Journal of Building Information Modeling_fall09

8/4/2019 Journal of Building Information Modeling_fall09

1/44

An official publication of the National Institute of Building SciencesbuildingSMART alliance

Journal of Building Information Modeling

JBIM Fall 2009 National Institute o Building Sciences: An Authoritative Source o Innovative Solutions or the Built Environment

Enables Success on

BIM

WTC MegaProject


2/44


3/44


4/44


5/44Fall 2009 5

P b : The National Institute o Building SciencesbuildingSMART alliance

1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005-4905Phone: (202) 289-7800Fax: (202) [email protected] www.nibs.org PresidentHenry L. Green, Hon. AIA Vice President Earle W. KennettexecutiVe directorDana K. Smith, FAIA buildingSMART alliance TM

P b B : Matrix GrouP PuBlishinG Please return all undeliverable addresses to:16516 El Camino RealSuite 413, Houston, TX 77062Phone: (866) 999-1299Fax: (866) 244-2544President & ceo Jack Andresssenior PuBlisher Maurice P. LaBordePuBlishersPeter SchulzJessica PotterTrish Birdeditor-in-chieShannon Savory [email protected]

inance/accountinG & adMinistrationShoshana Weinberg, Pat Andress, [email protected]

director o MarketinG &circulationShoshana Weinberg sales ManaGerNeil Gott redBook leaderRick KuzieMatrix GrouP PuBlishinG accountexecutiVes Albert Brydges, Davin Commandeur, LewisDaigle, Miles Meagher, Ken Percival, Lesley Dion, Frank Christmann, Brian Davey, WilmaGray-Rose, Chris Frezna, Declan ODonovan,Je Cash, Andrew Ducharme adVertisinG desiGnJames Robinsonlayout & desiGnTravis Bevan2009 Matrix Group Publishing. All rightsreserved. Contents may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission o the publisher. The opinionsexpressed in JBIM are not necessarily those o Matrix Group Publishing.

Contents

JBIM

on he c ver: This BIM modelimage is overlaid withprojected 4D WTCsite constructionprogress. Courtesy and Copyright 2009LMCCC and Gehry Technologies, Inc.

Cover Story:

14 BIM as a Risk ManagementPlat orm Enabling IntegratedPractice and Delivery

Expanding Thought:

18 Per ormance Speci cationsor Building In ormationExchange

Case Studies/Best Practices:

21 AIA-TAP BIM Repeat Award Winners: Strengths andOpportunities

26 A Coast Guard Plot to MakeBetter Facility Decisions

Economics:

28 BIM or ElectricalConstruction: Bene ts andCurrent Trends

Life cycle/Technology Spotlight:

30 Building In ormation Modelsand Model Views Part 4Education:

35 A Modest Proposal or aTransdisciplinary Curriculumor the Design, Construction,

Management andMaintenance o Architecture

News & Updates:

38 buildingSMART alliance Interest GroupsUpdate39 Join the Alliance: You are Critical to ourSuccess40 Support the Alliance

41 Buyers Guide

Messages:

07 Message rom the National Institute o Building Sciences09 Message rom the Executive Director o thebuildingSMART alliance11 Message rom the National BIM Standard Executive Committee13 Message rom the Chair o the U.S. NationalCAD Standard Project Committee

14

21


6/44


7/44Fall 2009 7

THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IS AT A CROSSROADS. AS WEhere at the National Institute o Building Sciences (Institute) and thebuildingSMART alliance (bSa) place an emphasis on building in or-mation modeling (BIM) and its interrelationship with other building industry practices to achieve success ul projects, we are also working

with Congress to promote high per ormance buildings. The two goalstruly work hand in hand. One direct bene t o engaging BIM in theuse o advanced construction practices is its ability to help achievebuildings that yield greater levels o per ormance and durability.

In September, the Institute and bSa were proud to host a pre-sentation on Capitol Hill or the High Per ormance Building Con-gressional Caucus Coalition that provided a per ect example o BIM bene ts in action. Commander James Dempsey o the U.S.Coast Guard gave a wonder ul demonstration showing how theCoast Guard uses BIM or the construction, use, maintenanceand operation o its acilities. His article in this months edition o the Journal of Building Information Modeling highlights how BIMcan be used as the ramework or decision making in acility asset

management. His presentation, as well as those o buildingSMARTInternational President Patrick MacLeamy and buildingSMART al-liance Executive Director Deke Smith, is available on the Insti-tutes website at www.nibs.org/enews/BIMHPBbrie ng.html.

BIM is becoming the plat orm or work in many areas o designand construction. The ability to share in ormation at all stages o the construction process helps owners to gain the greatest possi-ble e ciencies and savings throughout the li e cycle o their acili-ties. Simply addressing the potential or system conficts during the design phase o the project and nding scheduling problemsduring the construction phase can mean substantial savings inoverall costs by eliminating the need or redesign o systems ormodi cation o e uipment during installation.

To improve the sustainability o our built environment, we needto be mind ul o the many attributes that must be measured to ully develop high per orming structures. BIM plays an important partin this e ort, assuring in ormation is available to be shared and notlost through the design, construction, ac uisition and occupancy phases o a structure. What better way to gain an understanding o the bene ts o BIM than by attending industry events, such as thebuildingSMART alliance International Con erence?

The Institute and bSa will host the buildingSMART allianceInternational Con erence this December 7-10, in conjunction with the National Institute o Building Sciences Annual Meeting and Ecobuild America. A number o sessions will show how BIM

Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA

Message from the National Institute of Building Sciences

can be used as an essential business tool to streamline costs andimprove overall building per ormance. There will be programsthat highlight the value o BIM through project demonstrationsand workshops, as well as a BIM A uarium and BIM Pavilion. ThebSa Board will host its Annual Meeting during the Con erence todiscuss how to urther advance the utilization o BIM and achieveeven greater interaction between BIM and integrated project de-livery techni ues. The buildingSMART International will holdmeetings and User Groups will convene at the event as well.

In addition, the Institute is sponsoring the Internationalthe High Per ormance Building Con erence being held during Ecobuild. A ull program o sessions will address high per or-mance building and energy e ciency, green building, LEED andsustainable design; and sustainable sites and in rastructure.

By engaging the minds o practitioners in the construction in-dustry, as well as the many tools now available to streamline pro-cesses and improve per ormance, we can implement a true trans-

ormation on both the industry and our uture. Improved li e cycle

per ormance, measured deliverables and saving are the result o aull understanding o the many complex elements o a structureand how each are interconnected. Staying abreast o these excit-ing changes is imperative to their being success ul. The Journal is a great resource to keep you up to date and so is the building SMART alliance International Con erence.

I hope to see you there in December.

Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA President

Join Us & Explore

A New Design Paradigm forEnergy Efcient Buildings

Building Enclosure Science & Technology

Organized by Building Enclosure Technologyand Environment CouncilHosted by Building Enclosure CouncilBEC-Portland

www.TheBestConference.orgRegistration is open!

National Institute of Building SciencesAn Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment

Sponsorshipand ExhibitorOpportunities

Available*

*Contact: Bud Henson


8/44


9/44Fall 2009 9

I OFTEN GET qUESTIONS RELATED TOhow people can get more involved in thebuildingSMART alliance and developing the National BIM Standard . Up until now, ithas been a bit di cult to answer since many

o the projects were coming to us already resourced with subject matter experts andunding. While we still expect many projects

to ollow that same path, we now have theability to get more people involved at vari-ous levels. The advent o the new Allianceportal is at the heart o this improvement incommunication.

Project sites based on the portal will be where the standards work is accomplished.

Lets walk through some o your optionstogether. First, please remember that asa member o the Alliance you are already

contributing to support the very important work o worldwide experts, all ocused onopen BIM standards. Even i you are not ac-tively participating, your unds are support-ing these essential e orts.

The new public website (www.buildings-martalliance.org), supported by the portal, will now give you ar more insight into whate orts are underway. Status in ormation willbe provided directly and instantaneously by the project managers. This is your opportu-nity to get a real-time glimpse into the work being accomplished.

I you are new to the Alliance, you shouldrst amiliarize yoursel with the public

website to become amiliar with the vision,mission and strategic goals o the Alliance. You will nd a wealth o in ormation there,especially under Resources, including help in nding an Interest Group in yourarea or someone to speak at a meeting orcon erence rom our speakers bureau. Youshould also review the material on the WholeBuilding Design Guide (WBDG) site (www. wbdg.org) under the BIM tab, which links

Dana K. Smith, FAIA

Message from the Executive Director of the buildingSMART alliance

to other material on that site and externally.The WBDG site has more than 2.5 millionuni ue document downloads a month andone o its largest growth areas is the numbero .EDU addresses.

Another source o in ormation is thebuildingSMART International site (www.buildingsmart.com). Visiting there will give you a look at the work in progress at theinternational level, much o which can be

uite technical. The buildingSMART Inter-national sites name will be changing soon,however, there is a link rom our ront pageto the site.

Should you wish to get actively involvedin a project on our site, there are variouslevelsobserver, reviewer or subject matterexpert. You can also get involved as a project

manager on a new project. Subject matterexperts are the ones doing the actual work on a day-to-day basis and re uire the great-est investment o time. We owe so much tothese experts, who volunteer their time togive back to the industry.

I you want to work on a new project, look at the projects re uiring resources. I you area subject matter expert in one o the areas,contact the project manager directly. I youhave the necessary skills they need, they will grant you access to the project. Pleaseremember that project managers try to havea balance rom the sectors de ned in the In-stitutes enabling legislation, which includesnot only architects but engineers, contrac-tors, insurers, unions, manu acturers, legal,housing, vendors, owners, consumers, stateand ederal government, codes and stan-dards, and testing.

As mentioned earlier, some projects arerun by other organizations or agencies as-sociated with the Alliance so subject matterexperts may already be selected. However,expert observers and product reviewers

are o ten needed in most cases. Having theNBIMS consensus process put in place willultimately help en orce the broad-basedindustry involvement as well. The process,along with a balloting and voting module,

will be added to the portal site in the nearuture. All members have access to the portal. I

you are involved with a speci c project, youcan see the work o that project and partici-pate in the development e ort. The portal will only allow you to see projects with which you are associated. I you want to see the en-tire project list, just visit the public site.

All members who have become NBIMSProject Committee members will be eligibleto vote on all balloted items. O course, i you are a Project Committee member, it is

important that you be involved in the proj-ects and understand what is being proposed

or the standard.I you have a problem that you do not

see being addressed by the Alliance, pleasecomplete a Project Creation Form re uest, which can be ound on the website underStarting a New Project.

I all else ails and you still have ues-tions, please do not hesitate to contact me.This is important work and there is plenty tobe accomplished. The Alliance is certainly not doing it all. In act, o ten we are point-ing the direction to where the work is being accomplished and helping to ensure it allcomes together in the end.

I am looking orward to meeting you orcatching up with you at the buildingSMARTalliance International Con erence in De-cember. The Con erence is a tremendousopportunity or you to witness rsthand allo the issues being discussed. Please eel reeto come and chat.

Dana K. Smith, FAIA

The advent o the new Alliance portal is at the heart o thisimprovement in communication. Project sites based on the portal

will be where the standards work is accomplished.


10/44


11/44Fall 2009 11

THE NATIONAL BIM STANDARD (NBIMS) version 1.0, frst released in 2007, was the

frst comprehensive attempt to establish avision or standardized data exchanges andprocesses or building in ormation model-ing (BIM). Since 2007 the industry has mademany strides orward in BIM adoption butlittle attempt has been made to adopt theprecepts put orth in the NBIMS.

Through his leadership, Alan Edgar hasmade strong e orts to move the NBIMSrevision process orward. Un ortunately,recent changes in his work-related du-ties preclude Alans urther. The building SMART alliance would like to express its

sincere gratitude or Alans e ort and wish-es him the best in his new responsibilitiesat OSCRE.

As the new Director o the NBIMS proj-ect, I would also like to express my person-al gratitude or Alans assurance that whilehe was no longer able to direct the processhe would be willing to assist in any way hecould (time permitting).

In spite o current economic condi-tions, these are exciting times or the builtenvironment.

So tware programs are making quan-tum leaps orward; owners, designers andcontractors are adopting BIM processes asthe norm rather than the exception; and

or the frst time in orty years, construc-tion sector productivity is increasing. Thechallenge o interoperability and data ex-changes between stakeholders remains aprimary impediment to the evolution o model intelligence over time, versus hand-o s and recreated models.

The NBIMS and the U.S. National CAD Standard can play a key role in improving

interoperability and data exchange. To doso it, is imperative that the standard go

through a revision, consensus and adop-tion process. The National CAD Standard

is in the initial stages o the frst major up-date in many years. It will address issuessuch as object naming conventions, andparametric CAD programs that do not uselayers. The National BIM Standard hasidentifed a balloting process and TheRules o Governance are in the fnal stageso review and acceptance. This will clearthe way or reviewing sections as stan-dards candidates and will allow multiplesections to develop simultaneously. Both

standards will be developed with close tiesto each other to avoid gaps, overlaps orcontradictory clauses. The U.S. National CAD Standard will continue to addressCAD and graphics program issues and theBIM Standard will ocus on non-CAD dataexchanges and process standardization.

The task o taking the current visionary position o NBIMS version 1.0 into a trueBIM Standard will not be a small one, orsomething that can be accomplished be-hind closed doors. To ensure widespreadacceptance and adoption will require anopen collaboration between multiple seg-ments o the industry. The challenge willbe to maintain order and orward progressduring the process. To that end, a structureand deliverable schedule with attainablegoals will need to be established. A serieso sections or the standard will be identi-fed and projects will be created to engageteam members in content creation. Aseach section is deemed ready or consen-sus it will undergo a balloting process and,i accepted, will enter the standard.

David Morris

Who should be involved moving orward? I think everyone with an interest

in BIM agrees that standard in orma-tion exchanges o data that are programneutral are key to ongoing success in theprocess.

People or organizations who wish toparticipate in the revision process areencouraged to join the buildingSMARTalliance and when you join, identi y that you wish to be on the NBIMS ProjectCommittee. I you are already a mem-ber o the buildingSMART alliance and would simply like to join the NBIMS orNCS Project Committee, then please select

the join/support tab on the ront page andthen select join or go to the bSa website(www.buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/support/application) and select to join the respective project committee. I you have content items, please add thoseto the portal under NBIMS and Planning Committee Version 2 Content.

The upcoming year will be a busy oneor NBIMS; our goal is to have the dra t

document ready or balloting by mid-yearand a completed release ready by the endo the third quarter. The process can only succeed with the dedicated input, over-sight and assistance o many participants

rom various industry segments.In conclusion, the U.S . National BIM

Standard revision process is alive, moving orward and needs your help to make it an

excellent document that will improve in-teroperability, data exchanges and process.

David MorrisChair, U.S. National BIM Standard Project Committee

Message from the National BIM Standard Executive Committee

The National BIM Standard has identifed a balloting processand The Rules o Governance are in the fnal stages o reviewand acceptance. This will clear the way or reviewing sections as

standards candidates and will allow multiple sections to developsimultaneously.


12/44


13/44Fall 2009 13

several versions now, I know that it wouldbe miraculous to deliver a new version o the NCS in less than, say, 18 months. How-

ever, in 18 months tons o rms will haveimplemented new packages, really withoutthe advantages o having a standard to ol-low.

It is a di erent favor o relevance. Itmight push us into describing a di erentdelivery model. I dont know what thatmodel is yet, but it needs to be able to reactmuch more uickly than the model we areusing today. This is a uestion that the NCSSteering Committee will be working to ad-dress.

I want to talk a little about the mechan-

ics o standards. The National CAD Stan-dard depends to a great extent on volun-teers. There are lots o volunteers giving lots o their time and talents to support aprocess that is known, documented, airand transparent. Over the past year, theNational CAD Standard Steering Commit-tee has been spending time on improving the mechanics that will carry us into thenext version. There has been a terri c redoo the website that will support a muchimproved balloting process, and we are inthe throws o testing all the ins and outs o that process during the all months o 2009 with hopes o opening the ballot process

or NCS Version 5 sometime around therst o the year.

What will the next version o the NCScontain? Well, I dont really know. The me-chanics are that the content comes romthe people who are members o the proj-ect committee, and everyone who owns acopy o the NCS is invited to participateas a member o that committee. There aresome re uirements about how long you

need to have been a member, but by andlarge the content comes rom the industry.

Ballot items are proposed by committee

members, those items are then reviewed by other committee members who have pre-viously volunteered to be on speci c task teams, then its pushed back to the overallproject committee or a comment period,and then its voted on. One o the task teams main purposes is to vet the ballotitems in their particular areas o expertise.Using this overall process, over the courseo several months the next version o theNCS (Version 5) will take shape.

There are a couple other task teams thathave a di erent ocus than reviewing bal-

lots. These are teams like the Implementa-tion Task Team, the Compliance Task Teamand the BIM Task Team. These teams havea research role, investigating ways to help

rms implement the NCS, determining tests or compliance and coming up withthe rst concrete steps in BIM-ing theNCS.

We really have our work cut out or us. We have to get NCS Version 5 published,and we need to rethink the delivery pro-cess or going beyond Version 5. I you area member o the project committee or thebuildingSMART alliance, thank you or your time and interest. And i you have any awesome ideas on how to set and publishstandards instantly while getting the bestinput rom all the knowledgeable olks inthe industry, I would LOVE to hear rom you!

Mark ButlerChair, U.S. National CAD Standard ProjectCommitteeHDR ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions

Mark Butler

Message from the Chair of the U.S. National CAD Standard Project Committee

WE HAD A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSIONat our monthly NCS Steering Committeemeeting recently, which asked the ues-

tion: How will the NCS stay relevant aspeople move to BIM?Last issue I wrote about NCS staying

relevant because you still need to plot yourmodel and NCS is the industry standard

or that. That is all true. I believe that stu ,but that is not really the issue here. As rmsare implementing new BIM tools, there are

uestions about where NCS ts in thatprocess, and i not NCS, then what?

Speaking rom my own experienceMy rm has been happily chugging

along using NCS or several years. Over

that time, the standards issues had sorto aded away. We began implementing a BIM package two years ago. There areenough di erences between the way things worked in CAD and these new tools thatthere are a lot o areas that either NCS cov-ers that are sort o moot (like layers) or thatNCS does not directly address. Many rmsare using an out-o -the-box approach toimplementing these new packages. I dontlike the idea that the vendors are in e ectsetting the standards (not the standard, be-cause each vendor does things di erently).That is not exactly the optimum consensusbased approach that we are striving or.

The BIM Task Team is working to pulltogether le naming in ormation to work better or projects using BIM tools, but I wish we could do 20 times that to help outthose rms who are implementing thesenew tools.

The problem is in the timing. The reality is that with the way we are currently revis-ing the NCS, it takes a lot o time to publishthe standard. Being inside this process or

The BIM Task Team is working to pull together fle namingin ormation to work better or projects using BIM tools, but I

wish we could do 20 times that to help out those frms who areimplementing these new tools.


14/4414 Journal o Building In ormation Modeling

Cover Story

WHILE BUILDING INFORMATION MOD-eling (BIM), sometimes more accurately described as virtual design and construc-tion (VDC), is rapidly gaining traction in thearchitecture, engineering and constructionindustry (AEC). The industry is ar romcapturing the ull value o BIM/VDC andthe innovative practices emanating romBIM that will stimulate a much discussed

industry trans ormation. Still lacking is:The integration o multiple domainsand project stakeholders;Early access to in ormation in supporto the decision making process; andThe ability to manage and mitigateproject risks.The broader value o BIM will re uire col-

laboration among all project stakeholders,early and continuous management o proj-ect risks and value planning, and engineer-ing. This article describes value planning,coupled with an ongoing Risk Management

Program at The Lower Manhattan Construc-tion Command Center (LMCCC). It involvesthe use and implementation o BIM/VDC to

acilitate risk modeling and management onthe reconstruction at the World Trade Center(WTC) site, and is an example o the exten-sion o BIM into a truly integrated practice.

It is a revealing case o the potential appli-cations o BIM that will collectively result inbroad industry change.

Background

The LMCCC was established by execu-tive orders o the Governor o New York State and the Mayor o New York City inNovember 2004. It is charged with coordi-

nation and general oversight o all LowerManhattan construction projects south o Canal Street. These projects are worth morethan $25 billion. The Command Centersmission is to acilitate all construction ac-tivities, and mitigate their impacts on eachother and on the community, while com-municating with the public about the work and its impact. The LMCCC team works with project sponsors to help streamlinedesign and construction schedules, ne-gotiate priorities, coordinate logistics andplan the movement o construction work-

ers, materials and e uipment to the area. Within its Charter, the LMCCC acili-

tates the coordination o design, construc-tion and logistics among the stakeholdersinvolved in the development o the WTCsite. Aspects o the program involve rede-veloping 10 million s uare eet o o ce

space in 5 iconic towers, 1 million s uareeet o retail, an intermodal transportation

hub, the 9/11 memorial and museum, anda per ormance art center. The overall WTCprogram occupies approximately 16 acresand has an aggregate budget o approxi-mately $15 billion dollars.

The proBlem

The WTC mega project has an ambi-tious master plan that involves di erentprogram spaces that are all interconnect-ed spatially and unctionally. Each o theaspects mentioned above has a programsponsor, a bi-state agency (The Port Au-thority o New York and New Jersey, andthe land owner), state and city agencies,and private developers. The design andconstruction are carried out by each o these agencies within the con nes o themaster plan. When the LMCCC embarkedon the design, construction and logistics

coordination or the WTC site in 2006, co-ordination between the di erent projectsponsors was taking place bilaterally butan overall integrated coordination betweenall the stakeholders was lacking.

In response, the LMCCC established theConstruction Coordination Room (CCR).Its goal was to bring all stakeholders to thetable to evaluate and assess the risks as-sociated with the inter aces between theprojects and acilitate the prioritizationand resolution o these inter aces, with key

ocus on the program schedules.The LMCCC established a Risk Man-

agement Process (RMP) to continuously adjust against agreed-upon risks. The RMP was designed to track the project risks andthe mitigation plans and decisions neededto maintain progress and avoid scheduledelays. (Early on, the RMP process revealedmajor scheduling coordination and recon-ciliation issues that may have had majorschedule impacts on the program.)

To validate and structure the process,the LMCCC planned a two-week Risk Based

BIM as a Risk Management Platform Enabling Integrated

Practice and Delivery

A BIM model image illustrating the increase in level o detail and a 4D time marker o the WTC component o the LMCCC program.

By Robert Harvey, PE, Tarek Bahgat, David Gerber, Ph.D., James Kotronis, and David Pysh


15/44Fall 2009 15Fall 2009 15

Value Planning workshop, and solicitedthe input o 22 outside experts in di erentaspects o design and construction. The as-sembled team was tasked to assess the pro-gram scope, the time rames, the logistic andconstruction inter aces between the proj-ects, and provide a structured risk assess-ment and risk analysis, as well as mitigationscenarios that could reduce regional costimpacts, increase bene ts, and establishedan optimal schedule or the program.

The greatest challenge to the workshopsuccess was providing the experts witha uick understanding o the programscope, design drawings and construc-tion schedules. The design documentsamounted to tens o thousands o drawing sheets at di erent design stages, and thecombined project schedules amounted toapproximately 20,000 activities, again at

di erent development stages. The review and understanding o these documentsis a monumental task that would re uiremonths but we only had two days to ac-complish it, at the beginning o the two- week workshop.

The soluTion

The Gehry Technologies (GT) team was brought in to develop and maintain3D and 4D models or the entire site. GT was selected to support the program anduse their strategic consulting experience,

tactical technological and process imple-mentation experience, and digital projecttechnology and product in rastructure. While some o the stakeholders relied on3D modeling or some o the aspects o their projects, LMCCCs RMP and per-petual ongoing coordination re uired thedevelopment o an integrated practice

A BIM model image illustrating the scope o the LMCCC programand projects south o Canal Street.

A BIM 3D and 4D model image illustrating the modeling of construc-tion activities and resources for sequence analysis and risk analysis.

ocused on schedule and project controlsbi-directionally linked to these models.The challenge was to rapidly model andsimulate the program through extending BIM technology into the risk managementplat orm and process. The GT project teamhas been part o the LMCCC, managing theincorporation o 3D, 4D and 5D implica-tions or over 2 years.

The process that the LMCCC imple-mented included the creation o an expan-sive and expanding set o low-level detailBIM models or each o the architecture,civil and engineering concepts. This in-cluded new, old and temporary structures.Prior to the initial risk management work-shop, the LMCCC team and GT were re-

uired to develop a VDC model or the en-tire program consistent with the projects work breakdown schedules and program

schedules provided by the stakeholders.In ormation provided by the stakeholdersranged rom 2D documents, PDFs, 2D CADdrawings and in, some cases, 3D models.The teams approach to the modeling o-cused on optimizing the model level o de-tail and size by ocusing on the inter-proj-ect inter aces and detailing elements which were understood to have signi cant sched-uling impact. The team then incorporatedthe project staging and phasing plans andthe logistics plans as provided by the proj-ect sponsors into the master model. Where

plans were not available, the team utilizedthe schedule logic to represent the most e -

ective constructability approach.The LMCCC developed a summary sched-

ule representing approximately 20,000 activ-ities resulting rom integrating the schedules

or all the projects in the program. The teamthen developed 4D models representative

o the project schedule and integrated them with the site logistics and staging plans pro-vided by stakeholders. The 4D model wasused to acilitate the project review processand provided the team with a clear under-standing o the project inter-dependencies.This provided unprecedented visibility intothe nuances o the schedule coordination.

The process o reducing the complexity and uantity o the tasks was, and is, essen-tial to the workshop coordination process.Through the 4D model, the team acilitat-ed the risk identi cation and uanti ca-tion processes necessary or the LMCCC tomake in ormed and mitigated decisions tocomplete the projects.

With the 3D and 4D models linked by the team, workshops were held incorpo-rating all o the project stakeholders. Theseincluded world-class architects, engineers,

construction pro essionals, risk modeling pro essionals, and project nance experts. All were enabled by the team to utilize thetechnology plat orm to gain a undamen-tally better understanding o the coordina-tion issues. This GT plat orm helped theteam enable the stakeholders to come up with realistic assessments o the projectand interactive visualizations o what-i scenarios and mitigation alternatives col-laborativelyin real time and with look-ahead scenarios.

conTinuing processFor the past two years, the ongoing de-

velopment o WTC RMP has continued.Through the management o this VDCmodel, the team continues to acilitate ol-low-up risk workshops so the risk programis continuously updated and synchro-nized with the current project schedules.

All images are courtesy o /and are copyrighted to: LMCCC and Gehry Technologies, Inc.



The LMCCC monitors the progress andthe team provides coordination visibility through the capturing o preset vantagepoint images o the actual site progress ascompared to the master risk model andlinked schedules.

The extension o BIM data into a true 4Drisk management model provides a periodicrelease o a master schedule or the WTC site.The work process or each cycle progressively evolved to be more re ned and includesa higher level o detail in the individualBIM project models. From the models andschedules, GT enumerates the construction-related activities parameterizable as the key driving activities in the model. For at leasthal o these activities, the driver dates areinterpolated out over a series o modelelements happening serially.

What the team has ound is that, or the

most part, these series are all per ectly linearbut, in some cases, the series are accelerat-ing or weighted. A parametric risk manage-ment modeling plat orm allows dates to bechanged easily as long as the activity namesand geometric scope stay linked. This pro-vides bi-directional optimization between3D and 4D, enabling a true integrated prac-tice model and risk management process.

Scripting has allowed the process o mapping and managing the thousands o BIM objects to schedule activities, but theprocess is directed towards engaging theknowledge pro essionals use or compar-ing several schedules that are derived romthe master schedule. The master scheduleis understood as the deterministic sched-ule, the LMCCC produces its Logic Adjust-ed Schedule by evaluating schedule clash-es and adjusting the construction logic toresolve these clashes. LMCCC incorporatesthe risks involved in the construction andlogistics by ranging the durations on theconstruction schedule and developing aprobabilistic model or higher delity incompletion dates developing the probabi-listic schedulesall o which are comparedto one another to reveal the variances be-tween the current and previous iteration

o the schedule. The BIM model acilitatesthe CCR meetings and the risk manage-ment process; providing a higher del-ity visibility into the spatial understanding and confict discovery and resolution orthe stakeholders.

The result o the process has enableda set o project outcomes with tangibleand measurable results. These include the

advantage o enhanced look-ahead mod-eling and planning, enabling LMCCC to

uickly evaluate trade o decisions and un-derstand their impacts. The 3D and 4D mod-eling has produced an increased amount o

delity in the model and scheduling pro-cess, and, through the iterative process, anever-increased level o detail and confictresolution. Through the simple arti act o the process and accurate visualization o multiple projects in time, there has beencommunity bene t and, even more impor-tantly, stakeholder collaborative bene t.

The LMCCC team is demonstrating the ability o BIM to be applied to megaprojects through the technological acil-ity to accommodate thousands o objectsand thousands o associated tasks. We are witnessing the team deliver BIM at scalesencompassing the city and the extension

o BIM into an integrated practice or risk management and mitigation. While thecore value o BIM is in coordination andvisibility, the team and the GT process havebegun to reveal the uture or BIM imple-mentations, namely, that o optimization

or complex risk mitigation and analyses.The ongoing LMCCC process illustrates

that, while we are clearly still in the in ancy


17/44 Fall 2009 17

A side-by-side comparison o schedule based optimization and risk assessment.

PATH Construction Complexity. A BIM 3D and 4D model image illustrating the complexity of the sequencing of construction activities and resources of the PATH terminal at the WTC site.

o BIM and the development o integratedpractice, BIM is being extended to incor-porate multiple stakeholders or the con-sumption o not only 3D but ever-moreimportantly, 4D and 5D, enabling a truerisk management model practice.

conclusion

The LMCCC project is a prime exampleo the value BIM can have in managing multi-party iterative processes; rein orcing the value o collaboration, risk manage-ment and mitigation; and nally, or valueplanning. The BIM component o the LM-CCC project brings collaboration, high

delity simulation, and ultimately risk

mitigation through visibility o complex-ity and scale. It is an example o allowing or the real-time optimization o timing o

the necessary program unctionalities and

what may be re erred to as value planning as opposed to reactive value engineering.

All o the technical integration and pro-cess invention has lead Bob Harvey, Execu-tive Director o the LMCCCC, to conclude: or the rst time in the history o megaprojects, we are inventing and conducting an integrated process that combines valueplanning methods and risk managementprocesses, acilitated by the virtual con-struction model and 4D simulations. n

Robert Harvey is the Executive Director o LMCCC; Tarek Bahgat is the Vice President o GT and Managing Director o GTUAE; Dr.David Jason Gerber is the Vice President o

GT, Assistant Pro essor USC School o Ar-chitecture; James Kotronis is the Director o GT New York; and David Pysh is the Senior Project Consultant, GT New York.

Through the simple arti act o the process and accurate visualization o multiple projects in time, there has been community beneft and even

more importantly, stakeholder collaborative beneft.


18/44

Expanding Thought

18 Journal o Building In ormation Modeling

DISCUSSIONS OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING OFTEN center on building geometry. The most widely described uses o building in ormation to date have been or collision detection andprogress visualizations. Engineering News-Record reported re-cently that one hour spent in design coordination activities resultsin ten hours o saved eld re-work. Attaching geometry to CriticalPath Method schedules creates 4D models, use ul in reducing on-site conficts due to trade scheduling and material handling.

The majority o in ormation needed by the owner, construc-tion agents, and ultimately, the acility manager, does not directly

concern the geometry o the building. E uipment lists, or exam-ple, provide the list o e uipment and e uipment types listed withtheir room number and some limited sets o properties. Othere uipment properties may be ound in the speci cations, a decid-edly non-geometric representation o building in ormation.

The worker installing a pump, or example, does not need toknow a detailed geometric representation o that device. They do, however, need to have the installation instructions rom themanu acturer and in ormation about the infow and outfow pip-ing and the status o the powering electrical system.

A brie list o in ormation currently exchanged in a variety o di erent documents and messages in many proprietary ormats,

ollows:

For the purposes o operations and maintenance activities, inanother example, the geometric location o water values withina building needs only to be within the listed room number and within two eet o the as-installed location.

The separate speci cation o in ormation re uirements andaccuracy rom means and methods is the essential characteristico open competitive bidding. By de ning re uirements, vendorsspecializing in speci c means and methods can compete in themarketplace to deliver the best value product at the least cost tothe owner. While the use o per ormance speci cations related tophysical components o the building is well understood, exampleso per ormance speci cations or the delivery o electronic in or-mation is not ound in current contracts.

The most basic per ormance speci cation or the delivery o electronic in ormation is the ASCII le ormat. This ormat, now embedded in every so tware system in the world, de nes the com-puter coding re uired or representation o alphabets, numbersand commonly used symbols. The ASCII re uirement is so wellembedded within computer so tware that contracts no longerspeci y that text in ormation be represented in ASCII ormat.

An electronic ormat more closely tied to the construc-tion industry is the Standard Data Exchange Format (SDEF).

Commissioning Plans Cost Estimates

Daily Reports E uipment Lists

Floor Plans and Drawings Fabrication Drawings

Insurance Invoices

Manu acturer ProductData

Operations & MaintenanceManuals

Photographs Progress Schedules

quality Control Documentation Re uests or In ormation

Room Data Sheets Sa ety Inspections

Spare Parts Providers Speci cations

Tests and Certi cations Warranties

Per ormance Specifcations or Building In ormation Exchange

By E. William East, Ph.D., PE.

Table 1. Typical contract deliverables.

None o the public building in ormation modeling speci ca-tions reviewed by me distinguish between the re uirements orbuilding in ormation deliverables and the technology that is re-

uired to deliver such in ormation. One example o the lack o separation is the re uirement that as-built models be accuratebelow the tolerance o the completed construction. Finished wallsmay, or example, be inch out o vertical alignment across the

ace o a long wall, there ore re uiring the as-built deliverable tobe accurate within inch is an untestable re uirement.


19/44Fall 2009 19Fall 2009 19

SDEF is a Critical Path Method scheduling data exchange or-mat used or over 15 years by the Corps o Engineers and others(http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-regs/er1-1-11/entire.pd ). SDEF cost-loaded CPM schedules are submitted, in a non-proprietary ormat, to assist in determining contractor payments.

drafTed specificaTions

The rst demonstration o per ormance speci cations orbuilding in ormation deliverables was conducted in July 2008 atthe National Academy o Sciences (www.buildingsmartalliance.org/news/20080723.php). Three new speci cations were present-ed, and several widely used commercial so tware systems demon-strated their ability to comply with these re uirements.

The rst o the per ormance speci cations re uired projectplanners to provide space programming, and blocking and stack-ing diagrams in a neutral le ormat to allow the in ormation tobe used by designers and others downstream in the process. Thisspeci cation was based on the re uirement o the GSA BIM Guide ,but removed the agency-speci c re uirements to allow the ormatto be used across the entire industry. The open standard ormat

or this in ormation exchange is called the Spatial Compliancein ormation exchange (www.buildingsmartalliance.org/projects/scie).

The second o these speci cations extends design uality-control deliverables to allow designers to demonstrate that they have met their contractual obligation to coordinate the designsprovided by various consultants. This speci cation re uires de-signers to provide a hard- and so t-collision report and identi y any signi cant collisions not addressed in the subject deliverable.

While BIM so tware may be used by the designer to per orm thiscollision detection report, CAD vendors may also collate the re-sults o light-table reviews to arrive at a similar set o collisionin ormation. The objective here is the result o the action, and notthat a speci c set o so tware was or was not used. The open stan-dard ormat or this in ormation exchange is called the coordina-tion view in ormation exchange (www.buildingsmartalliance.org/projects/cvie).

The third per ormance speci cation re uired contractors toprovide e uipment lists, warranties, spare parts suppliers, sub-mittals and maintenance plans in a ormat that would not end upin buildings boiler room. The Construction Operations Building in ormation exchange (COBie) is currently gaining both nationaland international attention due to demand to eliminate the wasteassociated with creating, reproducing, processing and archiving paper documents (http://wbdg.org/resources/COBIE.php).

Public agencies currently have COBie re uirements listed inthe BIM sections o their speci cations that are incorrect. TheCOBie speci cation presented in July 2008 clearly states thatthe COBie speci cation replaces those sections o current Op-

erations and Maintenance Manual specs that re uire delivery o paper handover documentation. Since COBie is a per ormance-based speci cation or in ormation delivery, it does not matter i COBie data has been produced manually in a spreadsheet ormor automatically via export rom BIM so tware. Demonstrationso so tware certi ed against an internationally accepted updateto COBie will be conducted at the National Institute o Building Sciences Annual Meeting, in conjunction with Ecobuild America,December 7-10 in Washington, D.C.



in preparaTion

I am leading a team to extend the initial COBie data set to be-gin to capture additional acility management in ormation in a

ormat that can be re-used. The E uipment Layout in ormationexchange (ELie) project has a goal o providing a common layout

or piping schematics. ELie takes into account work already ac-complished by the process plant industry, as well as in ormationto describe building blocking and stacking diagrams contained inCOBie. A demonstration o work on ELie will be held at the Insti-tutes Annual Meeting.

The second project to extend COBie is the Speci ers Propertiesin ormation exchange (SPie) (http://wbdg.org/re erences/pg_spt.php). SPie is currently working with speci cations so tware rms,manu acturers and trade associations to begin to develop openstandard property sets or materials, products and e uipment.The initial set o these properties, created by the Speci cations

Consultants in Independent Practice in conjunction with theConstruction Speci cation Institute, is currently available on the Whole Building Design Guides Product Guide. A demonstration o work on SPie will be held at the Institutes Annual Meeting.

Given the Department o De enses interest in reducing its en-ergy ootprint, my team is also working on a longer term projectto trans orm the exchange o energy-related building in ormationexchanges into a ull energy management control cycle. The cur-rent phase o this e ort, the energy in ormation exchange (ENER-Gie) ormat, will extend early design energyanalysis e orts undedby the General Services Administration into the design stage. A demonstration o work on ENERGie will also be held at the Insti-tutes Annual Meeting.

As with previous e orts, each o these new exchange speci -cations are aligned with the buildingSMART Industry Founda-tion Class schema and that portion o the IFC model representedin COBie. Reports that automatically identi y deviations betweensubmissions and these ormats are also ully interoperable be-tween IFC and i cXML.

fuTure speci ficaTions

With many o the contractual deliverables identi ed in table1, it is possible to identi y a signi cant amount o wasted e ortre uired by all parties to produce the contracted in ormation andalso by those who would use the in ormation once delivered to theowner. The current way cost estimates are exchanged, or example,re uires repeated counting o door knobs, light bulbs and carpetareas throughout the average 67 year li e o an army building. Ex-changes o site photos and construction punch lists would be great-ly enhanced by identi ying the context o the les and transactionalin ormation.

The AGCxml project (http://buildingsmartalliance.org/index.php/projects/agcxml) has begun to develop message wrappers with-in which project in ormation may be supplied and consumed acrossthe World Wide Web. AGCxml is a good start and will continue as theper ormance re uirements or the in ormation contained within

these wrappers is speci ed. The content will include both speci cin ormation to be trans erred and re erences to other building in-ormation that allow the transaction to be placed within the larger

project context. Use o AGCxml will depend on the development o an ecosystem o web service-oriented so tware tools.

conclusions

One o the primary drivers o waste in the design and construc-tion industry is the lack o reliable methods or contracted in orma-tion exchange. The development o per ormance speci cations orthe delivery o consistent, computable building in ormation is theonly approach that will allow market orces to drive the innovationsneeded to eliminate such waste. These innovations will come both

in the so tware we use to per orm and transmit our work, and in thetypes o services that will be needed to coordinate and manage suchtransactions.

We are at the early stage o completing a variety o di erent in or-mation exchange ormats. While the work to develop these ormatsdoes not proceed as uickly as one would like, once it is completed,the speci cations can be directly applied without reliance on pro-prietary means and methods.

To accomplish this hard work, your help is needed. Please signup with the buildingSMART alliance to contribute to these ex-isting projects and to start new projects to develop per ormance-based speci cations or the delivery o building in ormation in yoursubject matter area or customer domain. n

Acknowledgements: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not the policy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Engineer Research and Development Center.

E. William (Bill) East is a Research Civil Engineer at the Engineer Research and Development Center, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers. East is a registered Professional Engineer and recipient of the 2008 American Society of Civil Engineers Government Civil Engineer of the Year Award. He is also the primary author of the ConstructionOperations Building information exchange (COBie) format and is the Projects Coordinator for the buildingSMART alliance.

One o the primary drivers o waste in the design and construction industry is the lack o reliablemethods or contracted in ormation exchange. The development o per ormance specifcations...is theonly approach that will allow market orces to drive the innovations needed to eliminate such waste.


21/44Fall 2009 21Fall 2009 21

Case Studies/Best Practices

By Major Patrick Suermann, PhD, PE, LEED AP, and Tammy McCuen,LEED AP

AIA-TAP BIM Repeat Award Winners: Strengths

and OpportunitiesIN 2005, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF Architects Technology in ArchitecturalPractice (AIA-TAP) recognized its rst an-nual BIM Award winners. A ter ve install-ments, these award winners have come torepresent the very best BIMs in the world.O this elite group, some rms have been

honored more than once, making them thebest o the best. This article will discussthree repeat award winning rms and theevaluation o each using the National BIM Standard s (NBIMS) Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM) as a basis or objective analysis o their in ormation man-agement maturity strengths and opportu-nities. Note: You can start using the I-CMM to evaluate your own BIMs right now! Visit: www.buildingsmartalliance.org/docs/BIM_CMM_v1.9.xls

The three best o the best rms high-

lighted here are Morphosis, KieranTimber-lake, and Mortenson Construction. Each

rms approach and project execution inBIM di ers, but all represent a commoncharacteristic o innovation and creativity.

morphosis

Morphosis was recognized with awardsin 2005 and 2008, or ederal projects inSan Francisco and Eugene. In 2009, Mor-phosis received two awards, a Citation in

Cellophane House, KieranTimberlake.Photo Peter Aaron/Esto.

the Creating Stellar Architecture Using BIM category along with the top JurysChoice honor. Both awards were or anew academic building in New York, theCooper Union or the Advancement o Sci-ence and Art. In an interview with Marty Doscher, Morphosis IT Director, he dis-

cussed the rms approach to architectureand its signature style o complex structureand cladding assemblies. Morphosis usesBIM as a tool to engage and educate clientsand constructors using model in ormationabout the design and structure.

Morphosis believes using BIM as a toolto optimize building per ormance andstreamline the construction schedule is well known. Doscher encourages architectsto use BIM as a tool to p imize archi ec-

ure. The Morphosis philosophy is that BIMis as much about making architecture an

expression o art and the conveyance o poetic architecture as it is about the techni-cal in ormation within the model. BIM a -

ords architects the opportunity to push theboundaries, improve design, and test outmany design alternatives instead o using BIM solely or drawing production. Particu-larly interesting is the Morphosis belie thatarchitects should not just use BIM as a way to optimize the box but rather as a way toimprove the DREAM.

Doscher noted that over the last ew yearsthere have been both advances in the tech-nology and an increase in contractors adopt-ing BIM as they see its value in construction.He did point out that there appears to be alag in the evolution o traditional businessprocesses necessary to work more e ectively in BIM and that this should be addressed by

organizations such as buildingSMART alli-ance in the near uture.

kieranTimBerlake

KieranTimberlake won two awards in2007 or Loblolly House and anotherin 2009 or the Cellophane House. In aninterview with David Riz, Principal, andMarilia Rodrigues, Associate, both romKieranTimberlake, they noted that whileLoblolly House was a revolutionary project

Wayne L. Morse U.S. Courthouse, Courtesy o Morphosis Architects.



t i v BiM c p b M M

Morphosis I-CMM 2008 Score -- Wayne L. Morse U.S. Courthouse a i W g imp c p v m v cd r 84% Data w/Mostly Authoritative In ormation 5.9l - V w 84% Includes Constr/Supply & Fabrication 4.2c g M g m 90% Full Awareness 3.6r d p 90% Plan, Design & Construction Supported 5.4B P 91% Some Bus Process Collect Inco 2.7t m /r p 91% Most Response In o Available in BIM 4.6

d v M 92% Network Access w/Basic IA 2.8G p i m 93% 3D Intelligent Graphics 6.5sp c p b 94% Spatially Located 2.8i m a 95% Full Computed Areas & Ground Truth 7.6i p b /i c s pp 96% Full In o Trans ers Between COTS 5.8

c s m 51.8M l v c f

built with revolutionary so tware, they eltthat the Cellophane House project repre-sented greater adoption, knowledge andcom ort levels with the BIM process. Riznoted that Cellophane House was revolu-tionary because it pushed the capabilitieso a structural aluminum raming systembeyond what was thought possible, allow-ing the house to be rapidly assembled anddisassembled.

The project was abricated directly rom the BIM, assembled in mod-

ules and stacked into a 5 story show-piece hosting over 500,000 visitors insix months. Although the superstruc-ture went together in less than a week,a model hando data error led to a 1discrepancy that had to be amelioratedon site, which led the team to question,how do you truly collaborate when 40

percent o your project team is not using the same so tware?

morTenson consTrucTion

Winning one award as a contractor romthe worlds leading architectural organiza-tion is a tremendous honor. Winning ourtimes is staggering. However, Mortensoncan take pride in their accomplishment asthe only contractor to ever accomplish this

eat. They have won our AIA-TAP BIM ci-tations or honorable mention awards.

In an interview with Derek Cunz andRicardo Khan, Mortensons approach toprojects in BIM revealed innovation in con-struction and acility management. Focus-ing on two speci c research acilities whichhave won awards, the 2007 award winner,Benjamin D. Hall Interdisciplinary ResearchBuilding at the University o Washington(UW) and the 2009 honorable mention win-ner, Research II (or R2) acility at University o Colorado Denver (UC-D), helps provide

an insight to Mortensons in ormation man-agement approach over time.

t i v BiM c p b M M

Morphosis I-CMM 2009 Score Cooper Union or the Advancement o Science and Art a i W g imp c p v m v cd r 84% Completely Authoritative In ormation 6.7

l - V w 84% Includes Constr./Supply & Fabrication 4.2c g M g m 90% Limited Awareness 2.7r d p 90% Plan, Design & Construction Supported 5.4B P 91% Some Bus Process Collect In o 2.7t m /r p 91% Limited Response In o. Available in BIM 3.6d v M 92% Network Access w/Full IA 3.7G p i m 93% 4D Add Time 8.4sp c p b 94% Spatially Located 2.8i m a 95% Full Computed Areas & Ground Truth 7.6i p b /i c s pp 96% Full In o Trans ers Between COTS 5.8

c s m 53.6M l v c f

University o Colorado at Denver HealthSciences Research II. Photo courtesy o Mortenson Construction.


23/44 Fall 2009 23

t i v BiM c p b M M

KieranTimberlake I-CMM Score 2007 - Loblolly House a i W g imp c p v m v cd r 84% Data w/Limited Authoritative In ormation 5.0l - V w 84% Includes Constr./Supply & Fabrication 4.2itil M a m 90% Limited Awareness 2.7r d p 90% Partial Plan, Design & Constr. Supported 4.5B P 91% Separate Processes Not Integrated 0.9t m /r p 91% Limited Response In o. Available in BIM 3.6

d v M 92% Single Point Access No IA 0.9G p i m 93% 4D Add Time 8.4sp c p b 94% Not Spatially Located 0.9i m a 95% No Ground Truth 1.0i p b /i c s pp 96% Limited In o Trans ers Between COTS 3.8

total 36.0c f l v M m m BiM

t i v BiM c p b M M

KieranTimberlake I-CMM Score 2009 - Cellophane House (Note: This was a temporary project that was disassembled, so the score may represent a higher level o in ormation management maturity than warranted.) a i W g imp c p v m v c

d r 84% Completely Authoritative In ormation 6.7l - V w 84% Includes Constr/Supply & Fabrication 4.2r d p 90% Partial Ops & Sustainment Supported 6.3B P 91% Some Bus Process Collect In o 2.7t m /r p 91% Most Response In o Available In BIM 4.6d v M 92% Web Enabled Services Secure 7.4G p i m 93% 4D Add Time 8.4sp c p b 94% Spatially Located 2.8i m a 95% Full Computed Areas & Ground Truth 7.6i p b /i c s pp 96% Full In o Trans ers Between COTS 5.8

c s m 62.7M l v c f

The UW acility was a Design-Build-Op-erate-Maintain (DBOM) acility investmentby Mortenson. The researchers leasing space in the acility reimburse Morten sonscapital construction expenditure, so long-term sustainability was integral in the a-cilitys BIM creation. Di ering rom thisproject, the UC-D acility ocused on su-perior value or the owner in a traditionalproject. Rather than ocusing on maximiz-ing leasable space, the team ocused onintegrating the design and constructionmodels to ensure superior quality or thecomplex placement and installation o thestructure and MEP systems in the acility,resulting in a more productive construc-tion project.

The nBims i-cmm

In chapter our o the NBIMS, Version1

Part 1, the concept o evaluating in orma-tion management maturity is discussed via Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. Photo Roland Halbe. Cooper Union or the Advancement o Science and Art, as modeled.



Benjamin D. Hall Interdisciplinary Research Building at the University of Washington. Photocourtesy of Mortenson Construction.

the Capability Maturity Model concept.Starting in 2007, be ore the NBIMS waspublished, the NBIMS testing team vali-dated the NBIMS I-CMM by employing apanel o practicing pro essionals as scorers.The panel ensured consistency while us-ing the tool to score the 2007 AIA-TAP BIMaward winners like KieranTimberlake andMortenson Construction. The double-blindapproach resulted in a valid tool, worthy o publication or the NBIMS, and adoptionby industry stakeholders. Within this ar-ricle are the results rom the NBIMS I-CMMevaluation o the projects eatured.

It is important to note that a higherscore only represents a higher level o in-

ormation management maturitynot abetter design. All the projects were already AIA winners, and they all stand alone ontheir own merit. The data shown in each

o the charts in this article is rom the Na-tional Institute o Building Sciences.In summary, the frms highlighted

hereMorphosis, KieranTimberlake andMortensonhave demonstrated con-tinued BIM execution and received rec-ognition rom the AIA TAP BIM Awardscommittees over the last fve years. In ad-dition, results rom the evaluations using the NBIMS I-CMM indicate that, overall,each o these best o the best frms in-

ormation management approaches hasimproved in some areas. However, there

is still room or improvement in other ar-eas as frms seek to optimize the beneftso BIM across all categories.

As BIM becomes less revolutionaryand more deeply entrenched in the indus-try, in ormation management approaches will advance through interoperability,resulting in improved sharing, collabora-tion, and analysis capabilities. n

Major Suermann is a graduate o the U.S. Air Force Academy with a B.S. in Civil Engineering. Recently, he success ully de- ended his dissertation and received his Ph.D. in Design, Construction, and Plan-ning at the University o Florida as the rst ever Rinker Scholar at the M.E. Rinker, Sr.School o Building Construction.

Tammy McCuen is an Assistant Pro es-sor o Construction Science at the Univer-sity o Oklahoma, College o Architecture.Her research and teaching emphasis is inBIM and the in ormation exchange neces-sary between the members o an integrated BIM team.


25/44 Fall 2009 25

t i v BiM c p b M M

Mortenson Construction I-CMM Score 2007- Benjamin D. Hall Interdisciplinary Research Building a i W g imp c p v m v cd r 84% Completely Authoritative In ormation 6.7l - V w 84% Includes Operations & Warranty 5.9itil M a m 90% Limited Control 4.5r d p 90% Operations & Sustainment Supported 7.2B P 91% All BP Collect & Maintain In o. 7.3t m /r p 91% Real Time Access w/Live Feeds 9.1d v M 92% Web Enabled Services-Secure 7.4

G p i m 93% 4D Add Time 8.4sp c p b 94% Integrated Into a Complete GIS 8.5i m a 95% Computed Ground Truth w/Full Metrics 9.5i p b /i c s pp 96% Full In o Trans ers Between COTS 5.8

c s m 80.1M l v G

t i v BiM c p b M M

Mortenson Construction I-CMM Score 2009 - Research II (Note: This traditional project scored slightly lower than the 2007 submissionwhich shared more in ormation over time because o the DBOM approach) a i W g imp c p v m v cd r 84% Limited Knowledge Management 7.6

l - V w 84% Includes Constr/Supply & Fabrication 4.2c g M g m 90% Limited Integration 6.3r d p 90% Partial Ops & Sustainment Supported 6.3B P 91% Some BP Collect & Maintain In o 6.4t m /r p 91% All Response In o Available in BIM 5.5d v M 92% Full Web Enabled Services w/IA 6.4G p i m 93% 4D Add Time 8.4sp c p b 94% Spatially Located 2.8i m a 95% Full Ground Truth Int Spaces 3.8i p b /i c s pp 96% Full In o Trans ers Between COTS 5.8

c s m 63.4M l v c f

Loblolly House, KieranTimberlake. Photo Halkin Photography, LLC.

Cellophane House, KieranTimberlake. Photo

Peter Aaron/Esto.


26/44

Case Studies/Best Practices


HOW DO WE BEST SPEND THE PROVERBIAL NEXT DOLLAR? ASa Coast Guard acility engineer, I would have loved to have beenable to prove to my Commanding O cer that our preventivemaintenance e orts were absolutely the right thing. He acceptedmy argument that, an ounce o prevention was worth a pound o cure, but also complained that my spending limited his ability todo more un things.

As an Executive O cer o the Coast Guards version o a mid-sized A/E design o ce executing an annual construction budget inexcess o $25 million, I lived the pain o a thousand cuts de end-

ing my resource decisions. These experiences are well known toall acility asset managers and are the driving orce behind a CoastGuard plot, ten years in the making, to develop a stable, systematicdecision-making ramework to answer this perennial dilemma.

This is ultimately a BIM story, but in the context o a means toan end. Adlibbing rom Winston Churchill: BIMing may be the

A Coast Guard Plot to Make Better Facility DecisionsBy Commander James J. Dempsey, PE

worst orm o integrated acility decision-making, except all theothers that have been tried. The plots emphasis is having a mis-sion-based, integrated decision-making ramework ( g 1)in which mission is any ultimate objective rom providing servicesto pro t making, based on the laws o demand and supply.

In the Coast Guard, we have eleven legal authorities to per ormmissions. Legal authorities are essentially business lines given to us by Congress. They range rom maritime search and rescue, en orcemento laws and treaties, environmental protection, law en orcement andnational de ense. The Coast Guard is the steward o more than 10,000

buildings, occupying over 29.5 million s uare eet o building space. We manage over 430 developed real property sites located throughoutthe United States and its territories.

The average age o a Coast Guard building is 43 years and thecombined replacement value o buildings and in rastructure is es-timated to be in excess o $12 billion dollars.

Changing the way this organization does business re uires aplot. Justi ying sustainable acility investment strategies shouldbe easy with so much critical in rastructure. Dont acilities havean un uestionable role in mission execution? So why do acility investments compete poorly against other critical needs. This iscertainly not a problem uni ue to the Coast Guard, but the solu-tion re uires more than traditional tools and methods.

Our ramework or integrated acility decision-making beginsand ends in a Coast Guard acility. BIM is a oundational technolo-gy that can virtually manage the con guration o our large acility port olio rom a mission-based systems perspective to individualsystem components. BIM can also document and simulate thecause and e ect acility decisions will have on mission outcomes.This decision model, although still largely on the drawing board,has been de ned by successive development waves over the lastten years. As each successive wave has worn away more opposi-tion, it has also a rmed my opinion that BIM-based technologiesare the only practical means to deliver real, mission-based deci-sion-making a ter trying all other traditional methods. I it hap-pens in the real world, it can happen virtually in BIM and in this

orm we use the word plot to chart a navigational course or ourbusiness trans ormation e orts.

The emerging ramework has seven speci c elements ( g2) . The Coast Guard legal authorities (business lines) are translatedinto mission objectives (1), which are then used as planning ac-tors or the provision o logistical systems including acility assets.This is known as integrated project delivery (IDP) in the indus-try. In the Coast Guard, our vision o IDP extends to the completesphere o time, space and scope o the organization. From this,operational re uirements (2) are documented and are used toestablish logistical re uirements and, conse uently shore acility con guration standards (3). Facility investment decision-making Figure 1. Mission-based integrated decision making.


27/44Fall 2009 27Fall 2009 27

is then bounded in terms o objectives, andresource decision-making becomes a unc-tion o continually optimizing sustainable,mission-e ective acility solutions at thelowest total ownership cost, considering both current and uture demands.

This process is attentive to acilities aspart o a broad, mission-based system as

well as to explicit li e-cycle considerations.Decision-making must be per ormed in aully de ned con guration management

system whereby physical and unctionalstandards are used to establish measur-able acility con guration re uirements togovern all investment, planning, design,construction and acility managementprocesses. Facility assessments (4) are con-ducted to identi y any acility discrepancy as a gap between a standard and the acil-itys actual con guration. The convention

or discrepancies is also used as a unda-

mental building block or activity-basedcosting and or contract work descriptionsaddressing needs rom recapitalization tobasic maintenance and acility operations.Next a business case analysis (5) is usedto rationalize risk-based decision-making using business case pro ormas and com-mon nancial analysis techni ues. Finally, work is executed (6) and the per ormanceo these e orts, as well as the acility port-

olio, are evaluated (7).In order to support objective, ully au-

ditable decision-making, the Coast Guardis developing a series o metrics. Thesemetrics are separated into two generalperspectives; a mission perspective and astewardship perspective. It is intended thatthese perspectives be universally availableto decision-makers at all levels and aresub-divided as ollows:

Strategic Mission Perspective: A Mis-sion Essentiality Index (MEI) has been de-veloped or executive level decision-mak-ers in order to direct investment decisionsbased on enterprise-wide mission needs.

This process di erentiates individual acil-ities and uses both physical and unctionalmission perspectives.

Tactical Mission Perspective: A MissionDependency Index (MDI) is used to deter-mine the relative mission importance o a

acility rom the local Commanders per-spective using operational risk manage-

ment, including probability and severity,but changing it to address acility inter-ruptiblity, relocatability and replacability.

Physical Stewardship Perspective: A Condition Index (CI) is used to judge therelative depletion o a acility componentsuse ul li e based on established con gura-tion standards. The CI determines the se-verity and timing o maintenance needs

rom a li e-cycle management perspective.Functional Stewardship Perspective:

As a counterpoint to condition-basedanalyses, acilities must also be unctional.

The Coast Guard is seeking to adopt a suit-able index to provide this perspective toinclude sustainability and energy conser-vation. This introduces the use and utiliza-tion perspectives.

The decision-making ulcrum bring-ing this together is a concept known as a -

ordable readiness. In simple orm, eachacility is scored with a combined mission/

stewardship metric. Related nancial li-abilities are determined using a acilitysestimated present replacement value andthe relative importance is determined us-ing the combined perspective. Likewise, thee ect a corrected discrepancy has on the

acility can be uantitatively measured andan entire port olio o corrected discrepan-cies within a speci c business case can becompared to competing business cases.The business case selected should have thegreatest contribution to a ordable readi-ness, which is derived rom a mathematicalsummation o the di erent metrics within aBIM-described acility context.Continued on page 41

Figure 2.


28/44

Economics


THE ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION IN-dustry traditionally rELies on 2D and 3Ddrawings to layout, design, estimate, andinstall power and communication systemsin buildings. With the advent o building in ormation modeling (BIM), electricalcontractors have begun to experience itspotential bene ts. The scale o BIM adopt-ability in the U.S. electrical constructionindustry, however, and its impact on elec-trical design and construction, are still un-known. Keeping these objectives in mind,

this research study was carried out withthe support o National Electrical Contrac-tors Association (NECA). The necessary data was collected via two uestionnairessent to NECA members rom January to April 2009. The purpose o the rst ues-tionnaire was to gather data about the cur-rent status o BIM adoptability in the U.S.electrical construction industry while thesecond uestionnaire collected in orma-tion about BIM bene ts and opportunities

or electrical contractors.

The rst uestionnaire was completedby 185 NECA member companies. Thoughthe survey targeted companies o varioustypes (main job unction) and sizes (interms o annual revenue), the majority o responding companies were mediumto large in size with their major ocus onelectrical construction. Results rom thesecompanies, which were located all over theUnited States, indicated that 38 out o 185responding companies (21 percent) are us-ing BIM technology in their projects. The

ollowing in ormation is collected romthese 38 companies. When asked about the most valued BIM

eatures or electrical construction, the ol-lowing responses were obtained: clashdetections (83 percent o users), visual-ization o electrical design (78 percent),space utilization (67 percent), partial tradecoordination (53 percent), shop drawingsreview (42 percent), virtual mock-ups (39percent), shop abrication process (36 per-cent), walk-throughs (36 percent), design

validation (31 percent) and energy analysis(14 percent).

The next uestion asked was about theelectrical components. These percent-ages show components which are typically modeled: branch and eeder conduits (92percent), electrical rooms (89 percent), ca-ble trays and other supports (86 percent),e uipment panels (84 percent), lighting x-tures (76 percent), underground conduits(73 percent), junction boxes (49 percent),specialty lighting supports (46 percent),

hangers (46 percent), outlets and switches(32 percent) and cables (22 percent).Next, data about BIM bene ts and

implementation costs was collected. As a whole, the majority o respondents indi-cated that BIM technology is signi cantly helping to improve the process o deliver-ing a acility. When asked about overall e -

ects o BIM on the projects per ormance,70 percent o respondents reported some-to-signi cant time and cost savings. Fur-thermore, 64 percent o the respondentsindicated that BIM helped to improve the

uality o work put in place, while 18 per-cent indicated that the use o BIM nearly eliminated rework.

As ar as the BIM implementation costsare concerned, a wide range o responses were received, ranging rom $2,000 to$50,000, with the average alling just under$13,000. These costs are subject to a num-ber o actors such as organization size andthe level o implementation. Given the actthat 70 percent o survey respondents ex-perienced some cost savings, it can be in-

erred that BIM technology has the poten-tial to payback uickly.The last part o the rst uestionnaire

was ocused on companies that are cur-rently not using BIM (79 percent o respon-dents). When asked why not, the top veresponses were:

Do not know about BIM (64 percent);Lack o technological experience/ex-pertise (24 percent);Existing so tware not compatible (13percent);Too expensive (11 percent); andFigure 1. Year o BIM Adoption and Percentage o BIM-based Projects.

BIM for Electrical Construction: Benefts and Current TrendsBy Salman Azhar, Ph.D.


29/44Fall 2009 29Fall 2009 29

Not re uired by customer or designteam (8 percent).The second uestionnaire was sent

to those 38 companies which were using BIM at the completion o rst uestion-naire. The purpose was to collect morespeci c in ormation about BIM bene tsand opportunities or electrical contrac-tors. Twenty-three (61 percent) companiesresponded to this uestionnaire.

The frst question inquired aboutthe percentage o companies projects

or which a building in ormation mod-el was developed. As per results, mostelectrical contractors used BIM or lessthan 10 percent o projects (9 respon-dents). The between 10 to 19 percent o projects option received 5 responses; 4respondents selected 20 to 29 percent; while 5 respondents indicated that 30

percent or more o their projects are de-veloping a model (figure 1) . It is alsoound that the companies who adopted

BIM earlier are using this technology ona higher percentage o projects and viceversa. As companies adopt new technol-ogy, time and experience are typically required to obtain a positive outcome. With the exception o one electrical con-tractor who experienced a signifcantloss, survey results indicated that 15 o the 23 respondents ound that the BIM

technology helped to make the projectmore proftable. Six respondents eitherdid not answer this question or they were not sure.

This study also identi ed the e ect o BIM on the numbers o RFIs and ChangeOrders (COs) generated over the projectli e cycle, compared to similar projects inthe respondents companies. Based on 23responses, it appears that 14 electrical con-tractors were able to reduce the amount o RFIs, 6 contractors reported no change, while the remaining 3 experienced moreRFIs than a similar project that did not useBIM. Almost similar results were obtained

or change orders. When this data was ana-lyzed with respect to the BIM experience,a positive correlation was ound betweenthe Less Number o RFIs/COs and More Years o BIM Experience. Hence, it can be

in erred that the more BIM experience thecompanies have, the more bene ts they achieve.

At the end, the impact o BIM on theoverall business was assessed by examining how the key per ormance indicators (KPIs)have changed since the adoption o BIM.The respondents were asked to considerchanges in uality control (regarding theamount o necessary rework), cost, timely completion, sa ety and productivity. Giventhe options, ranging rom negatively to

positively e ected, respondents ratedthe impact o BIM on each o these KPIs.Interestingly, there was no negatively re-sponses selected or any KPI, while slight-ly positive responses dominated our outo the ve KPIs, as shown in TaBle 1 . It was ound that BIM has the most e ect on

uality control, ollowed by productivity,cost, schedule and sa ety.

In a nutshell, BIM is still an emerging technology in the electrical constructionindustry. About 21 percent o surveyedcompanies are currently using BIM, andare reporting positive savings in time andcost or the project, while improving the work put in place, thereby decreasing rework. For those 79 percent o companiesnot using BIM, the major reasons are un a-miliarity with BIM technology, ollowed by a lack o technological experience. While

BIM may not be an appropriate businessventure or all electrical contractors, as itre uires substantial investment and train-ing, it certainly does provide many bene tsto its users. n

Salman Azhar, Ph.D., is an assistant pro essor at the McWhorter School o Build-ing Science at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. This study was unded by the National Electrical Contractor Association(NECA).

Table 1: E ect o BIM on Projects Key Per ormance Indicators (KPIs)

a w c n g v s g n g v n c g s g P v P v W g s rP V -2 -1 0 1 2quality Control/rework

0 2 1 9 11 29 1

Cost 0 2 6 14 1 14 5Timely Completion

0 3 5 12 3 15 4

Sa ety 0 1 9 9 4 16 3Productivity 0 2 3 13 5 21 2


30/44

Life cycle/Technology Spotlight


PART 1 OF THIS SERIES (PUBLISHED IN THE FALL 2007 ISSUE o JBIM) provided some history about building modeling and build-ing in ormation modeling (BIM), and ended by introducing In-

ormation Delivery Manuals (IDMs) and Model View De nitions(MVDs) as parts o a process or realizing so tware interoperability in targeted building industry processes. Part 2 (Fall 2008) providedmore detail about a standard process and toolset or developing BIM-based solutions or the building industry called the IFC So-lutions Factory. Part 3 (Spring 2009), looked at the IFC SolutionsFactory arti acts or a project organized, unded, and managed by the U.S. Government Services Administration. In summary, we walked through the development and deployment process de-picted in Figure 1 ( rst introduced in part 2 o the series).

captures a top-down view o the spatial containers and building elements in a project. For example, a project could contain one ormore sites, each o which contains one or more buildings, whichin turn contains one or more building stories, which contains oneor more spaces, which contains or are bounded by various build-ing elements as shown in Figure 2 and 3 .

Building Information Modelsand Model Views Part 4

In this, the nal part o this series, we will look more closely atbuilding industry concepts that are included in existing and orth-coming IFC model views used to share data between BIM enabledso tware applications. Review o these key concepts will give thereader a much better understanding and appreciation or how BIMs are structured and why the relationships between objects ina BIM are just as important as the objects themselves. This is oneo the key di erences between a 3D model and a BIM. Concepts we will review include property de nition, type de nition, asso-ciation, assignment, placement, shape representation, voiding,connectivity, containment and aggregation.

spaTial conTainmenT

One o the most important and most easily understood con-cepts or structuring BIMs is spatial containment. As the nameimplies, this concept enables the BIM authoring application torepresent a hierarchical structure or spatial containment. Whilethere are some options (e.g. a building element can be containedby any space, building story, building, or site), this concept

As spatial containment involves essentially all physical and spa-tial entities in a building model, it is represented as a web o relation-ships between these entities. This concept is not only important toBIM authoring applications, but also to applications used in designanalysis, engineering, construction, and acilities management.

associaTion

Our industry is diverse and contains many specialized disci-plines. The myriad o di erent types o in ormation these disci-plines use in their processes are just as diverse. The generalizedand undamental concept used to support this diversity in theIFC standard is that o association. That is, a series o special-ized relationships that capture the association between an object

By Richard See, AIA

Figure 1.

Figure 3.

Figure 2.


31/44Fall 2009 31Fall 2009 31

(e.g. a wall) and other common industry concepts including classassociation (e.g. wall type), classi cation, constraints (e.g. clientprogram, building code, geometric relationship, or budget), docu-ments (that urther de ne the object), libraries ( or many purpos-es), materials, and properties (associated through membership ina class/ amily or instance), shown in Figure 4 and 5.

The reader will recognize all o these as common industry con-cepts associated with elements and assemblies in building projects.Capture o this in ormation in a project model, such that it can beshared and reused in several applications, is one o the true leaps orward enabled by BIMs and model-based processes. As with spatialcontainment, these associations are not only used in BIM authoring applications, but also in analysis, engineering, speci cations, take-o /estimating, construction, and acilities management.

properTy definiTion

At least one o these association concepts is worthy o empha-sis. Property association is another o the basic and most easily appreciated concepts in a BIM, because each o us can cite dozenso examples o both common and specialized properties that weassociate with objects in BIMs (e.g. walls, doors, windows) to sup-port our end user processes, shown in Figure 6 .

Type definiTion

As buildings can be viewed as a design process or which themanu acturing uantity is one, we need to be as e cient. Stan-dardizing components and assemblies in a design supports e -ciency in the construction and operation o a building. Thus stan-dard type de nitions (e.g. wall, door, or window types) are com-mon in our projects. They have also been refected in the tools wehave been using over the past ew decades (e.g. block de nitions AutoCAD, cell de nitions in Intergraph and Bentley products, andshape masters in Visio). More recently, these take the orm o de-sign element libraries used in the project (e.g. object amily in Re-vit and object library in ArchiCAD), shown in Figure 7 .

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.


32/44

Documents

Journal of Building Information Modeling_fall09