Tag Archives: BIM

Why BIM Level 2 actually necessitates aiming for Level 3

Posted on by
Reply

The UK has been challenged to implement BIM to level 2 by 2016 according to the UK Government Construction Clients Board’s Government Construction Strategy.

Disregarding the fact that the essence of BIM is the ability to exchange information and to store information in a common format (aka IFC); it is a fact that BIM Level 2 is in fact contradictory and if followed strictly, can only result in failure to meet the BIM adoption target.

Why?

Its really quite straightforward.. BIM Level 2 requires participants to deliver and process data compliant to the COBIE protocol which for the unititiated addresses the capture of “actual” products and their specifications especially as they relate to Facilities management, i.e. for a fan coil unit gathering the identity of the supplier, the unit model type, service tags etc etc.

Here’s the kicker.. COBIE is in essence an IDM (a predefined query on all the IFC data) that extracts the pertinent information and presents it so that the actual data can be appended (ultimately to then update that IFC data).

IFC is not however a requirement of BIM Level 2 and as such little emphasis will be placed on sorting out the quality of information produced by the likes of Revit and others.. Whilst investing in solutions like Revit is not a foolhardy decision it does beggar the question as to why invest in something that is no more BIM compliant than Trimble SketchUp? Of course there are products that have invested heavily in BIM compliance, perhaps seeing an opportunity to gain market share on the competition or perhaps simply recognising that they need to deliver products that ramp up the benefits to their users (see OpenBIM).

So maybe it’s time the Government Chief Construction Adviser stopped and read, understood and rationalised BIM to be a meaningful and positive movement that will shape the future of construction rather than the aimless and poorly communicated mess that it really is..

Read the Government construction strategy document click here

Has the UK Construction industry really understood BIM?

Posted on by
Reply

Has the UK Construction industry really understood BIM? (What’s BIM going on?)
It’s been 6+ months since the Government edict landed from on high on the workbenches and drawing boards of the construction industry.

So what’s been happening in the Construction industry in the intervening time? Something, nothing or is it simply too early in the 5 year adoption strategy to expect action or reaction?
Have Construction Clients started to mandate BIM on their projects? Have Designers and Engineers started to adopt BIM compliant software? Have Contractors started to reuse BIM information to drive estimation and planning?

Well it would appear that the torch has been picked up and is being taken forwards. Construction Clients and Contractors of all flavours have seemingly started to incorporate BIM as a requirement for their projects; tender contracts are starting to stipulate clauses such as:

“Subcontractor’s shall provide digital submissions of information describing its respective work in a form and manner that the Contractor may require and that can be loaded into a BIM assembled by the Contractor”.

“Subcontractor’s submissions shall be of sufficient detail to enable accurate and complete clash detection and shall be provided by Subcontractor at a point in time that is reasonably in advance of Subcontractor’s shop drawing submittals and the subsequent on site construction of the Subcontractor’s Work and such submissions shall contain such details and follow such procedures as the Contractor may require”.

But do such clauses when enacted actually change the game or result in a step change for the industry?

Sadly the answer is a resounding NO. BIM clauses are non-specific, they define only the need for information to be “digital” and for it to be able to be used for clash detection, so 3D.
These clauses completely miss the opportunity to define the quality of information that SHOULD be required; information quality must be driven by the downstream processes that utilise it. Without wishing to let the cat out of the bag; the most basic requirement should include meaningful naming conventions and perhaps the application of uniform classification notation; beyond these there are many more which this author will reserve for now.

BIM brings huge potential which will remain largely untapped until Construction Clients, Contractors, Architects and Engineers start to understand the bottlenecks in their processes and how to resolve these through the application of systems. It’s not about changing what stakeholders do; it’s about how it gets done.

An example of the opportunity IFC schema standardisation creates is its ability to drive concurrency in design.

Design concurrency is not achieved by exporting files to their native formats and storing them in a proprietary document management system neither is it saving them to the IFC data format and storing them in an IFC database. Performing clash detection on a daily basis, putting all the design disciplines in a single location or having a design manager reviewing daily inputs equally misses the mark.

Design concurrency can be achieved by systematising its validation; a function currently performed manually and unfortunately sporadically and inaccurately with the inevitable consequence that at the point of installation issues are discovered that require designers to go back to the drawing board delaying production and creating huge costs that should never have existed.

If you would like advice on what BIM can deliver and what steps you could take to leverage its benefits please contact me on (+44) 07747 012 001.

SUperPlan “Scheduling direction” explained

Posted on by
Reply

SUperPlan’s primary function is the “Automated scheduling” which in plain English means that we look at all the objects in your 3D model and sort them into a calculated sequence for you. The sequence can be visualised (4D) and exported to your favorite planning system.

The detail of how the sequence is calculated is based on rules one of which is discussed here. “Scheduling Direction” is a very natural and widely used method for any project; it is sometimes applied due to physical or spatial constraints or simply to avoid a completely random and probably inefficient approach to construction.

“Scheduling Direction” options are available from the “Plugins > SUperPlan > Options” dialogue under “Scheduling Direction”.

SUperPlan provides you with 12 default “direction” options; in the natural world these would be described as building from North to South, East to West etc. SUperPlan being a plugin to Sketchup uses axes related terminology to describe these options instead. For instance the option [-x+x, -y+y] describes the order of object selection as being firstly from negative to positive in the X axis direction followed by negative to positive in the Y axis direction (so by setting the Google Sketchup camera to the “Plan” pre-set view it would be from the bottom to top and left to right).

Some “direction” options may appear more complicated at first glance; 4 “schedule direction” options describe 6 axes of direction split into 2 halves, for example [-x-y+x, -x+y+x]. Don’t worry! these too are simple to relate to really; they describe a sweeping motion like hands on a clock so the first part is the movement of a clock hand between 6 and 12 (clockwise) and the second part in an anticlockwise sweep between 6 and 12. See the illustrations below for further guidance.

Finally, from SUperPlan Version 1.4 an additional option has been provided to allow for all scheduling direction options to be tested simultaneously. Simply choose “Combine All” from the SUperPlan > Options > Scheduling Direction drop down list. Why? well you probably already guessed that each option can produce differing results!.. imagine trying to do that in a planning system! OK you wouldn’t ever attempt it. With experience most planners “get a feel” for choosing the right direction strategy and they probably get it right quite often! but the ability to test and quantify all those alternatives may well reveal some startling outcomes..

SUperPlan’s primary function is the “Automated scheduling” which in plain English means that we look at all the objects in your 3D model and sort them into a calculated sequence for you. The sequence can be visualised (4D) and exported to your favorite planning system.

The detail of how the sequence is calculated is based on rules one of which is discussed here. “Scheduling Direction” is a very natural and widely used method for any project; it is sometimes applied due to physical or spatial constraints or simply to avoid a completely random and probably inefficient approach to construction.

“Scheduling Direction” options are available from the “Plugins > SUperPlan > Options” dialogue under “Scheduling Direction”.

SUperPlan provides you with 12 default “direction” options; in the natural world these would be described as building from North to South, East to West etc. SUperPlan being a plugin to Sketchup uses axes related terminology to describe these options instead. For instance the option [-x+x, -y+y] describes the order of object selection as being firstly from negative to positive in the X axis direction followed by negative to positive in the Y axis direction (so by setting the Google Sketchup camera to the “Plan” pre-set view it would be from the bottom to top and left to right).

Some “direction” options may appear more complicated at first glance; 4 “schedule direction” options describe 6 axes of direction split into 2 halves, for example [-x-y+x, -x+y+x]. Don’t worry! these too are simple to relate to really; they describe a sweeping motion like hands on a clock so the first part is the movement of a clock hand between 6 and 12 (clockwise) and the second part in an anticlockwise sweep between 6 and 12. See the illustrations below for further guidance.

Finally, from SUperPlan Version 1.4 an additional option has been provided to allow for all scheduling direction options to be tested simultaneously. Simply choose “Combine All” from the SUperPlan > Options > Scheduling Direction drop down list. Why? well you probably already guessed that each option can produce differing results!.. imagine trying to do that in a planning system! OK you wouldn’t ever attempt it. With experience most planners “get a feel” for choosing the right direction strategy and they probably get it right quite often! but the ability to test and quantify all those alternatives may well reveal some startling outcomes..

Now for those illustrations:

+y-y, -x+x +y-y, +x-x
-y+y, -x+x -y+y, +x-x
-x+x, +y-y -x+x, -y+y
+x_x, +y-y +x-x, -y+y
+y+x-y, +y-x-y +x-y-x, +x+y-x
-y-x+y, -y+x+y -x+y+x, -x-y+x

Taking IFC’s to the Movies

Posted on by
Reply

IFC’s are the root of BIM (take note all you design centric BIM’rs); they are quintessentially about the exchange of information to maximise its use at all stage of project delivery and beyond..

In this exchangeable data world there are two way interactions such as scheduling applications reading from and writing to a BIM and there are one way interactions such as reporting what’s in a BIM for a project status update.

Post 4D from tools like Navis, Synchro et al (us included) this visualised sequence is used as a communication device to different audiences at different stages. One of those stages is during the bid/tender process when the quality of presentation needs to be tip top.. over the years presentation has been an arms race between bidders as the try to mitigate any risks that would result in the loss of a project and with it substantial investments in time.

This arms race has spawned a dilemma however; how much money is too much to spend on what is essentially a series of pretty pictures? 10k, 50k, 100k? After all whatever is spent will need to be recouped in costs either on the project to which spending is predicated or across future projects that might be won.

So here’s then plan.. we are now developing an export option for 3D Max to write out the animation information generated by SUperPlan, which of course can be manipulated in external planning systems (Asta Powerproject, Microsoft Project).. We expect to offer basic visibility options such as turning objects from transparent to opaque (and back again for site logistics), progressive transparency (gradually turning object opaque), growing objects (scaling in x,y,z axis) and even movement such as rotating crane jibs. A user interface will allow the animation to be set against a movie duration (minutes/seconds) and with a frame rate.

The value of this is a 50-75% saving in the effort required by your animator which of course translates into significant cost savings making it possible for you to produce competitive high quality visualisations that compete with those organisations with the deepest of pockets!

Register you interest and we will keep you informed on our progress..

Revit to Sketchup

Posted on by
Reply

There are several posts out there that talk about the options available to get 3D geometry from Revit to Sketchup many of which refer to the *.FBX format..

We have spent a good deal of time ad effort working with outputs from Revit, Tekla, Bentley and many others and have written the consummate IFC importer for Sketchup with results that out perform what you achieve in many other IFC viewers (Tekla Bimsight, DDS IFC viewer)

In writing the iFC importer we now know more than most what the issue are associated to IFC exports from Revit and would be happy to share that knowledge with others so that you can send Autodesk the feedback necessary to affect change in future versions. As such we invite you to get in touch, send us your models* and we will review them, giving you valuable feedback on the quality shortfalls that prevent your data from being reused in downstream processes such as cost estimation, planning and FM.

* We guarantee complete confidentiality, any model shared with us will be removed from our systems after analysis and communication of our analysis results.

Derivation vs. Extrapolation

Posted on by
Reply

With such a rapid shift towards richer and more robust 3D information, questions need asking about how this data will be utilised efficiently now that it exists?

Many construction organisations have yet to rationalise the downstream use of this data or build up a set of requirements to define what they expect software to do for them in the future to meet these changes and challenges.

One additional challenge that is yet to even be a twinkle in most people’s eyes is the forthcoming realisation that perhaps the biggest problem organisations will face in the future is the ability to identify and trace the provenance and reliability of information; i make the distinction as being the difference between “derivation” and “extrapolation”

Derivation is the good stuff.. its the information that is calculated from a known base. Think slab being sequenced after supporting column; the derivation is based on the physical law of gravity.. not something that we argue with much these days (thanks to Isaac Newton).

Extrapolation is the potentially dodgy stuff.. like its counterpart (derivation) it is based on formulae and calculation however the information that results is an estimate rather than an absolute and therein lies the danger. The danger is multiplied when an extrapolation is then used as a basis for further extrapolation.

So what can be done? in my opinion the first step is to clearly distinguish between both types of information so that when they form the basis of reports such as budgets, schedules and plans the recipient of that information can judge the reliability of the information for themselves.

What would this mean today? if we looked at a tender bid submitted by 3 competing contractors we would be able to distinguish the probable accuracy of each bid; we be able to clearly recognise where one bidder had invested time and effort to establish facts and where others were perhaps at best gambling on the inability of a client to distinguish between value and price..

The result.. those who invest in processes and systems would get their just deserts!

Revit the problem with IFC exports

Posted on by
Reply

Its widely reported that Revit has issues when it comes to exporting IFC files and yesterday the problem manifested itself to us once again..

Asked to support a contractor on an unnamed project, which on first inspection should not have posed any issues; a cleared brown field site, simple but elegant design and only needing a Revit export to IFC to see us under way.. Perhaps the Friday the 13th omen’s should have given us a clue to what we were confronting!

A Revit Architecture IFC export to IFC was produced and imported into SUperPlan.. Inspection of the results found it nigh on impossible to actually find the imported geometry; further investigation revealed the following horrible results

  • The model was located far from the scene origin (which in itself is not a problem) but others were located at the origin resulting in a model that spanned more than 3000km
  • Columns floated above the building
  • slabs sat outside the building envelope and rather than being side by side, were neatly occupying the same space..

Always assuming the error lies at our door we checked and rechecked our IFC import, we edited the 2million line file to provide a debug’able data set and no our calculations were entirely correct..

We then checked the file in a series of other great reference IFC viewers from the clever people at Tekla, DDS and Graphisoft and saw the same results (note to self.. do this first!).

So back to the drawing board.. download and install Revit 2012 Architecture and do the export ourselves to test for user error.. No, results remained the same.. break the Revit model down and export sub-parts of the model.. still no joy..

A fair amount of exasperation later i downloaded and installed Revit 2013 Trial.. One thing not yet mentioned is that the design team who generated this model did so collaboratively (structure by one person, envelope by another etc etc..)

When the Revit 2012 model is imported into 2013 it “upgrades” the model to the 2013 standard. Following a re-save i then proceeded to attempt a re-export of the IFC.. Still no luck.. this time i was not even able to get an IFC export at all!! ArrghhHH!!
That exclamation is a reflection on the fact that i waited 2+ hours before it finally died with the only solace that i was asked to submit the error to Autodesk!

Never being able to accept defeat has its benefits.. i then used the “Visibility / Graphics” option to turn off parts of the model and finally started to get IFC’s exporting.. not only that but this time no floating columns, no overlaid slabs or objects sat 3000km away at the origin..

Working through each class of object i finally found that one class of object was the root cause. “Generic Models” made up of 10 or so sub-classes seemed to be the root of the issue in not being able to export the whole model; bizarrely of all the sub-classes only 2 actually held geometry all other geometry being defined in the header class..

The “Generic Models” class accounted for about 50% of all objects in the model and one is still left wondering why and bemoaning the fact that these generic model objects will undoubtedly fall through the classification net rendering the value of the information for downstream use virtually nil..

So in conclusion, the primary issue of objects not being properly coordinated probably lies in the use of Revit server and issues with implementing “shared coordinates”, secondly Revit is seemingly unreliable and their claim

Be BIM Ready

should be followed by “Be worried your BIM export will produce rubbish!”

Personally, i would rather not waste another 12 hours fighting Revit again in the future.. best of luck to those who do..

Finally and really quite importantly, if your project is going to use BIM then make sure that the design you produce can actually be utilised.. that means you produce and share IFC’s NOT .RVT files (unless between design disciplines)..

Healing and optimising IFC’s on import to Sketchup

Posted on by
Reply

There are only a limited number of Sketchup IFC plugin importers out there; each produces varying results.. most failing miserably when file size scale is to large or when tested against exports from different CAD systems..

The SUPerPlan IFC importer for Sketchup is different, it not only handles scale with aplomb but on a variety of tests out performs the ubiquitous DDS IFC viewer to render objects correctly.

Our IFC importer is also built to “clean-up” after the poor quality IFC files generated by the likes of Revit and Microstation so that the data is able to be rationalised and re-used. All too often we are passed IFC’s that fail to demonstrate even the most basic optimisations resulting in exponential growth in files. In a recent example from Revit architecture known to have been drawn by a fully competent technician using all the standard authoring techniques was found to define many identical columns as individual items each with its own geometric definition rather than as instances with each referencing back to a single geometric definition rather than simply applying a transform! Actually when its simply a column the overhead is not that great as the geometric definition defines only 8 points.. however in another sample export once again from Revit but this time using an MEP plugin, the impact was far more visible when inspecting cable trays, pipe bends, duct segments, sprinkler heads and even kitchen sinks! Those objects individually can be highly detailed and complex geometric definitions; not “instancing” these would have a radical impact on any 3D visualisation engine.. but really this is just the start of the problems..

Where objects are not correctly “instanced” and (in Sketchup terms) regarded as individual components rather than instances of a component the ability to calculate and report quantities can be affected (in context of estimation). In many cases there is the possibility to reference object meta data (also imported and reported by our IFC importer) which should healing and optimisation not be used would offer alternative means of reconciliation..

Image shows imported Electrical model with object meta data displayed.

The problem with being “Lean”

Posted on by
Reply

Whether you are a student of the “Toyota Production System”, “Six-Sigma”, “Last planner” or other “lean” doctrines you may have found that your effectiveness at delivering “lean” in the context of construction has had its limitations..

Often “lean” is aspired to as an afterthought, or its applied in isolation to one or more sub-contractor packages or your client believes that it applies to others and not themselves. Where these cases apply the effectiveness of those methodologies is more akin to sticking plasters on gapping wounds rather than preventing the wound in the first place.

The reality is that the construction process is itterative and completely interdependent, the way that information is created, managed, processed and delivered is fundamentally under par when measured against the standards achieved in most other industrial sectors.

An aquaintance recently spent time with an IBM “Tiger” (someone whose function is to look at interesting ideas without being required to worry about targets and sales numbers), the IBM view of the construction sector is that it offers few opportunities due to its inability to define and implement processes and standards. An endictment indeed..

So why do lean principles find themselves so difficult to be implemented when so many are aware of not only what lean is but also the potential value propositions it might create?

The nature of construction being both project centric and fragmented is often put forward as a reason, teams are assembled and then dispersed making it difficult to take forward best practice when those required to implement them have neither been exposed to them before, have budgeted for them, have the skills to assimilate them and most often simply just want to get on with the job in the way they have allways done it previously. Lastly there is probably a “what do we get out of it” perception which is poorly communicated and seemingly intangible.

Lean therefore in my opinion must consider the context in which it is being applied. The toyota production system may have started with optimisation on the assembly line but soon followed up with a realisaton of the need to get the supply right in order to maximise the production line optimisation opportunity.

It is on that basis that i point to the production of design as the root cause. There is a need to declare war on design quality; where systems exist that are able to test quality and through the immediacy of the results educate the originator to prevent continuation of poor quality design. The responsibility lies with all stakeholders, at a high level everyone needs to simply remember they have customers and that they need to properly service the needs of their customers and collaborators.

The Jam in the sandwich

Posted on by
Reply

BIM, BIM, BIM.. its fast becoming the hot topic..everyone is seemingly scrabbling around trying to understand what it is, what it looks like, and how its tastes. The world has to date been focused on BIM as a tool for designers and i guess that’s down to the big CAD vendors who to pay them their dues, are the only people managing to effectively communicate to a wide audience through their advertorials.

Why should anyone think BIM is anything other than design centric.. its not as if there is a plethora of other BIM app’s out there is there?

Well perhaps that is changing; step forward great solutions like Nomitech’s CostOS estimation tool, it reads BIM and brilliantly connects the design to rates to generate cost estimates as gracefully as i have ever seen it done before. Then there is the highly commended BIMserver; an open source design merging BIM server (think database) that by combining design and managing change offers a great platform to deliver value in ways traditional document management systems could only dream of.. (so that’s 2 solutions than demonstrate tangible value!)

The third solution i must declare an interest in. Check out the Vicis design validation engine.. you have a bunch of design information, you combine it into a single model and run clash detection; the results ensure that no 2 objects share the same space (which if you have ever tried to make two objects share the same space does not result in success!). Your fix the issues and re-run the test.. Yeah! its all coordinated.. but is it? The reality is somewhat less celebratory.. just because stuff doesn’t intersect doesn’t mean its right, far from it.. ever wondered why a ceiling access hatch is on the other side of a room from a duct access panel it is supposed to provide access to?..it didn’t fail coordination.. but it would fail design conformance validation..

So like a sandwich the really fundamental part is the quality of the filling (i just happen to like jam..). No filling.. no flavour.. no appetite.