building information modeling: state-of-the-art practice ... · building information modeling:...

Building Information Modeling: State-of-the-Art Practice and Research

Martin FischerProfessor, Civil and Environmental Engineeringand (by courtesy) Computer ScienceDirector, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)Stanford Universityhttp://www.stanford.edu/[email protected] Member, Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences

Thanks to the CIFE community.

Presentation Outline

• Introduction to the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE)

• What is Building Information Modeling (BIM)?• What can you expect from using BIM?• How is BIM used today?• How will BIM be used tomorrow?

CIFE Development and Background

• 100% funded by industry– Building owners– Design and construction

companies– Software and hardware vendors

• 1988-2000– Building Information Modeling

(BIM)

• 2000-2010– Virtual Design and Construction

(VDC)

• 2010+– Integrated Facility Engineering– Breakthrough performance

3

The CIFE community (industry, academia) invents the next

practice togetherPractice

Research

Education

A good product (design) enables the following efficient and effective processes:• Construction• Operations and maintenance• Users’ business operations

And enhances the project’s• Environmental and social context, and• Contributes to learning how to do a similar

project even better next time

Income

Cost

Time Design-Construction

Costs Facility Maintenance Costs Building Operations Costs

Business Operations Costs

Income from Facility

1

2

3

4

5

Ideally, we could analyze complete product/process models for every major decision instantly

What does a BIM look like?

Visual Representation of the Building

Data about the Building

Slide Content Courtesy Optima, Scottsdale, AZ

BIM is the first technology that combines data and visualization

Visualization

Social Interface with Stakeholders

Conceptual project planning & design

Design

Procurement

Construction

Start-up

Operations

Data

Interface with Engineering and Project Control and Management Systems

8 (c) 2012

ICEBIM+ ProcessCurrent State Process, T5 Rebar Detailing for Construction

Des

ign

Man

ufac

ture

Engi

neer

ing

Release CADdwg, rebar

schedule (*.CSF)in Documentum

Documentcontrol delay

(1 week)

Preliminarydesign GA drawings

Refine RC detailsand concept for

buildability/detailing

Use model todevelop and

communicatemethods

Prepare RC detaildrawings(drafting)

Check andcoordinate detail

drawings

CAD check(1d/dwg)

Check againstengineering calcs

(.5d /dwg)

Independent finalcheck & sign off

(2 weeks)

Building controlcheck & sign off

(BAA, time?)

Release paper P4dwgs & bar

bendingschedules

Rebar factorystarts bending

Pre-assembly

Ship to site

Draft spec

Comment onspec

Update spec Release spec

Model rebarcomponent (Use

digitalPrototyping tool)

Issue and resolveTQ’s (Technical

Queries)

AutoCAD CAD RC IDEAS Arma +

Design input/changes

Technology:

Detailedengineering

designinformation

Site assembly

Preliminary drafting2 weeks

Back drafting1 week

Checking2 weeks

Document control1 weekTimeline:

NOTE: Drawings are batched into sections-then subdivided into building components.Each component is an assembly package,e.g. rail box floor, wall, etc.

The number of drawing sheets per buildingcomponent vary depending on the work. OnART for example, each component mayconsist of 8-15 GA drawings and 8-15 RCdetail drawings.

All of the GA drawings are complete -pend ing changes f rom other des igndisciplines

NOTE: Design changesduring detailing (from:architecture, baggage,s y s t e m s , e t c . ) a r eupsetting RC drawingdevelopment.

Other / None/Unknown

Preliminary RCdetailing

Iterativeprocess

Consists of:engineeringcalculations,sketches, etc.

Most of the checkingprocess is doneconcurrently with RCdetail development.

BAA building controlaccepts the opinionof the independentdesign check - anddoes not perform acheck of its own

Asse

mbl

y

Existing Process - 6 weeks

Client/Business Objectives

Project Objectives

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC)

Collaborative 3D modeling to avoid construction problems: Case

Example from a Mining Project

Leonardo Rischmoller Visiting Scholar, Civil & Env. Eng.,

Stanford University

Introduction to VDC

Center for Integrated Facility Engineering

Mining Project in ChileSlides from Prof. Leonardo RischmollerUniversity of Talca

Introduction to VDC


Introduction to VDC


Mining Project in ChileSlides from Prof. Leonardo RischmollerUniversity of Talca

Introduction to VDC


CLIENTE:¿Cómo van a Solucionar ese problema?

CONTRATISTA:Vamos a realizar una perforación a la placa …

Introduction to VDC


GERENCIA DE PROYECTO:Es una buena solucion!

Introduction to VDC


INGENIERIA:La perforacion no afectaria el comportamiento de la estructura

Introduction to VDC


dramatic reduction in decision latency, or the time between posing a questionand having information with sufficient quality that it can be used to make a

design decision (t, $, Quality, …)

Using an incomplete product model

Introduction to VDC


Introduction to VDC


Problema:Bombas inaccesibles al puente grua

Introduction to VDC


Introduction to VDC


¿US$?

Extra cost if contracting3D Engineering

Costs of problemsduring construction

using traditional Design

Introduction to VDC


90

10100

85.512.0

97.5

+20%=12

-4.5- 5%

85.5

90.0 -2.5%

PBS OCA 3D-4D-BIM Program

GSA’s National 3D-4D-BIM Program

From introduction in 2003 to pilots and technology/guidance development,

to upper management policy and budgetto GSA national program deployment and support

to US national standardsto international agreements

Mandated Requirement on all GSA Projects since 2006100+ Projects To Date16 National “IDIQ” Contracts up to $30 million each

PBS ODC 3D-4D-BIM Program

Business Case & Priorities — GSA BIM Guide Series

01—Overview

02—Spatial Program Validation

03—3D Imaging

04—4D Phasing

05—Energy Performance and Operation

06—Circulation and Security Validation

07—Building Elements

08—Facility Management


Automated Program Validation


Automated Spatial BIM Report

FloorGross Building Area Gross Measured Area Major Vertical Penetration

Floor Rentable Area

Basement 118,823 111,039 3,020 108,020Ground Floor 107,954 101,020 3,437 97,583First Floor 153,767 94,678 2,936 91,742Second Floor 77,037 71,445 7,091 64,354Third Floor 74,512 70,497 2,328 68,169Fourth Floor 74,512 68,186 2,108 66,078Fifth Floor 74,512 65,419 2,221 63,199Sixth Floor 74,512 69,727 2,251 67,476Seventh Floor 59,239 51,591 1,676 49,915BUILDING 814,870 703,602 27,067 676,534

FloorFloor Office Area USF/GSF

Floor Building Common Area

Floor Usable Area

Basement 61,778 51.99% 26,395 88,176Ground Floor 71,380 66.12% 4,122 75,513First Floor 74,144 48.22% 3,473 79,020Second Floor 50,622 65.71% 3,565 55,847Third Floor 52,960 71.08% 2,801 55,764Fourth Floor 52,075 69.89% 2,538 54,613Fifth Floor 47,409 63.63% 2,579 50,363Sixth Floor 52,224 70.09% 1,484 53,718Seventh Floor 38,616 65.19% 3,795 42,462BUILDING 501,207 61.51% 50,752 555,477

Usable Areas

Floor Area Calculations (in sf)BIM Report Contains:

• Floor Calculations• Tenant Stacking Plans• ANSI/BOMA Stacking Plans


Revit Model

Bentley Model

ArchiCad Model

Digital Project Model

common IFC file format

space program review

simple energy load analysis

circulation & security review

cost estimate

Provide significant automated feedback for early stage concept design

Introduction to Product Management through BIM


Check all circulation paths in a buildingOn a 6-story courthouse, approximately 27,000 routes were tested using 302circulation rules in approximately 10 seconds.

Slide courtesy GSA, work carried at GA Tech with sponsorship by the GSA

R E D U C I N G T H E C O S T O F S T E E L S T R U C T U R E S U S I N G C O M P U T AT I O N A L D E S I G N O P T I M I Z AT I O N

FOREST FLAGER / MARTIN FISCHER

conventional

design method

FCD (128 cpu)

design method

PROCESS Design cycle time 4 hrs 3 sec Alternatives

evaluated 39 12,800

Total design time 216 hrs 151 hrs PRODUCT Total steel

weight 2,728 met t 2,292 met t

Est. cost saving (USD)

- $4 M (-19%)

CASE STUDY RESULTS

GEOMETRIC MODEL

GEOMETRIC MODEL

OPTIMIZE SHAPE

ANALYTIC MODEL

OPTIMIZE SIZING

1

BiOPT METHOD

DESIGN PROBLEM

2

3

4

FCD Sizing Algorithm (Flager, et al. 2011)

SEQOPT Algorithm (Booker, et al. 1999)

• Orders of magnitude reduction in design cycle time

• Evaluation of a greater number of design alternatives

• Improved product quality

Objective: Minimize steel weight

Constraints: Safety and serviceability

Possible design alternatives: ~ 102435

Variables: 1955 size and shape variables

= =

Case Study: Overseas Housing Development With Lepech/Flager/Basbagill and Beck Technologies

SCOPE

(1)Housing buildings ● substructure ● shell ●

interiors ● services

OBJECTIVES

(1)Minimize life-cycle cost (2)Minimize carbon footprint

VARIABLES

(1) Number of buildings: 3 - 4 (2) Number of stories: 5 - 8 (3) Building footprint: H-shape (4) Building orientation: 0-360°

CONSTRAINTS

(1)Gross Floor Area (GFA): 1,500m2

(2)Distance to site perimeter: >20m

(3)Distance between building: >20m

DESIGN SPACE SIZE

Possible design configurations: 1.46E11

a bcd

e

f

3 Configuration

Life-Cycle Performance

Capital

Operational

Baseline

Number of buildings: 4

Number of floors: 8

Baseline

COST (USD, Millions) IMPACT (kt CO2e)

Base Design

($197M)(285kt)

IMPACT (Kt CO2e)

COST

(USD

, Milli

ons)

197

285

Configuration


Capital

Operational

Baseline Design 838


Number of floors: 8

Baseline Design 838

140 136

58 44

27 26

259 256


($18M) (4kt)

Reduced Cost Design

IMPACT (Kt CO2e)

COST

(USD

, Milli

ons)

197

285

-18

-4

3 Configuration


Capital

Operational

Baseline Design1898


Number of floors: 7

Baseline Design1898

140 132

58 49

27 26

259 251


($17M) (8kt)

Reduced Carbon Design

IMPACT (Kt CO2e)

COST

(USD

, Milli

ons)

197

285

-17

-8

5 3 10 10 0 0 10 0 1.67E8 2.75E5

8 4 30 30 30 30 50 360 2.34E8 2.97E5

Num

ber o

f Bu

ildin

gs

Num

ber o

f Fl

oors

Build

ing

Leng

th a

Build

ing

Leng

th b

Build

ing

Leng

th c

Build

ing

Leng

th d

Build

ing

Leng

th e

Orie

ntat

ion

(d

eg)

Life

Cycle

Im

pact

(k

g CO

2e)

Life

Cycle

Co

st ($

)

Base

Reduced Carbon

Reduced Cost

Parallel Coordinates Plot: 3 Designs

Life-Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint: 3 Designs Lif

e Cy

cle

Cost

(USD

, Milli

ons)

Carbon Footprint (met tons CO2e)

275k 280k 290k 295k

165

180

195

210

225

+

KEY

Baseline

Reduced Carbon

Reduced Cost

3 Buildings, 5 Stories








Life

Cycl

e Co

st (U

SD, M

illion

s)


285k275k 280k 290k 295k

165

180

195

210

225

48

Building information

model

Pre-operational

cost

Optimizer

MRR schedule

Pre-operational

CO2e

Energy simulation

Operational cost

Operational CO2e

Life-cycle cost

Life-cycle CO2e

KEY

Automateddata translation

DProfiler

SimaPro

eQUEST

CostLab

Excel

MOGA

MDO Design Method

5 3 10 10 0 0 10 0 1.67E8 2.75E5

8 4 30 30 30 30 50 360 2.34E8 2.97E5

Num

ber o

f Bu

ildin

gs

Num

ber o

f Fl

oors

Build

ing

Leng

th a

Build

ing

Leng

th b

Build

ing

Leng

th c

Build

ing

Leng

th d

Build

ing

Leng

th e

Orie

ntat

ion

(d

eg)

Life

Cycle

Im

pact

(k

g CO

2e)

Life

Cycle

Co

st ($

)

Base

Reduced Carbon

Reduced Cost

Parallel Coordinates Plot: 3 Designs

Life-

Cycle

Cos

t (US

D, M

illio

ns)


275k 280k 285k 290k 295k165

180

195

210

225

285k

Results: Life-Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint

+

KEY

Baseline

Reduced Carbon

Reduced Cost









Results: Summary

CONVENTIONAL MDO

PROCESS

Design cycle time 34 hrs 11 sec

Alternatives evaluated 3 21,360

Set-up time 60 hrs 140 hrs

Total design time 162 hrs 182 hrs

PRODUCT

Life-cycle cost saving (USD)

- $27 M

Carbon Footprint Reduction (CO2e)

- 10 kt

I have made all my generals out of mud. Napoleon

building information modeling: state-of-the-art practice ... · building information modeling:...

Documents