cr and-vm-reduced
DESCRIPTION
Augmented RealityTRANSCRIPT
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWAND VIRTUAL MOCKUPS
BIM for Constructability Review of Building Envelopes:Examples and Best PracticesDace A Campbell AIA LEED AP // BNBuildersDace A. Campbell, AIA, LEED AP // BNBuilders
Virtual Mockups: A Collaborative SolutionRick Khan, LEED AP // Mortenson Construction
BNBuildersSignificant work inSignificant work in collaborative, integrated delivery
Integrated Project Delivery
Founded in 2000
Headquartered in SeattleSan Francisco San Diego Portland Montana Design-Build
GC/CMNegotiated work
Key markets
San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Montana
$300+ million in annual volume
250+ employees Key marketsLife Science and ResearchHealthcare / Medical FacilitiesPublic / Civic SpacesOffices and Corporate HeadquartersEd ti (K 12 d Hi h Ed ti )
250 employees
$10K-$70M projects
National Recognition Education (K-12 and Higher Education)Mixed-Use FacilitiesHospitalityCommercial / Retail
National Recognition2010 - ENR Top 400 Contractor2009, 2008, 2007 - AGC of America Construction Safety Excellence Award2008 - Winner of AGC’s Grand Award for
BIMIn use since 2006Applied to $500M and 2M s.f. in new constructionF PE’ d S t BIM
Safety Excellence for Mid-Size Companies2008 ENR Best of the Best Award for Project Management2008 AIA BIM Award
Focus on PE’s and Supts as BIM usersRecognized as national and local leader
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Mortenson Construction
Family owned and operated since 1954
Headquarters in Minneapolis, MN
Seven Geographic office Locations
Five industry-specific operating groups
International operations in China
2,200 team members
Leadership, stability & financial growth
$2.3 Billion in Revenue - 2010
Strong repeat customer base
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Mortenson VDC Timeline
© Copyright 2010 Mortenson Construction
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
WHY BIM?
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW
BEST PRACTICES
VIRTUAL MOCKUPSVIRTUAL MOCKUPS
WHAT’S NEXTWHAT S NEXT
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
WHY BIM?
Why BIM?
We’re inefficient30-60% waste
We’re unproductive40-year decreaseManufacturing sectors have doubled
Source: CII & LCI 2004
We’re wastefulConsume 40% of global raw materialsg
We’re deadly4 deaths in construction daily
Why BIM?BIM as simulation
Unlike manufacturing, there is only one chance to “get it right” in constructionthere is only one chance to get it right in constructionMockups are expensive and time-consuming
BIM is a “virtual prototype”Build it virtually to perfect the product and process
Simulate the building to:Increase Reduce
ConfidenceUnderstandingCommunication
Delivery timeProject costWasteInjuriesju esConflicts & RFIs
Why BIM?
Don’t do rework.
Do prework.
“Top 10” Uses of BIM in Construction
0 Design Visualization1. Surveying2. Design Assistance &
Constructability Review3 Site Planning & Site Utilization3. Site Planning & Site Utilization4. “4D” Scheduling and Sequencing5. “5D” Model-Based Estimating6. Subcontractor/Supplier
Communications7. Systems Coordination7. Systems Coordination8. Fabrication and Installation9. Prefabrication10.Operations and Maintenance
“Top 10” Uses of BIM in Construction
0 Design Visualization1. Surveying
Analyze and test “means and methods” while preserving design intent2. Design Assistance &
Constructability Review3 Site Planning & Site Utilization
design intent
Quality control of design documents3. Site Planning & Site Utilization
4. “4D” Scheduling and Sequencing5. “5D” Model-Based Estimating
BIM exposes potential errors and omissions in design documentation
Design assistance6. Subcontractor/Supplier Communications
7. Systems Coordination
Design assistance and detailing
Ensure design can be built to meet targeted schedule, cost, and quality7. Systems Coordination
8. Fabrication and Installation9. Prefabrication
quality
Virtual MockupsPrototype complex details and inter10.Operations and Maintenance details and inter-disciplinary assemblies for quality control
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW
Laboratory Expansion and T.I.
WEST ELEVATION
DESIGN COORDINATION MODEL
CURTAINWALL SECTIONCURTAINWALL SECTION
L2 STRUCTURAL FRAMING PLAN
CURTAINWALL SILL DETAILL2 ENLARGED WEST STAIR PLAN
Laboratory Expansion and T.I.
Laboratory Expansion and T.I.
Library and City Hall
Library and City Hall
Five Community Libraries
Five Community Libraries
Community Youth CenterBuilt detailed model of cornerBuilt detailed model of corner condition based on architect’s 2D section detailsAnalyzed condition as designed: complicated formwork vs. trades out of psequenceDeveloped alternative detail and submitted to design team for review and approval
Laboratory Core and Shell
Laboratory Core and Shell
Construction SequencingConstruction Sequencing
Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion
Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion
EXIST 1936 EXIST 1936NEW 2010EXIST 1936BUILDING
EXIST 1936 BUILDING
NEW 2010 ADDITION
ROOFING MEMBRANE
Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion
ALUMINUMSCREEN FRAME VAPOR BARRIER
RIGID INSULATION
ROOFING MEMBRANE
ROOF SHEATHING
SCREEN FRAME
ALUMINUMPANEL SYSTEM
VAPOR BARRIER
RIGID INSULATION
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
METAL DECK W/ CONCRETE
TOPPING
METAL STUD FRAME
STRUCTURAL STEEL
ACTWINDOWS
Tribal Early Childhood Education Center
Community College Science Building
Community College Science Building
Concrete elevated deckCurtain wall embedsPlumbing deck penetrationsPost-tensioned cablesShear stud railsMild steel reinforcement
Tribal K-12 School CampusSt t l t l h llStructural steel vs. hollow metal door and window frames(4) unique conditions repeated throughoutrepeated throughout campusFinding these issues saved up to 6 weeks of delay
Laboratory Core and Shell
ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL
2nd FLOOR SLAB CURB
SHOP DRAWING DETAILED COMPOSITE MODEL
Enabled BNB to discover and resolve discrepancies between design intent and means/methodsTo fix this in the field would have cost $25,000 in rework, weeks of delayNot catching this would have meant certain failure of the building enclosureEliminate conflicts reduce rework lower costs = happy subs and higher quality workEliminate conflicts, reduce rework, lower costs = happy subs and higher quality work
Brewery/Winery/Food FacilitySupporting design dialogue in detailingAsking and answering RFI’sAsking and answering RFI s
Brewery/Winery/Food Facility
Model used to study interface between plaster, roofing, and parapet capRoofing/Plaster/Flashing details being worked out by teamusing Revit design model & SketchUpCollaborative problem-solving “means and methods” togetherSolution developed, printed, and signed-off in meeting
Tribal Behavioral Health ClinicInconsistent design docs
Uncoordinated footing depthsComplicated brick ledgersComplex pourback conditions at exterior column locations
Details Revised
Tribal Behavioral Health ClinicIsolate and analyze a single scope of work
Create task-specific views of the modelp
Illustrate and clarify design docsSupport RFIsPreserve design intent
Generate Field DrawingsPlans, Sections, & 3DPlans, Sections, & 3DReference complete details in construction docsComplete dimensions – no math in the field!11” x 17” for easy duplication and laminationApproval/sign-off for QC
Make installation clear and obviousColor-codedEasy to understand “IKEA” instructionsEasy to understand IKEA instructions
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
BEST PRACTICES
BIM “Rules of Engagement” for Building EnclosuresBNB’s suggested best practices for using BIMin design and construction
Apply “Lean” principlespp y p pAssume interdisciplinary collaboration, even IPDPrepare models anticipating “downstream” use by future parties
Best practices based on real-world experienceBy applying BIM to $500M of construction30+ projects with several A/E’s and ownersAcross wide range of building types and delivery types
For your consideration on future projectsy p jNot a “manifesto,” just a work-in-progressPublished regionally and nationallyTargeted towards designers and ownersWill inform our next generation of contractsBNB wants your feedback!
1. Model FirstBuild the model first, then draft over 2D extractions
Draft only to format graphics
ABC
or to add, but not change, information
In this workflow, there should be no discrepancies between models & drawings in terms of:
scopesizelocationnumber of objects/componentsnumber of objects/components
Any discrepancies between the model and drawingsshould be limited to level-of-detail
For BNB, we are responsible for noting discrepancies discovered between models/drawings, design team is responsible for reconciling them
* Discipline is required to for newbies not to stray from “new” workflow
2. Share the ModelShare the source model data with others
Publish it at moments “frozen” in time consistent with document delivery milestones (50% DD, etc)( , )
Ask for the model from others, upstream and downstreamp
All model data to be compatible with industry standardsy
For BNB, acceptable file formats include RVT, DWG, NWC, IFC
PDF’s and screenshots helpful for visual reference, but not much more
* A/E’s have concern about ability to “lock down” proprietary information like custom families
3. Assign ResponsibilityDetermine early who is responsible for modeling which project
scope (and when)
Ideal: Do It YourselfIf you would traditionally draw/design something, then you should be the one to model ityExample: architect would model plumbing or electrical fixtures, engineer would model pipes/conduits connecting to them)
Model it only onceNo duplicate elements between disciplinesFor BNB we can check accurate quantities and generate estimatesFor BNB, we can check accurate quantities and generate estimates
* Most BIM software doesn’t inherently support this way of working* Most BIM software doesn t inherently support this way of working, we need creative workarounds to borrow/copy data between disciplines
4. Level of DetailAccuracy is more important than detail
Minimum suggested detail in the model is consistent with what would traditionally be shown in drawing setsy g
1/8” scale plans, sections, elevations1-1/2” scale detail plans/sections
Abstractions for some shapes are okay as long as everything is in the right place
Example: extrusion cross-section of windowlli t i t t t l filmullion not as important as external profile
Do not use dimension overridesFor BNB we can transfer XYZ coordinates from the model to northing eastingFor BNB, we can transfer XYZ coordinates from the model to northing, easting, elevation points for survey/layout
* Some BIM software is good with LOD control,Some BIM software is good with LOD control,and warns against dimension overrides
5. Model Standards & Digital HygieneCoordinates
Determine, publish, and promote a single project originDo NOT rely on Revit “shared coordinates” which are not exportable downstream y pto other applications
Publish the relationship between the building/grid and a site datum (like the state plane coordinate system or local survey datum)
For BNB, sea-level for Z=0 is preferred for construction layout, but not critical if the design team picks another vertical datum
N iNamingKeep file names consistent and overwrite themDo not include dates within the file nameInstead archive backups in folders with dates/descriptions
* These practices are fundamental to file sharing and collaboration, p g ,and shouldn’t be new to most teams with good CAD standards.
6. PhasingManage “phases” to distinguish work conditions:
Existing to-remainDemolitionDemolitionProposed work
* Consistent with traditional A/E scope of work, d i f d fil i f d l dand important for downstream filtering of model data
7. Support Bid PackagesOrganize and structure the model in a way
that reflects anticipated bid packages
For BNB, we can include colored, highlighted views of the model to supplement traditional bid packagesOther work can be shown halftone or transparent for referenceOther work can be shown halftone or transparent for referenceBeyond geometry, leverage the “I” in BIM
VS.
* E d t diti l A/E d li bl* Exceeds traditional A/E deliverables,but easily accomplished with thoughtful use of BIM tools
8. Reflect Means and MethodsBuild the model anticipating typical construction means & methods
Avoid using “cheats” or shortcuts to represent an objectif there is a better BIM component/family available
Example: don’t use Revit curtain walls for doors or punched windows Example: don’t use Revit walls to wrap columns
Model structural and architectural elementsto reflect likely construction logic
For BNB e can pro ide inp t regarding constr ction joints and seq encingFor BNB, we can provide input regarding construction joints and sequencingExample: don’t use a single 4-story concrete column if it will be site-cast as (4) one-story columns, but a 2-story steel column is okay if that’s the way it’s fabricated/erected
Details still best left to detailers
* There’s more than one way to model, but often there is a “best” way
9. Revisions: Managing ChangeDevelop a strategy early for revision control during design and construction
Publish models in (near) real-time with frequent/nightly data transfers so everybody has (nearly) live and up to date data at all timeshas (nearly) live and up-to-date data at all timesUse technology that supports collaboration, not just allows communicationFor BNB, a common/shared project server is superior to frequent postings and downloads with an FTP site
Team should determine how to manage changes to the design (or as-builts) during/after coordination and construction
* Revision control and management continues plague our industry. Not unique to BIM, but cultural issues magnified by the technology.
10. Test early, test oftenImmediately, all team members contribute sample, representative data to be compiled and coordinated
Verify alignment of geometry in single master model
Supplement early model submissions with screenshots from your pp y ynative software so others can verify what they see (versus what you hope they might see)
* Not unique to BIM, just common sense!
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
VIRTUAL MOCKKUPS
Building what’s next.© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Mortenson ConstructionVirtual Mockups – A Collaborative SolutionRick Khan, LEED APSenior Integrated Construction Manager
San Diego, CAFebruary 10, 2011
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
IntroductionsWhat are Virtual Mockups How do we use Virtual Mockups Physical Mockup vs. Virtual
Mockup Project Case Studies Safety planning / Construction
Sequencing Quality plan / Inspections Subcontractor model
coordination / Physical Mockup
Value of Virtual Mockups
Why?
Virtual Mockups: Agenda
How?What?
Increase CollaborationIncrease Communication
Increase Planning
Eliminate Interpretation
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
2D or 3D - You be the judge…
The answer maybe obvious…
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Virtual Mockup? (VM)
Level of Development = 400 (AIA E202 model progression spec)Model elements are modeled as specific assemblies, accurate in terms of quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation. Model elements are virtual representation of the proposed element and are suitable for construction.
Highly detailed 3D model used as the central medium of collaboration to resolve constructability issues virtually prior to construction activities
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
How?
High Risk Planning - Enclosure
Quality Planning / Inspection
Safety Planning
Physical Mockup Review
Construction Sequencing
Micro Level 4D
Integrating:
Owner
Design Team
Construction Team
Virtual Mockups – 3D Constructability
Effective Virtual problem solving through Collaboration
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
How?
PLAN Project team identifies high risk areas
Gather data from all sources
SIMLATE Verify data
Generate 3D Model
Identify problems
Review Integrated team meetings
Model = Live meeting minutes
Distribute updates to team
Approve Document solutions – Shop Drawings
Individual party approval per scope
Construction team implementation
Virtual Mockup Process
Start with the End in Mind!
3D VirtualMockup
MortensonConstruction
CM/GC
Owner
DesignTeam
TradeContractors
ProductManufacturer
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Why?
Physical Mockups
Non collaborative approach
Inefficiencies of physical mockup process
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
1800 Larimer Office BuildingDenver, Colorado
Physical Mockup
Most projects require a physical mockup per the contract which may include an exterior and/or interior mockup
Problems uncovered during construction of physical mockup One physical mockup doesn’t address
all conditions! Delays actual constructable solutions Expensive – time, material, labor Wasteful – usually destroyed
Limitations of a Physical Mockup
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Why only build one Physical Mockup…
When you can build multiple virtual mockups for a fraction of the cost!
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Virtual Mockup should be used as part of the Physical Mockup planning process!
Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
This Virtual Mockup provided a VALUE ADD to the physical mockup requirement!
Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Project Case Studies
Safety Planning / Construction Sequencing
Ballard Medical Office BuildingSwedish Medical Center Completed
Customer
HealthCare Real Estate Solutions / Swedish HealthArchitect
CallisonConstruction Cost
$35 million
Location
Ballard, Washington
Size
90,000 sf
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality / Safety Planning
Micro level 4D – High Detail
Focus on the install sequence
Safety Planning integration
Pinch points
Material Handling
Worker access / movements
Equipment movement
Scaffolding
Trade workflow
Integrated Work Planning
Micro level 4D allowed us to plan effectively for the entire building.
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Project Case Studies
Quality / Inspection PlanExempla Lutheran Medical CenterNorth Pavilion AdditionCompleted
Customer
Exempla HealthcareArchitect
H+L ArchitectureConstruction Cost
$143 million
Location
Wheat Ridge, CO
Size
295,000 SF addition
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality / Inspection Plans
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joints
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality Plan / Inspection
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality Plan / Inspection
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality Plan / Inspection
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality Plan / Inspection
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Quality Plan / Inspection
Integrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint
5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing 2D design details did not address direction change Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process
3D VirtualMockup
CM/GC
Owner
DT
SUBS
P/F
PLAN
SIMULATE
REVIEW
APPROVE
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Project Case Studies
Subcontractor Coordination / Physical MockupRalph L. Carr Colorado Judicial CenterIn Progress
Customer
Trammell CrowArchitect
Fentress ArchitectsConstruction Cost
$195 million
Location
Denver, CO
Size
600,000 SF
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Subcontractor Coordination / Physical Mockup
Fast Track Schedule
Construction activities begin before design completion
Virtual Mockups process becomes part of design completion / constructability solution
Subcontractor providing LOD 400 Enclosure Models per MC Contract
Clash Detection between enclosure scopes
Spray Foam Insulation Physical Mockup
Bridging the overlap between design and Construction
Subcontractor Model Scopes:
Gage - Precast
Cold Spring / Gallegos – Handset stone
Trainor – Curtain wall / Glazing
Mortenson – Cast in Place Concrete
Zimmerman - Steel
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup
Physical Mockup – VDC IWP work packages Integrating design and construction team in
collaborative problem solving for design detailing
Design team provide higher level design detailing as result of integrated work flow
Early Virtual Mockups prior to design completion
Virtual Mockup assisted in completion of design detailing,eliminating interpretation and
potential re-work
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup
New level of enclosure modeling LOD 400 Required new coordination efforts Performed clash detection between trades
Stone vs. Precast Precast vs. Steel supports Stone/Precast vs. Concrete (wall base
conditions/haunch beam) Precast Foam Insulation vs. Others Steel Fire Proofing vs. Others
Subcontractor Enclosure Coordination
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup
Spray Foam is a high risk activity Complex design and constructability of
enclosure required further investigation Construction team Virtual and Physical
Mockup solved critical application issues
Spray Foam Insulation VM & PM
1
23
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Value of Virtual Mockups
Plan the Work, Work the Plan!
Increase CommunicationIncrease Collaboration
Eliminate Interpretation
Increase Planning
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Cost Aversion Example
1800 Larimer Office BuildingDenver, Colorado
Enclosure Cost of one physical Mockup = $56,700 Constructed 1st and then problems were resolved
Cost of Physical Mockup
PHYSICAL MOCK-UP COSTPrecast: $22,000Curtain Wall: $25,000Framing: $5,000Caulking: $1,200Foundation: $3,500 TOTAL $56,700
© Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
Cost Aversion Example
Reduce waste = greener solution Saved time, material, labor = owner cost! Increased visual communication and
collaborative solution for all project stakeholders
Value of Virtual Mockup
Let’s say that we had to build 4 physical mockups to capture all the conditions on the enclosure to
address the high risk factors!Cost Aversion Calculation:
Cost of PM $56,700 x 4 = $226,800Cost of 4-VM - $11,680
$215,120Minus cost of 1 PM - $56,700Cost aversion = $158,420
Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups
WHAT’S NEXT
What’s Next
All BIM, all the time
LEGALLEGALModel-sharing more prevalent in AEC
CULTURAL“Old school” designers and builders changing habits, changing careers
REGULATORYAgency review
PHYSICAL“Paperless construction” at project sitesPaperless construction at project sites trending towards Augmented Reality
OPERATIONAL“6D” f BIM“6D” use of BIM to support facilities operations and maintenance
Thank youThank you
[email protected] d Kh @M [email protected]