 2013).
Vico Cost Planner Figure 4.16. Example of Vico Cost Planner desktop window. Available at htto://www.vico software.com/products/vico-office-cost-planner/tabid/85288/Default.aspx (last visit 11 May 2013).
Mitchell Brandtman Figure 4.17.Example of CostX desktop window. Available at http://www.mitbrand com/assets/documents/P DF /5D_Cost_Planning_MitchellBrandtman_19-04-2013.pdf (last visit 24 August 2013).
Mitchell Brandtman Figure 4.17.Example of CostX desktop window. Available at http://www.mitbrand com/assets/documents/P DF /5D_Cost_Planning_MitchellBrandtman_19-04-2013.pdf (last visit 24 August 2013).
A. Quality of the model
A. Quality of the model
Figure 4.18. (a) Intersection of walls in Solibri Model Checker v8 and (b) Intersectior between a door and a slab in Solibri Model Checker v8. First of all the client is interested to assess if the overall quality of the model is ade- quate and if there are geometrical errors due to inability to adopt BIM software to gen- erate the models. Nowadays many programmes are available for the clash detection because the research of geometrical conflicts was the first to be developed and profes- sionals in the AEC industry usually utilise it to assess model quality (Hjelseth, 2012). In SMC for example, itis possible to find intersections (or overlapping) between the same components (e.g. walls against walls) or different ones (e.g. walls against doors) or between furniture and other objects (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.18. (a) Intersection of walls in Solibri Model Checker v8 and (b) Intersectior between a door and a slab in Solibri Model Checker v8. First of all the client is interested to assess if the overall quality of the model is ade- quate and if there are geometrical errors due to inability to adopt BIM software to gen- erate the models. Nowadays many programmes are available for the clash detection because the research of geometrical conflicts was the first to be developed and profes- sionals in the AEC industry usually utilise it to assess model quality (Hjelseth, 2012). In SMC for example, itis possible to find intersections (or overlapping) between the same components (e.g. walls against walls) or different ones (e.g. walls against doors) or between furniture and other objects (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.19. Model Tree View in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.19. Model Tree View in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.21. Info window of the Model layout in Solibri Model Checker v8. If there are tenders where the anonymity of the final submission of IFC files is required, SMC can check it not automatically, but by using the Model Layout and control if in the ‘Info’ window, the field ‘Author’ in the ‘IFC File Name’ is present or not (Figure 4.21).
Figure 4.21. Info window of the Model layout in Solibri Model Checker v8. If there are tenders where the anonymity of the final submission of IFC files is required, SMC can check it not automatically, but by using the Model Layout and control if in the ‘Info’ window, the field ‘Author’ in the ‘IFC File Name’ is present or not (Figure 4.21).
Figure 4.20. Visual check of the location of the model origin in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.20. Visual check of the location of the model origin in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.22. Example of BIM file naming convention rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.22. Example of BIM file naming convention rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
In the tender documents it is possible to find several prescriptions related to spaces. First of all SCM can check if there is a given number of Spaces with a given space type and area (e.g. 10 office spaces with an area between 9 and 11 m”) in the entire model or in a specific floor. It is possible to control also the accuracy of their geometry and location and if they have been modelled in the correct way. The client can verify the height of spaces and there is also a rule which checks that distances between specified start and destination spaces follow a given distance requirements (maximum and min- imum distances) (Figure 4.23). Figure 4.23. Example of Space Distance Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
In the tender documents it is possible to find several prescriptions related to spaces. First of all SCM can check if there is a given number of Spaces with a given space type and area (e.g. 10 office spaces with an area between 9 and 11 m”) in the entire model or in a specific floor. It is possible to control also the accuracy of their geometry and location and if they have been modelled in the correct way. The client can verify the height of spaces and there is also a rule which checks that distances between specified start and destination spaces follow a given distance requirements (maximum and min- imum distances) (Figure 4.23). Figure 4.23. Example of Space Distance Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Usually the client specifies the total or sub-parts of the area or volume of the building in the tender documentation and then they want to check if the bids follow their indica- tions. Using the Information takeoff tool it is possible to calculate quantities such as areas or volumes of specific spaces and check it manually. Instead it is possible to check automatically if given areas of spaces or the total area of spaces on each building floor are within specified minimum and maximum area limits (Figure 4.24). Figure 4.24. Example of Space Area Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Usually the client specifies the total or sub-parts of the area or volume of the building in the tender documentation and then they want to check if the bids follow their indica- tions. Using the Information takeoff tool it is possible to calculate quantities such as areas or volumes of specific spaces and check it manually. Instead it is possible to check automatically if given areas of spaces or the total area of spaces on each building floor are within specified minimum and maximum area limits (Figure 4.24). Figure 4.24. Example of Space Area Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.25. Example of rule to check the presence of components in spaces in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.25. Example of rule to check the presence of components in spaces in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.26. Example of rule for checking properties of elements in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.26. Example of rule for checking properties of elements in Solibri Model Checker v8.
Figure 4.28. Information Takeoff tool in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.28. Information Takeoff tool in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.29. Example of check result of free space for a wheelchair in a bathroom with SMC (Bellomo, 2012). Today more attention is also given to the accessibility of buildings, especially in the pub- lic sector. SMC has already translated in rulesets some regulations (such as the Interna- tional ISO_DIS 21542 2009 Building construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment; the International Code Council ICC/ANSI A117.1. 2003 American National Standard, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities; and the Americans with Disa- bilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines J uly 23, 2004). The translation of codes in rules is quickly growing to improve so called Automated Code Checking (Ding, Drogemuller, J upp, Rosenmanand Gero, 2004; Eastman, Lee, J eong, and Lee, 2009; Greenwood, Lockley, Malsane and Matthews, 2010; Nguyen and Kim, 2011; Hjelseth, 2012). Also in Italy an interesting study related to accessibility has been carried on using SMC (Bellomo, 2012) (Figure 4.29). Some of the accessible rules are related to the control of slope and length of ramps, the validation of free floor space for utilisation of a wheelchair as well as the accessibility to stairs, doors and windows.
Figure 4.29. Example of check result of free space for a wheelchair in a bathroom with SMC (Bellomo, 2012). Today more attention is also given to the accessibility of buildings, especially in the pub- lic sector. SMC has already translated in rulesets some regulations (such as the Interna- tional ISO_DIS 21542 2009 Building construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment; the International Code Council ICC/ANSI A117.1. 2003 American National Standard, Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities; and the Americans with Disa- bilities Act and Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines J uly 23, 2004). The translation of codes in rules is quickly growing to improve so called Automated Code Checking (Ding, Drogemuller, J upp, Rosenmanand Gero, 2004; Eastman, Lee, J eong, and Lee, 2009; Greenwood, Lockley, Malsane and Matthews, 2010; Nguyen and Kim, 2011; Hjelseth, 2012). Also in Italy an interesting study related to accessibility has been carried on using SMC (Bellomo, 2012) (Figure 4.29). Some of the accessible rules are related to the control of slope and length of ramps, the validation of free floor space for utilisation of a wheelchair as well as the accessibility to stairs, doors and windows.
Figure 4.30. Example of rule for checking escape routes in Solibri Model Checker v8.1. is a rule that checks the presence of at least one component classified as ‘Stair’ in the vertical access classification, moreover, the presence of at least one exit door is always checked. The client can verify if all spaces have referencing relation at least to one door and if the exit spaces have at least one exit door. Other rules check that it is pos- sible to exit safely in case of fire or other emergency ensuring the building has suffi- cient amount of suitable located exit passageways with sufficient capacity, so that exit time is not dangerously long. Finally, the minimum dimension of doors can be checked.
Figure 4.30. Example of rule for checking escape routes in Solibri Model Checker v8.1. is a rule that checks the presence of at least one component classified as ‘Stair’ in the vertical access classification, moreover, the presence of at least one exit door is always checked. The client can verify if all spaces have referencing relation at least to one door and if the exit spaces have at least one exit door. Other rules check that it is pos- sible to exit safely in case of fire or other emergency ensuring the building has suffi- cient amount of suitable located exit passageways with sufficient capacity, so that exit time is not dangerously long. Finally, the minimum dimension of doors can be checked.
Figure 4,33. Customisation of the Space Distance Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4,33. Customisation of the Space Distance Check rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.34. Classification of Transmission Loss Walls in Solibri Model Checker v8.1. Figure 4.35. Property Rule Template with Component Filters rule (SOL/230) in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.34. Classification of Transmission Loss Walls in Solibri Model Checker v8.1. Figure 4.35. Property Rule Template with Component Filters rule (SOL/230) in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.36. Check Transmission Loss rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.36. Check Transmission Loss rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.39. Checking Result of the Check Transmission Loss rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.39. Checking Result of the Check Transmission Loss rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.40. Checking Result of the Check Transmission Loss 2 rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.40. Checking Result of the Check Transmission Loss 2 rule in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.42. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, B.1 Basic BIM requirements.
Figure 4.42. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, B.1 Basic BIM requirements.
Figure 4.43. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, B.2 BIM - Generic model structure requirements.
Figure 4.43. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, B.2 BIM - Generic model structure requirements.
Figure 4.48. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.5 Structural Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. Also in this case the previous part is basic and a manual check is needed (Ref. #80.); however, there are several rulesets to control the geometry accuracy. There is not Ref. #81. in SMC because it is only an information. Ref. #82. Model structure and con- sistency, instead, is validated thanks to rulesets which control the uniformity of the ar- chitectural and structural models (such as Ref. #78.), the intersection between building services and structural components and interconnections between beams and col- umns. Moreover, the rule § Components must have type is useful for checking the Ref. #83. Component identification requirement. Ref. #84. dealing with Foundations re- quires a manual check. Finally, it is not possible to control if all load-bearing vertical and horizontal structures have been modelled holding type, material, geometry, loca- tion and preliminary structural dimensioning data. However, there is a ruleset in SMC to validate their names s (Ref. HBS. ). —1 #43£-. . 2... hl ge ee a ee ee ee ee ee es ee | ne |
Figure 4.48. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.5 Structural Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. Also in this case the previous part is basic and a manual check is needed (Ref. #80.); however, there are several rulesets to control the geometry accuracy. There is not Ref. #81. in SMC because it is only an information. Ref. #82. Model structure and con- sistency, instead, is validated thanks to rulesets which control the uniformity of the ar- chitectural and structural models (such as Ref. #78.), the intersection between building services and structural components and interconnections between beams and col- umns. Moreover, the rule § Components must have type is useful for checking the Ref. #83. Component identification requirement. Ref. #84. dealing with Foundations re- quires a manual check. Finally, it is not possible to control if all load-bearing vertical and horizontal structures have been modelled holding type, material, geometry, loca- tion and preliminary structural dimensioning data. However, there is a ruleset in SMC to validate their names s (Ref. HBS. ). —1 #43£-. . 2... hl ge ee a ee ee ee ee ee es ee | ne |
Figure 4.50. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechanical Engineering Modelling, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. The second part, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, compre- hends Ref. #95. Mechanical requirements as in Outline Conceptual Design, Ref. #96. All mechanical components in technical spaces, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (cul- verts) etc., Ref. #97. All mechanical components in defined ‘type room’ spaces and Ref. #98. All mechanical components in defined ‘special’ spaces. The rules § Intersec- tions in mechanical models and § Duplicates in mechanical models can be used to validate the accuracy of the geometry (Ref. #95.). Moreover, there are rulesets to check if mechanical components have a type, if all objects are assigned to relevant systems and if the naming of systems is correct (Ref. #96.). On the other hand there are no rulesets useful to validate Ref. #97. and Ref. #98. (Figure 4.50).
Figure 4.50. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechanical Engineering Modelling, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. The second part, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, compre- hends Ref. #95. Mechanical requirements as in Outline Conceptual Design, Ref. #96. All mechanical components in technical spaces, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (cul- verts) etc., Ref. #97. All mechanical components in defined ‘type room’ spaces and Ref. #98. All mechanical components in defined ‘special’ spaces. The rules § Intersec- tions in mechanical models and § Duplicates in mechanical models can be used to validate the accuracy of the geometry (Ref. #95.). Moreover, there are rulesets to check if mechanical components have a type, if all objects are assigned to relevant systems and if the naming of systems is correct (Ref. #96.). On the other hand there are no rulesets useful to validate Ref. #97. and Ref. #98. (Figure 4.50).
Figure 4.49. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechani- cal Engineering Modelling, Outline Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. PATE UI OW BN NAMA NE Ned Dd. Gre PIV GAVOHGANMI THE YIN, LALLY PNM. TOU PT VUPIUOIV ITO, WWIII two rules check that foundations touch slabs, columns, or walls above or below them. Paragraph C.6 deals with Mechanical Engineering Modelling and itis also divided in three parts. The first, Outline Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, includes Ref. #91. Spaces - Technical spaces, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (cul- verts) etc., Ref. #92. Entry points for technical infrastructure, Ref. #93. Major mechani- cal components and Ref. #94. Main ductwork and pipework at critical locations. All these requirements need a manual check, except the control of the name scheme of Ref. #92. (Figure 4.49).
Figure 4.49. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechani- cal Engineering Modelling, Outline Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. PATE UI OW BN NAMA NE Ned Dd. Gre PIV GAVOHGANMI THE YIN, LALLY PNM. TOU PT VUPIUOIV ITO, WWIII two rules check that foundations touch slabs, columns, or walls above or below them. Paragraph C.6 deals with Mechanical Engineering Modelling and itis also divided in three parts. The first, Outline Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, includes Ref. #91. Spaces - Technical spaces, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (cul- verts) etc., Ref. #92. Entry points for technical infrastructure, Ref. #93. Major mechani- cal components and Ref. #94. Main ductwork and pipework at critical locations. All these requirements need a manual check, except the control of the name scheme of Ref. #92. (Figure 4.49).
Figure 4.51. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechan- ical Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. The last part of paragraph C.6, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial au- thority - Default modelling requirements, includes Ref. #99. Mechanical requirements as in Full Conceptual Design, Ref. #100. All mechanical components in all spaces, Ref. #101. All mechanical route paths in all spaces and Ref. #102. Positioning mechanical components in suspended ceiling grids. Ref. #99. requires the requirements of the pre- vious part as a basis, but it is not possible to check it automatically. Moreover, SMC does not include rulesets for checking the level of detail of components and the precise position within spaces for relevant mechanical equipment. However, there are similar rules for the accuracy of the geometry (such as for Ref. #95.). The requirement R ef. #100. can be validated thanks to same rulesets as Ref. #96. SMC, instead, does not allow the automatic control of Ref. #101., but there is a rule for checking the intersec- tions between components in HVAC models (Ref. #102.) (Figure 4.51).
Figure 4.51. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.6 Mechan- ical Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. The last part of paragraph C.6, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial au- thority - Default modelling requirements, includes Ref. #99. Mechanical requirements as in Full Conceptual Design, Ref. #100. All mechanical components in all spaces, Ref. #101. All mechanical route paths in all spaces and Ref. #102. Positioning mechanical components in suspended ceiling grids. Ref. #99. requires the requirements of the pre- vious part as a basis, but it is not possible to check it automatically. Moreover, SMC does not include rulesets for checking the level of detail of components and the precise position within spaces for relevant mechanical equipment. However, there are similar rules for the accuracy of the geometry (such as for Ref. #95.). The requirement R ef. #100. can be validated thanks to same rulesets as Ref. #96. SMC, instead, does not allow the automatic control of Ref. #101., but there is a rule for checking the intersec- tions between components in HVAC models (Ref. #102.) (Figure 4.51).
Figure 4.53. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.7 Electri- cal and Communications Engineering Modelling, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. —-!- The second part, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, compre- hends Ref. #107. Electrical and communications requirements as in Outline Conceptu- al Design, Ref. #108. All electrical and communications components in technical spac- es, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (culverts), etc., Ref. #109. All electrical and com- munications components in defined ‘special’ spaces and Ref. #110. All electrical and communications components in defined ‘type room’ spaces. There are two rules to validate the accuracy of the geometry (Ref. #107.). Moreover, there are rulesets to check if electrical components have a type, if all objects are assigned to relevant sys- tems and if the naming of systems is correct (Ref. #108.). On the other hand there are no rulesets useful to validate Ref. #109. and Ref. #110. (Figure 4.53).
Figure 4.53. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.7 Electri- cal and Communications Engineering Modelling, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements. —-!- The second part, Full Conceptual Design - Default modelling requirements, compre- hends Ref. #107. Electrical and communications requirements as in Outline Conceptu- al Design, Ref. #108. All electrical and communications components in technical spac- es, shafts, external pipe/duct traces (culverts), etc., Ref. #109. All electrical and com- munications components in defined ‘special’ spaces and Ref. #110. All electrical and communications components in defined ‘type room’ spaces. There are two rules to validate the accuracy of the geometry (Ref. #107.). Moreover, there are rulesets to check if electrical components have a type, if all objects are assigned to relevant sys- tems and if the naming of systems is correct (Ref. #108.). On the other hand there are no rulesets useful to validate Ref. #109. and Ref. #110. (Figure 4.53).
Figure 4.54, Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.7 Electri- cal and Communications Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. quirements of the previous part as a basis, butit is not possible to check it automatical- ly. Moreover, SMC does not include rulesets for checking the level of detail of compo- nents and the precise position within spaces for relevant electrical and communications equipment. However, there are similar rules for the accuracy of the geometry (such as for Ref. #95. and Ref. #99). The requirement Ref. #112. can be validated thanks to a rule which checks the correct type of components. SMC, instead, does not allow the automatic control of Ref. #113., but the same rule as for Ref. #102. can be used for Ref. #114. to control the intersections between components in HVAC models (Ref. #102.) (Figure 4.54). Paragraph C.8 is related to Acoustical Engineering Modelling and it is divided in three parts (Figure 4.55).
Figure 4.54, Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.7 Electri- cal and Communications Engineering Modelling, Coordinated design, procurement and full financial authority - Default modelling requirements. quirements of the previous part as a basis, butit is not possible to check it automatical- ly. Moreover, SMC does not include rulesets for checking the level of detail of compo- nents and the precise position within spaces for relevant electrical and communications equipment. However, there are similar rules for the accuracy of the geometry (such as for Ref. #95. and Ref. #99). The requirement Ref. #112. can be validated thanks to a rule which checks the correct type of components. SMC, instead, does not allow the automatic control of Ref. #113., but the same rule as for Ref. #102. can be used for Ref. #114. to control the intersections between components in HVAC models (Ref. #102.) (Figure 4.54). Paragraph C.8 is related to Acoustical Engineering Modelling and it is divided in three parts (Figure 4.55).
The last paragraph of SBM1.2 in SMC is C.9 Fire Safety Engineering Modelling and itis divided in three parts (Figure 4.56). Figure 4.56. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.9 Fire Safety Engineering Modelling.
The last paragraph of SBM1.2 in SMC is C.9 Fire Safety Engineering Modelling and itis divided in three parts (Figure 4.56). Figure 4.56. Rulesets of Statsbygg BIM Manual in Solibri Model Checker, C.9 Fire Safety Engineering Modelling.
In 2009 the Ministry of Administration, Reform and Church Affairs commissioned S tats- bygg to plan a new National Museum in the old Oslo West Railway Station called ‘Vestbanen’ and an Architectural competition in two phases was set up. Phase 1 was an open international competition, where nearly 1300 registrations were submitted on the competition web and 237 proposals were finally delivered to the model server (Fig- ure 4.58a). Only six competitors were selected for Phase 2 and, at the end, the jury selected three winners, who were invited to participate in a negotiated design contract competition. This case study is relevant because the implementation of BIM was at the centre of the competition and it was used for an efficient evaluation and decision sup- port to ‘compare models in respect of their environmental and building in use solutions’ (Kvarsvik, 2010b). Figure 4.58. (a) Urban Transition’s BIM model for Phase 1 and (b) BIM model of the competition area (Kvarsvik, 2010a). Available at http://statsbygg.no/Utviklingsprosjekter/ Nasjonalmuseet/ Konkurransen/F ase-1/ (last visit 7 February 2013).
In 2009 the Ministry of Administration, Reform and Church Affairs commissioned S tats- bygg to plan a new National Museum in the old Oslo West Railway Station called ‘Vestbanen’ and an Architectural competition in two phases was set up. Phase 1 was an open international competition, where nearly 1300 registrations were submitted on the competition web and 237 proposals were finally delivered to the model server (Fig- ure 4.58a). Only six competitors were selected for Phase 2 and, at the end, the jury selected three winners, who were invited to participate in a negotiated design contract competition. This case study is relevant because the implementation of BIM was at the centre of the competition and it was used for an efficient evaluation and decision sup- port to ‘compare models in respect of their environmental and building in use solutions’ (Kvarsvik, 2010b). Figure 4.58. (a) Urban Transition’s BIM model for Phase 1 and (b) BIM model of the competition area (Kvarsvik, 2010a). Available at http://statsbygg.no/Utviklingsprosjekter/ Nasjonalmuseet/ Konkurransen/F ase-1/ (last visit 7 February 2013).
Figure 4.59. Space Programme of the Architectural Competition of the National Museum at Vestbanen.
Figure 4.59. Space Programme of the Architectural Competition of the National Museum at Vestbanen.
Figure 4.60. (a) Exterior perspective view (Senaatti and SYKE, 2010d), (b) Facade to the West (Senaatti and SYKE, 2010d) and (c) Plan of the competition winner ‘Apila’ (Senaattiand SYKE, 2010d). ‘The working group organized by the contracting party has the preparedness to function as part of a team exploiting data modelling in the competition stage as well as in the subsequent design stage. Compliance with Senate Properties data modelling requirements, found at the address: http://www.senaatti.fi/document. asp?sitelD=l&docID=546, is mandatory. (Compliance with the instructions will ensure that the IFC file generated during the competition stage will be useable in energy and condition simulations, quantity calculations, and scope assessments)’ (Senaattiand SYKE, 2010c).
Figure 4.60. (a) Exterior perspective view (Senaatti and SYKE, 2010d), (b) Facade to the West (Senaatti and SYKE, 2010d) and (c) Plan of the competition winner ‘Apila’ (Senaattiand SYKE, 2010d). ‘The working group organized by the contracting party has the preparedness to function as part of a team exploiting data modelling in the competition stage as well as in the subsequent design stage. Compliance with Senate Properties data modelling requirements, found at the address: http://www.senaatti.fi/document. asp?sitelD=l&docID=546, is mandatory. (Compliance with the instructions will ensure that the IFC file generated during the competition stage will be useable in energy and condition simulations, quantity calculations, and scope assessments)’ (Senaattiand SYKE, 2010c).
DUNJECLEU W IEICIEHCe CHECKS, THGHY UO WHITE! Was Q“udHied Ol ule IOWESLUTIET. An integrated 3D model (using Revit Architecture) was provided to the tenderers for a better visualisation of the project and for pricing purposes. Unfortunately it was not included in the contract form, although the authors hope for a future official inclusion of the model in the contract document. Due to lack of trust on completeness and accuracy of BIM tools, there was not a total BIM approach to the project because the Architect orovided 2D drawings using AutoCAD and later the design team coordinated the doc- umentation into the Building Information Model. The following modelling tools from Au- todesk were taken into use to facilitate the exchange of data and the transition from CAD to BIM process, because nowadays the construction industry mostly utilises the AutoCAD platform with .dwg file format: A level of detail (LOD) variable from 200 to 300 was used to keep the file size smaller and the modelling workflow faster. In addition to fulfil this aim only typical floors were detailed, it relied on 2D line work for detailing anything over 1:40 scale drawing and different LOD were used for different purposes (e.g. Architectural detailing was done up to LOD 300). There was not only a unique model but the main one was used to gener- ate accurate and integrated 2D documentation, for clash detection and for collaboration between different parts, in addition, other models were generated for high-end render- ing. Parts of the main model were extracted in 2D drawings to create details in smaller scales. The Architectural Model was used to evaluate different options in the early de- Sign concept by performing analysis and daylight simulations (Figure 4.61).
DUNJECLEU W IEICIEHCe CHECKS, THGHY UO WHITE! Was Q“udHied Ol ule IOWESLUTIET. An integrated 3D model (using Revit Architecture) was provided to the tenderers for a better visualisation of the project and for pricing purposes. Unfortunately it was not included in the contract form, although the authors hope for a future official inclusion of the model in the contract document. Due to lack of trust on completeness and accuracy of BIM tools, there was not a total BIM approach to the project because the Architect orovided 2D drawings using AutoCAD and later the design team coordinated the doc- umentation into the Building Information Model. The following modelling tools from Au- todesk were taken into use to facilitate the exchange of data and the transition from CAD to BIM process, because nowadays the construction industry mostly utilises the AutoCAD platform with .dwg file format: A level of detail (LOD) variable from 200 to 300 was used to keep the file size smaller and the modelling workflow faster. In addition to fulfil this aim only typical floors were detailed, it relied on 2D line work for detailing anything over 1:40 scale drawing and different LOD were used for different purposes (e.g. Architectural detailing was done up to LOD 300). There was not only a unique model but the main one was used to gener- ate accurate and integrated 2D documentation, for clash detection and for collaboration between different parts, in addition, other models were generated for high-end render- ing. Parts of the main model were extracted in 2D drawings to create details in smaller scales. The Architectural Model was used to evaluate different options in the early de- Sign concept by performing analysis and daylight simulations (Figure 4.61).
Figure 4.61. Monthly average solar irradiance on the different surfaces using IFC data. (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 212).
Figure 4.61. Monthly average solar irradiance on the different surfaces using IFC data. (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 212).
BIM partnering v/s traditional procurement. Figure 4.62. Comparison between traditional DBB and BIM Partnering methods (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 212).
BIM partnering v/s traditional procurement. Figure 4.62. Comparison between traditional DBB and BIM Partnering methods (Porwal and Hewage, 2013, p. 212).
In March 2011 the UK Ministry of Justice started the project of a new build (Figure 4.63) 178-person Housing Block and an Education Block for the Youth J ustice Board within the existing HM Young Offenders Institution Cookham Wood in Rochester (HM Government, 2013, p. 2). This project is one of the six projects of the Trial Projects Programme of the Govemment Construction Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2012, pp. 7-8), which wants to change the relationships between clients and the entire supply chain (HM Government, 2013, p. 5). The Ministry of J ustice adopted one of the three new procurement methods, the Two Stage Open Book (see paragraph 2.4.5), which creates a collaborative culture so as to involve the consultants, Tier 1 and Tier 2 contractors at the earlier stage to develop together the project. In this way cost savings and efficiency are reached prior to start the construction on site. Another important innovation is the adoption of BIM, Government Soft Landings (see the UK presentation in paragraph 3.5.2) and Project Bank Accounts (HM Government, 2013, p. 1). Project Bank Ac- counts is also part of the Government Construction Strategy and it deals with a new way of paying supply chain members. Indeed, they will receive payment in five days or less from the due date, so this method assures certainty and security of payment and that it is made promptly (Cabinet Office, 2012c). Figure 4.63. (a) 3D model of the surrounding area of Cookham Wood Youth J ustice Board (BIM Task Group, 2013a) and (b) 3D model of the Cookham Wood Youth J us- tice Board New Build Young Offenders Institution (BIM Task Group, 2013b, p. 3).
In March 2011 the UK Ministry of Justice started the project of a new build (Figure 4.63) 178-person Housing Block and an Education Block for the Youth J ustice Board within the existing HM Young Offenders Institution Cookham Wood in Rochester (HM Government, 2013, p. 2). This project is one of the six projects of the Trial Projects Programme of the Govemment Construction Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2012, pp. 7-8), which wants to change the relationships between clients and the entire supply chain (HM Government, 2013, p. 5). The Ministry of J ustice adopted one of the three new procurement methods, the Two Stage Open Book (see paragraph 2.4.5), which creates a collaborative culture so as to involve the consultants, Tier 1 and Tier 2 contractors at the earlier stage to develop together the project. In this way cost savings and efficiency are reached prior to start the construction on site. Another important innovation is the adoption of BIM, Government Soft Landings (see the UK presentation in paragraph 3.5.2) and Project Bank Accounts (HM Government, 2013, p. 1). Project Bank Ac- counts is also part of the Government Construction Strategy and it deals with a new way of paying supply chain members. Indeed, they will receive payment in five days or less from the due date, so this method assures certainty and security of payment and that it is made promptly (Cabinet Office, 2012c). Figure 4.63. (a) 3D model of the surrounding area of Cookham Wood Youth J ustice Board (BIM Task Group, 2013a) and (b) 3D model of the Cookham Wood Youth J us- tice Board New Build Young Offenders Institution (BIM Task Group, 2013b, p. 3).
Figure 4.64. View of the current status of the theatre Galli in Rimini.
Figure 4.64. View of the current status of the theatre Galli in Rimini.
Figure 4.65. Rendering of the client’s site layout.
Figure 4.65. Rendering of the client’s site layout.
Figure 4.68. Bidder A’s first phase of the site layout plan.
Figure 4.68. Bidder A’s first phase of the site layout plan.
Figure 4.69. Bidder A’s second phase of the site layout plan.
Figure 4.69. Bidder A’s second phase of the site layout plan.
Figure 4.70. Bidder B’s site layout plan.
Figure 4.70. Bidder B’s site layout plan.
Figure 4.71. Bidder A’s proposal imported in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.71. Bidder A’s proposal imported in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.73. Ruleset in SMC v8.1 to check the dimension of spaces.
Figure 4.73. Ruleset in SMC v8.1 to check the dimension of spaces.
Figure 4.77. Checking results of bidder B's proposal in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.77. Checking results of bidder B's proposal in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.76. Bidder B’s proposal imported in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
Figure 4.76. Bidder B’s proposal imported in Solibri Model Checker v8.1.
chestra, orchestra pit and stage, the energy consumption is reduced because it is pos- sible to heat only one section and not the whole area. In the orchestra the bidder pro- poses the utilisation of the free volume under it to carry the air instead of adopting the plenum chambers and the canal systems. Therefore, this space is emptier to facilitate its maintenance (Figure 4.80). Figure 4.80. (a) Client’s layout of duct systems under the stage and (b) Bidder’s layout of ductsystems under the stage.
chestra, orchestra pit and stage, the energy consumption is reduced because it is pos- sible to heat only one section and not the whole area. In the orchestra the bidder pro- poses the utilisation of the free volume under it to carry the air instead of adopting the plenum chambers and the canal systems. Therefore, this space is emptier to facilitate its maintenance (Figure 4.80). Figure 4.80. (a) Client’s layout of duct systems under the stage and (b) Bidder’s layout of ductsystems under the stage.
In this case study the jury compared very different systems solutions and a Model Checking software, such as SMC, would not have helped to compare different because is not simple to declare the most convenient option in general. Indeed, there is not a specific role to choose between e.g. a geotechnical and a heat pump system. The choice is very complex because several variables and parameters are involved. For example, the bidder’s solution seems to be better than the client’s one because there are less canals and so there will be savings for materials, the impact of the new layout is not onerous (Figure 4.81) and the maintenance will be easier. However, the position of the air handling units on an upper level probably will generate unpleasant noises, which are not welcome in a theatre. Thus, the location of these equipment in the basement remains the best solution for the lifecycle of the theatre. Figure 4.81. (a) Client's disposition of canal systems in an upper level and (b) Bidder’s disposition of canal systems in an upper level.
In this case study the jury compared very different systems solutions and a Model Checking software, such as SMC, would not have helped to compare different because is not simple to declare the most convenient option in general. Indeed, there is not a specific role to choose between e.g. a geotechnical and a heat pump system. The choice is very complex because several variables and parameters are involved. For example, the bidder’s solution seems to be better than the client’s one because there are less canals and so there will be savings for materials, the impact of the new layout is not onerous (Figure 4.81) and the maintenance will be easier. However, the position of the air handling units on an upper level probably will generate unpleasant noises, which are not welcome in a theatre. Thus, the location of these equipment in the basement remains the best solution for the lifecycle of the theatre. Figure 4.81. (a) Client's disposition of canal systems in an upper level and (b) Bidder’s disposition of canal systems in an upper level.
Figure 4.82. Client’s layout of canal systems.
Figure 4.82. Client’s layout of canal systems.
Figure 4.86. i-F aber platform: tender information.
Figure 4.86. i-F aber platform: tender information.
Documentazione allegata generica
Documentazione allegata generica
Figure 4.93. i-F aber platform: step by step procedure to submit a bid.
Figure 4.93. i-F aber platform: step by step procedure to submit a bid.
Modifica valutazione 24/05/2013 12:13:02
Modifica valutazione 24/05/2013 12:13:02
Here we See the information related to the bid such as how to carry out the stamp duty, the percentage of decline (in this case 12,00%) and the attach documents of the con- struction project and of the economic offer. The footnotes indicate which information must be sent in a traditional way or electronically with a digital signature, which docu- ments are mandatory or optional and if requirements deal with administration, technical or economic issues.
Here we See the information related to the bid such as how to carry out the stamp duty, the percentage of decline (in this case 12,00%) and the attach documents of the con- struction project and of the economic offer. The footnotes indicate which information must be sent in a traditional way or electronically with a digital signature, which docu- ments are mandatory or optional and if requirements deal with administration, technical or economic issues.
Related topics:
BIM (Architecture)E-ProcurementBuilding Information Modeling (BIM) (Architecture)Public Procurement
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved