Upload
duongmien
View
260
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GIS + BIM = Integrated Project Delivery @ Penn State
D L A C o n f e r e n c e 2 0 1 2 | B e r n b u r g - D e s s a u , G e r m a n y
David E. Goldberg Robert J. Holland Scott W. Wing
(Image: Creative Logic, 2011)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
BIM in Landscape Architecture • American Institute of Architects (AIA) asks architects
to take the lead in applying BIM technology • Client/owners are requiring BIM models • “Those who control the data … control the design” • “Landscape architects may be left behind without
BIM” • Unfortunately, BIM software is not well designed for
site modeling!
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Owners, designers and contractors are exploring BIM as a way to change the design and construction process to produce more coordinated buildings at lower life-cycle cost with less risk, shorter project schedules and, potentially, facilitate more sustainable designs.
(Sipes, 2007; Sipes, 2008)
If BIM is not designed for site modeling, how do we educate landscape architecture students in BIM? … so they are not left behind.
T H E C H A L L E N G E
The answer might be in the delivery process and not in the technology.
T H E A N S W E R ?
(AIA, 2007)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Integrated Project Delivery
• At the core of an integrated project are collaborative, integrated and productive teams composed of key project participants.
• Building upon early contributions of individual expertise, these teams are guided by principles of – trust – transparent processes – effective collaboration – open information sharing – team success tied to project success – shared risk and reward – value-based decision making – utilization of full technological
capabilities and support • The outcome is the opportunity to
design, build, and operate as efficiently as possible.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
( AIA, 2007)
IPD leverages early contributions of knowledge and expertise through utilization of new technologies, allowing all team members to better realize their highest potentials while expanding the value they provide throughout the project lifecycle
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
BIM & Integrated Project Delivery • BIM is a catalyst for team collaboration • BIM is an enabling technology for IPD • IPD is promoted by many trades and disciplines within
the building industry, but is not promoted by landscape architecture profession
M E T H O D S
(Eastman, 2008; Deutsch, 2011; AIA, 2007)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
The Studio Collaborative • Involves students and faculty from architecture,
landscape architecture and 4 distinct architectural engineering disciplines in a design studio project.
• Provides an opportunity for students to not only become proficient in new digital tools, but perhaps more importantly, exposing them to a more “real world” collaborative design process.
M E T H O D S
“The architectural design and construction process is highly interdisciplinary. The accrediting boards of the allied disciplines require collaboration as a learning component. While they do not specify how this collaboration occurs they only ask that is achieved.”
(Poerschke, 2011)
Arch
itect
ure
Land
scap
e
Engi
neer
ing
IPD
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
The Studio Collaborative • Part 1 – BIM Execution Plan • Part 2 – Conceptual Design • Part 3 – Schematic Design • Part 4 – Design Development • Part 5 – Final Design
M E T H O D S
BIM Execution Plan ( Determine how project will be integrated, including
conflict resolutions and data interoperability )
Conceptual Design ( Develop overall design goals based on program and precedent
research )
Schematic Design ( Develop 2 Design Scenarios with rough cost estimates )
Design Development ( Integrate 1 Design into a BIM with refined cost estimates )
Final Design ( Final Visualizations and rationale to cost Variance )
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Project Selection • Complex enough for semester-long
endeavor • Program elements include all
disciplines • Real client, project team and detailed
design information of project • Local project • Optimum building size is 20,000 SF
M E T H O D S
2010 Studio Project – Daycare Center 2011 Studio Project – Elementary School
2012 Studio Project – Recreation Building
(Creative Logic, 2011; Project Synergy, 2012; esseo, 2012; Integrated Inc. 2012)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Team Selection • Studio sought highly motivated students • Requested letters of interest • Team selected based on 3 questions:
– whom do you not want o work with? – what is your level of BIM experience? – whom do you want to work with?
“The project team is the lifeblood of IPD. In IPD, project participants come together as an integrated team, with the common overriding goal of designing and constructing a successful project.”
(AIA IPD Guide, 2007)
Students:
Landscape Architecture
Architecture
AE – Construction
AE – Structural
AE – Mechanical
AE – Lighting + Electrical
M E T H O D S
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Team Selection • Five teams selected each with a full
compliment of disciplines
Team 2
Team 3
Team 5
Team 1
Team 4
“A key component of IPD is the early formation of the design and construction team, and the collaboration and contribution of knowledge and experience from all members of the project team.” (Flohr, 2011)
M E T H O D S
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Studio Space: Integrated • Physical computer lab where hardware and
software is available for all disciplines • Current configurations are not ideal for
collaboration • Face to face interaction with team and
instructors
M E T H O D S
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Studio Space: Virtual • Student were encouraged to work from their
preferred space and and collaborate using remote access software such as TeamViewer.
• ASUS Slate notebooks were used to facilitate team collaboration.
• Virtual critiques by professional consultants were also possible with remote access software.
M E T H O D S
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Studio Space: Presentations • Teams present their project in three phases:
Schematic Design, Design Development and Final Design to outside jury, faculty, and peers.
• 3-screen presentations (made it difficult for remote jury)
M E T H O D S
(esseo, 2012)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Faculty & External Collaboration • Studio is a combination of three discipline courses.
Faculty for each course is assigned to the course. • Outside practitioners who are working on the
same project are invited to “speed consulting” sessions.
• External professionals not related to project were invited to serve on final design jury.
M E T H O D S
Speed Consulting Sessions
Final Design Jury
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
The BIM Integration • BIM tools such as Autodesk Revit are not well
designed for landscape architectural needs • Landscape students have utilized other
software applications to contribute to the IPD teams including Autodesk Civil 3D
M E T H O D S
“While Autodesk provides almost a limitless library of building, structural, and mechanical components, its landscape components are limited.” (Flohr, 2011)
(Terra Vexillum, 2011; Creative Logic, 2011, Project Synergy. 2012)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
The GIS Integration • In 2012, GIS was only limited to inventory
mapping for campus features. • In 2011, GIS was used to map natural
factors and favorable areas for program elements were delineating with spatial analyst, then converted to vectors to be imported into Revit.
M E T H O D S
(esseo, 2012; Creative Logic, 2011)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Other Technologies • Google SketchUp for conceptual design • Autodesk 3ds Max for renderings • Adobe Photoshop for rendering refinements • Physical modeling with chip board • 3D printing of Rhino terrains
M E T H O D S
Architecture: Revit Architecture, Sketchup, AutoCAD, Ecotect and 3ds Max, Project Vasari
Landscape Architecture: Revit Architecture, Civil 3D, Rhinoceros, SketchUp, ArcGIS Desktop
Architectural Engineering: Revit MEP, Navisworks(4D and Clash Detection), Timberline (cost estimating), GBS (energy modeling), RAM (structural), Primavera (schedule), ETABS, DAYSIM, RISA-2D, STAAD Pro, Trance Trace, eQUEST ,and AGi32.
(ICE Design, 2012)
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Future Studios • Improve Collaborative Studio Space • More challenging landscape design programs • Increase the use of BIM analysis for selecting final
design scenarios and cost estimates. • Expand sites to better utilize GIS • Improve Virtual Studio Experience Collaborative workspace at Texas Tech
University (top), Penn State Collaborative BIM Studio space (below)
C O N C L U S I O N S
Goldberg | Holland | Wing
Future Research Questions • What impact does the Collaborative Interdisciplinary
BIM/IPD studio have on a students’ discipline knowledge?
• Does the BIM/IPD process restrict the creativity of the designers? Is the resulting design good architecture?
• What is the ideal collaborative environment workspace for BIM/IPD studios?
C O N C L U S I O N S
Flohr, T. (2011). A Landscape Architect’s Review of Building Information Modeling Technology. Landscape Journal: design, planning, and management of the land 30(1), 169-170. University of Wisconsin Press.
Poerschke, U., Holland, R.J., Messner, J.I., & Pihlak, M. (2011): BIM collaboration across six disciplines. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nottingham University Press.
Sipes, James L. (2007): Applying Building Information Modeling to Landscape Architecture. American Society of Landscape Architects Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA 2007.
Sipes, James L. (2008): Integrating BIM Technology Into Landscape Architecture. Landscape Architectural Technical Information Series, Number 1.
R E F E R E N C E S
AIA, AIA California Council. Integrated Project Delivery Guide.
Deutsch, Randy (2011). BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Eastman, Chuck (2008). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Team esseo: Mahzad Tashakori, Laurie Beth Donnachie, Josh Progar, Josh Wentz, Asher Harder, Patrick Laninger
Team Integrated Inc.: Jeff Brown, Kaylynn Primerano, Alex Byard, Melanie Fonner, Kyle Houserm Devon Saunders
Team ICE Design: Pat Allen, Matt Fogarty, Bryan Heritage, Craig Karduck, Brian LaChance, Nick Ramondo
Team Cutting Edge Solutions: Frank Campisino, Eric Cook, Laura Gottschall, Matt Hoerner, Chang Liu, Dave Milliken
Team Project Synergy: Amanda Montemore, Kevin Mokos, Punit Das, Dan McGee, Chris Pozza, Keith McMullen
S T U D E N T W O R K S H O W N
Team Creative Logic: Mahzad Tashakori, Laurie Beth Donnachie, Josh Progar, Josh Wentz, Asher Harder, Patrick Laninger
Team Terra Vexillum: Neeraj Chatterji, Jesse Cornacchione, Nate Babyak, Brian Sampson, Joseph Becker, Sarah Bell
2011
2012
A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S
David E. Goldberg Practitioner Instructor of Landscape Architecture
Robert J. Holland Professor of Practice of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
Scott W. Wing Associate Professor of Architecture Pennsylvania State University