BIM and IT Based Analysis for Construction Project Manager - Clash Detection & 4D Modeling

48-764 BIM Final Report

Group 1_ Structure

Widjava, Aswin ( awidjava)

Wu, Hau-Wen (hauwenw)

Yu, Chiaowei (chiaowey)

Song, Xiaoxi (xiaoxiso)

4D Modeling

4D Modeling video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dK7deA5YM&feature=youtu.be

Explain your phasing plan showing how the work will be completed? Where the

work is going to start (e.g., north side, south side), and how it will proceed?

The images below shows 3 options of contruction method which could be applied in this project:

Option 1 and option 2 use normal construction sequence-- inish constructing all the exterior walls before con-

structing interior walls. The diference between option 1 and option 2 is that option 2 uses pre-fabricated walls

well option 1 does not.

We determined the option 3 -- smart labor process -- as our construction method of this project. In this method,

for the convenience of interior wall construction, 3 exterior walls -- east wall, south wall and west wall -- are to

be constructed before interior walls, but the north wall won’t be constructed untill interior wall construction is

inished. So that interior wall construction will be more cenvenient. The reason why we chose north exterior wall

as the last exterior wall is because it has fewest doors/windows.

According to the construction method we selected, we decomposed the project into tasks and subtasks and

assigned predecessors to each subtask. In this part, we carefully consider every components’ relation based on

the construction sequence and logistic. For example, when we were deining the predecessor of each wall, all

the wall should follow consistent to the construction method we selected, and also the rationality in real con-

struction condition. Since we set this project as a fast track project, we deined all the exterior wall should be

built at the same time except for north exterior wall. And the north exterior wall should be built after exterior

walls and interior walls are done. The predecessors are the shown in the next page.

OPTION 1: TRADITIONAL PROCESS

OPTION 2: PREFABRICATED PROCESS

OPTION 3: SMART LABOR PROCESS

Next step is to deine how we decomposed each task, as we learn in former project, it is useful and fast to do Quan-

tity take-of in Vico Oice. However, the division of building components in Vico Oice’s automatic quantity take-of

model is not entirely consistent with the way we divided our tasks. So we used the paint mode to re-divide building

components in the 3D model to get a more accurate and useful quantity take-of.

Crew type and labor rate was found in RS Means. In order to achieve fast-track construction, we determined to use

larger labor amount than what’s given in RSMeans.

Task Name(description) Code/Line Number Crew Type Crew Amount Unit Quantity Unit Labor Hours Total Labor Hours Duration(hours)

Footing

Strip Footing C.I.P. concrete forms, footing, continuous wall 031113450500 C1 3 L.F 755.3 0.064 48.3392 16.11306667

Sread Footing 6.56’ * 6.56’ C.I.P. concrete forms, 8’ * 8’ Footing 031113456100 C1 3 Ea. 40 1.6 64 21.33333333

Spread Footing 10.83’ * 12.27 C.I.P. concrete forms, 12’ * 12’ Footing 031113456150 C1 3 Ea. 1 1.882 1.882 0.627333333

Steel Column

East Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E2 3 meter 26.28 0.175 4.599 1.533

South Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E3 3 meter 36.88 0.175 6.454 2.151333333

West Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E4 3 meter 21.06 0.175 3.6855 1.2285

North Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E5 3 meter 31.61 0.175 5.53175 1.843916667

Interior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E6 3 meter 82.2 0.175 14.385 4.795

Wall

Foundation Wall Concrete Block, Foundation Wall, Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210260600 D9 3 S.F 1867.6 0.137 255.8612 85.28706667

Exterior Wall

East Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D9 3 S.F 1493.6 0.192 286.7712 95.5904

South Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D10 3 S.F 1994.9 0.192 383.0208 127.6736

West Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D11 3 S.F 1505.1 0.192 288.9792 96.3264

North Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D12 3 S.F 2299.6 0.192 441.5232 147.1744

Interior Wall Concrete Block, Partitions with non-reiforce(8”*16”*4”) 042210341100 D8 24 S.F. 24484.7 0.091 2228.1077 92.83782083

Windows

Window 1000*2000 Aluminum window,2’8”*6’8”, standard 085113203300 2 Sswk 3 Each. 1 2 2 0.666666667

Window 1220*1500 Aluminum window,3’4”*5’, standard 085113202700 2Sswk 3 Each. 21 1.778 37.338 12.446

Window 4000*1000 Aluminum Windows ,2.8’*13.6’ 085113203300 2Sswk 3 Each. 1 4 4 1.333333333

Window 1000*1000 Aluminum windows, 3’1”*3’2” 085113201000 2Sswk 3 Each. 2 1.6 3.2 1.066666667

Doors

Door 2134*915 Smooth wood doors(3’*7) 081416090108 2Carp 3 Each. 55 1 55 18.33333333

Door 2134*1830 Smooth wood doors(6’*7) 081416090112 2 Carp 3 Pr.(pair) 2 1.778 3.556 1.185333333

Door 2083*1830 Birch Face(2*3’*6.8) 081416090180 2 Carp 3 Each. 4 1.882 7.528 2.509333333

Door 1525*915 Birch Face(3’*6.8’) 081416090180 3 Carp 3 Each. 2 0.941 1.882 0.627333333

Door 1525*813 Standard hollow Metal Doors 081313130020 2 Carp 3 Each. 3 0.8 2.4 0.8

The fast-track contruction scheduling result of this project is shown below:

Since 3/1/2014 is Saturday, the actual start date of the project is 3/3/2014.

The inish date will be 5/28/2014.

The level of detail in our decomposed activities in our schedule depended on both RS Means’ standard and

construction sequence. For example, when we were deining footing components, we classiied footing as strip

footings and spread footings based on the construction sequence, therefore, we could break down spread foot-

ing into more speciic classiication based on RS Means’ standard: Spread Footing with dimension 6.56’*6.56’

and Spread Footing with dimension 10.83’*12.27’

Level of Detail of Steel Column:

Since the Steel Colum is the same type of steel, we classify steel column based of construction consequence.

Explain to what level of detail you decomposed activities in your schedule.

The window classiication is based on the standard of RS Means, we choose the window type has the most similar dimension

to our models.

Since there is only information about door’s dimension but type in Revit model, the door classiication standard is also based

on the standard of RS Means, we choose the door type has the most similar dimension to our models.

To deine details of wall, we check the wall type in Revit model irst, the type of exterior wall is Concrete Exterior Wall

with12”*8”, and Concrete with non-reinforced 8”*16” for interior wall. After knowing the type, we classify each wall based on

the construction consequence:

Project schedules and even designs get changed and updated frequently during con-

struction. Assuming that you might have a modiied schedule, discuss how easy it would

be to recreate the 4D model.

Project schedule changes and design changes require updates in the models, the more frequently the changes hap-

pen, the more workload are in demand, which has been a major problem in the industry. Making updates to 4D model

in Synchro has both convenience and impediments.

The features that make the 4D model updating easy include:

•Inthesituationthattheonlycertaintaskdurationschangeandthere’snonewtasksaddedtotheschedule,theupdate can easily be done by changing the values in Duration column of Gann chart and modify the camera and focus

time points in animation editor to update the animation. There’s no need to reimport the schedule or model. And

there’s no need to reassign building components in 3D model to tasks in schedule.

•Ifmorechangesaremadetoschedule,wecanalwaysimportthenew.xmlilecreatedinMSProjecteasily.•SchedulesmadeinMSProject(.xmlformat)caneasilybeimportedintoSynchro.There’snoneedtodomanualinfor-

mation transfer.

•ShedulechangescanalsobemadedirectlyinSynchro.SowedonotneedtogobacktoMSProjectwhenthereareonly minor changes in schedule.

The features that cause trouble to the 4D model updating work include:

•Whennewtasksareaddedtotheschedule,andwhenthedecompositionoftaskschanges,wehavetoreassignbuilding components s in 3D model to tasks. Since this assigning work cannot be done automatically done by Syn-

chro, manual assigning is needed, which takes a lot of time and efort.

•Theupdatingofanimationalsoneedtobedonemanually.Whentaskdurationchangesorwhentherearenewtasksadded to the schedule or when the decomposition of task changes, time and efort need to be spent on the modiica-

tion of the camera and focus time points in animation editor.

•Ascomparedtoschedulechanges,designchangesaremoretroublesome.Whendesignchangeshappen,new3Dmodels need to be created and imported into Synchro. In this situation, we have to repeat every step in the creating

the original 4D model, including assigning building components to tasks, editing animation, etc, and create a whole

new 4D model.

In summary, it is easy to update the 4D model when there’s no change in design and the changes in schedule are mi-

nor, it is not easy to update the 4D model when the changes in schedule are large or when there’s changes n design.

However, in real cases, schedule changes happen frequently and there are often new tasks added or old tasks de-

lected. What’s more, design changes happen. So even though there are both convenience and inconvenience in

updating the 4D model when schedule changes and design changes happen, the convenience still could not counter

balance the inconvenience.

The inconvenience mostly come from the need to do redundant works. Since there are already inconveniences in

creating a 4D model in Synchro even when creating an original model, as opposed to updating, the more redundancy

there are in the work, the more we are inluenced by the cost brought by the inconvenient features. Those inconve-

nient features will be illustrated in detail in the anwer to the following question.

Discuss the features that you liked and the things that can be improved in the 4D system

that you used. Create a wishlist containing 5-10 items that you would like to have in an

“ideal” 4D system.

According to our experience of the 4D system, the things that we like include:

•SchedulesmadeinMSProjectandsavedin.xmlformatcanbeeasilyimportedintoSynchrowithoutlosingimport-ant information.

•The3DmodelandtheGantchart,includingtaskinformation,canbeshownatthesametime,whichgivesusagoodunderstanding of the whole project and makes it easy to assign building components in 3D model to tasks.

•Wecanassignbuildingcomponentsin3Dmodeltotasks.Eventhoughthisrequiresmanualworkwhichtakestimeand efort, this feature is still favorable in a certain degree because it brings in lexibility. Since schedules of diferent

projects decompose tasks to diferent degrees of detail, for example, there are diferent types of doors in some build-

ings but only one type of doors in other buildings, it is makes the 4D model more accurate to assign building compo-

nents to tasks manually than automatically.

Things that can be improved in the 4D system include:

•Afterprojectscheduleismade,eachtaskhasalreadybeenassignedaduration,astarttime,andainishtime.How-

ever, when we create animation, the task duration, start time and inish time information cannot be automatically

detected and included in the animation. We still have to assign the view of certain construction phases to certain time

points manually, using focus time points function or other function in animation editor.

•Wehavetoassignbuildingcomponentsin3Dmodelstotasksmanually.Thisfeatureisalsolistedasathingthatwelike above. However, it is very time consuming to do this task manually and mistakes, omissions and repeating hap-

pens especially when the model is complicated. It’s better to have an automatic take-of and some manual modiica-

tion, as how the take-of model in Vico Oice works--- automatic quantity take of in which building components can

be reassigned to categories in the paint mode.

•EventhoughtheIFCmodelcontainssizeinformation,andcancontainmaterialandotherinformation,thoseinfor-

mation of the model cannot be seen in Synchro. However, thoso information are needed when we assign building

components to tasks. For example, when there’s construction of 6’ * 6’ doors and construction of 6’ * 8’ doors in sched-

ule, we need to assign the doors in the model accordingly.

Our wishlist for an ideal 4D system is as below:

•Animationcanbegeneratedautomaticallyaccordingtotaskinformationinthescheduling:duration,starttimeandinish time.

•Havethefunctionofautomaticquantitytake-of,asthetake-ofmodelinVicoOice.•Buildingcomponentscanbeautomaticallyassignedtotasksandemodiiedmanuallyafterit.•Sizeinformationofbuildingcomponentscanbechecked.Sothere’snoneedtoopenthemodelinRevittoobtainsuch information.

•__HaveRSMeanscontentincludedinthesoftware,eitherafunctionofindingcodeautomatically,orsimplyaplat-form for user to search code by themselves, as how they do on RS Means Online.

Discuss what some value propositions for creating a 4D model during construction are.

Similarly, discuss what some impediments are. What are some characteristics of a project

that would beneit the most from a 4D system?

ZAHA’S DILEMMA

A recent article on Zaha Hadid’s comment “Preventing migrant deaths at Qatar Stadium

site is not my duty as an architect” has sparked controversies all over the world. The article

seems to suggest that the Qatari government is the one held responsible for these deaths.

In response, the issue has not came up in any of other Zaha’s projects around the world, but

the question whether or not the architect has power or not seems otherwise.

The use of 4D modeling construction in relation to BIM has allowed a vast improvement

in construction safety. Each process and concstruction elements can be mapped onto a

time map, which allows construction to much safer. Since BIM is the epitome that “Building

equals to Data”, each component can also be mapped digitally precisely on a vector point.

With such technology, the era where workers have to be hoisted loosely on a rope or

pry themselves across trusses to screw a bolt are over. Using a 4D BIM process is almost

a foolproof method to prevent casualties and deaths. If everything can be mapped from

a vector point, then however complicated the building geometry is, each scafolding

and safety features of the construction phase can be mapped and included within the

construction cost.

Some artists would say that s/he would die for art, but the question is “do you have to?”. No.

Aside from increasing construction safety, 4D modelling beneits construction time,

construction eiciency, and interoperability between project members. Modiications

during construction can also be easily implemented due to the software’s eiciency. Since

4D model illustrates construction method digitally, it can be stored eiciently, and may

be used for litigations purposes proving the safety measures taken during construction

process. With that being said, a few impediments include...

Clash Detection

How did you deine the order of model overlaying for the clash detection session? How would you deine this

order if you had to coordinate the work with more parties, such as electrical, plumbing, ire protection design

companies bringing their own models to the session?

ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS


MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS


STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE

INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE HIERARCHICAL

The irst come irst serve basis is dependent on whoever inishes the model irst. The ile that was open irst became the

basis of the ile that is being modiied. In this process, ideally mechanical elements are most lexible and should be modiied

irst. On the other hand, in reality, the mechanical elements are most complicated and therefore frequently inished last.

Consequently, architectural and structural elements are often modiied irst as to the mechanical systems. The irst come

irst serve basis may also be confusing due as each elements are modiied to its extremities as the process progresses. Due

to the number of Links in each model, ixing clashes might be confusing and causes redundancy and repetition. The step is

most ideal if the individual has three diferent computers and a good eye to spot error.

The irst come irst serve basis is dependent on whoever inishes the model irst. The ile that was open irst became the

basis of the ile that is being modiied. In this process, ideally mechanical elements are most lexible and should be modiied

irst. On the other hand, in reality, the mechanical elements are most complicated and therefore frequently inished last.

Consequently, architectural and structural elements are often modiied irst as to the mechanical systems. The irst come

irst serve basis may also be confusing due as each elements are modiied to its extremities as the process progresses. Due

to the number of Links in each model, ixing clashes might be confusing and causes redundancy and repetition. The step is

most ideal if the individual has three diferent computers and a good eye to spot error.


STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS


STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTSARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS

MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

TEAM PROCESS: THE EXTREME IDEAL

TEAM PROCESS: THE ONE-BY-ONE PLEASE

With each project team representing their own elements, the meeting can be kept at a more civilized manner rather than

sounding like a New York Stock Exchange. The civilized manner may also call for a slight bias and hierarchical viewpoint

from each individual representing each elements. Unlike the First Come First Serve Method, this method allows for diferent

individuals to be incharge of each element, hence increases the amount of dexterity and precision of each model. Each error

can be identiied easier. On the other hand, due to the simultaneous changes that can be potential made by each individual,

the model has to be saved frequently (another reason why Revit always autosave). Although such process may be faster for

experienced individuals, but maybe catastrophic otherwise.

The extreme ideal process may be the best process that can be implemented to determine clashes from each element group

with the following element. The process may even be categorized into smaller groups (e.g. in MEP elements, elements can

be subcategorized into electrical conduits, water pipes, heating, and cooling ducts), but it requires an extremely powerful

and large cloud storage that can be withstand the amount of data. In addition, each computer need to be equipped with

an extremely fast RAM memory to enable fast update and changes by each individual element. This is by far the most

eicient clash detection process but requires the most advanced equipment and organization between and across each

team individuals.

How easy was it to identify hard clashes, soft clashes and the clashes that occurred due

to modeling errors (diferent levels of details, modeling assumptions made, etc.)?

Based on the requirements in the Term Project Description ile, the tolerance for clash detection in Naviswork is set 0.05 m.

Our team has done the clash detection process individually. First, we linked and binded the architectural and structural part

1 model, which there are only few hard clashs identiied. We decided to move the architectural walls to prevent afecting

the structural safety consideration of the original design. We also noticed that when linking the revit models, if we choose

“Auto - origin to origin“ for the positioning setting, we won’t need to manually move the linked model to match two models’

position, the models will appear in the position where it is orginally drawn.

Most of the clashes happened when combining the mechanical model. There are 48 clashes in total due to the mechanical

model. The table below is the clashes detected by Naviswork. We use three types of method to ix the clashes, moving

objects, changing object’s ofset and drilling holes in architectural walls.

There are clashes between architectural model and mechanical model, and between structural model and mechanical

model. For the same reason mentioned above, we kept the structural model unchanged and modiied both architectural

and mechanical model.

There are several features in Naviswork which enable us to detect and solve the clashes in a very eicient way. For example,

Naviswork can refresh the model imported from Revit and re-run the clash detection test, when we are adjusting the Revit

model. In other words, we can open both Revit and Naviswork model and adjust simultaneously. Naviswork also can set

rules which can ignore some of the clashes. This function enable user to focus on speciic types of clashes, such as the

clashes between two iles rather than the clashes occur in one of the ile itself. We put the clash table created by Naviswork

in the next page and create categories and solutions details in the table.

In this report we only focus on the removing the

hard clashes. However, we noticed that Naviswork

has the ability to conduct several types of clash

detection, which the deinitions are listed below:

“Hard Clash: A hard clash is where two physical

planes intersect with each other.” (Jason Dodds,

2013)

“Hard (Conservative): Additional clash option in

which the geomtry intersections are clashed in

more of a theoretical intersecting clash.” (Jason

Dodds, 2013)

“Clearance Clash: Gives the intersecting objects

a speciied distance that they must remain apart

from each other.” (Jason Dodds, 2013)

“Duplicate Clash: Helps you to ind intersecting

objects of identical position and type“ (Jason

Dodds, 2013)

Portion of the drilling walls for the purpose of solving clashes

Tolerance Clashes New Active Reviewed Approved Resolved Type Status

0.05m 48 48 0 0 0 0 Hard OK

Status Distance Description Date Found Item ID Layer Item Name Item Type Item ID Layer Item Name Item Type Solution Solution Description

New ‐0.23 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 560444

Level 1600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Connection

Air TerminalsElement ID : 743994

Level 1 Masonry ‐ Brick Solid MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.21 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 572142

Level 1 Rectangular DuctDucts: Rectangular Duct: Mitered Elbows / Taps

Element ID : 744264

Level 1 W460X60 Structural FramingReset Offset

Change the offset from 4.056 m to 3.4 m.

New ‐0.2 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579484

Level 1 Round DuctDucts: Round Duct: Taps / Short Radius

Element ID : 744029

Level 1 Basic WallWalls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐Partition (92mm Stud) Hole

Draw wholes to make the duct go through the walls

New ‐0.2 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 559576



Level 1 Basic WallWalls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐Partition (92mm Stud) Move

Move the Supply duct and diffusers

New ‐0.2 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744177

Level 1 Basic WallWalls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐Partition (92mm Stud)

Element ID : 559588

Level 1600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Connection Air Terminals Move


New ‐0.19 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744018


Element ID : 579484

Level 1 Round DuctDucts: Round Duct: Taps / Short Radius Hole


New ‐0.18 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579423

Level 1 400 mm Mechanical EquipmentElement ID : 744181



New ‐0.17 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 580335


Element ID : 744022



New ‐0.17 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 582883


Element ID : 744177



New ‐0.17 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 580480


Element ID : 744026



New ‐0.17 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744010


Element ID : 581377



New ‐0.16 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744007


Element ID : 579624



New ‐0.16 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579236


Element ID : 743998



New ‐0.16 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744263

Level 1 W460X60 Structural FramingElement ID : 559587

Level 1600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Connection Air Terminals Move

Move the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.16 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744263



Reset Offset

Change the offset from 4.056 m to 3.4 m

New ‐0.14 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579877


Element ID : 744030



New ‐0.14 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 743997


Element ID : 579242



New ‐0.14 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 580817


Element ID : 744021



New ‐0.13 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579513


Element ID : 744177



New ‐0.13 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579531


Element ID : 744177



New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 560832



Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 560664



Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 573211


Element ID : 744263

Level 1 W460X60 Structural FramingReset Offset


New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744178


Element ID : 579081



New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 558946




New ‐0.12 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579816

Level 1Rectangular to Round Transition ‐ 45 Degree Duct Fittings

Element ID : 744268


New ‐0.11 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579818


Element ID : 744263


New ‐0.11 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744263



Reset Offset


New ‐0.11 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579808


Element ID : 743994

Level 1 Plasterboard Solid MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.1 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744181


Element ID : 581364

Level 1 Round DuctDucts: Round Duct: Taps / Short Radius Move

Move the mechanical duct

New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579236


Element ID : 744000


New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 560832




Move the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 573211


Element ID : 579513



New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 573198


Element ID : 579531



New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 560652



Level 1 Plasterboard Solid MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.09 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 559575




New ‐0.08 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579779


Element ID : 744204


New ‐0.08 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 579797


Element ID : 743994

Level 1 Masonry ‐ Brick Solid MoveMove the Location of the air diffuser.

New ‐0.08 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 744001


Element ID : 578941


Reset Offset

Change the offset from 4.056 m to 3.4 m.

Clash38 x:‐0.50, y:‐19.60, z:3.50

Clash39 x:8.20, y:‐14.36, z:2.83

Clash36 x:12.18, y:‐25.64, z:3.83

Clash37 x:5.94, y:‐12.10, z:2.10

Clash34 x:17.30, y:‐25.51, z:2.87

Clash35 x:‐0.15, y:‐29.59, z:3.23

Clash32 x:6.09, y:‐12.25, z:2.00

Clash33 x:17.30, y:‐28.29, z:2.87

Clash30 x:18.88, y:‐16.00, z:2.90

Clash31 x:7.62, y:‐16.37, z:2.83

Clash28 x:18.54, y:‐28.18, z:4.07

Clash29 x:‐0.15, y:‐29.96, z:3.28

Clash26 x:12.18, y:‐25.40, z:3.97

Clash27 x:14.55, y:‐28.17, z:4.05

Clash24 x:8.20, y:‐18.80, z:2.88

Clash25 x:20.80, y:‐18.00, z:2.50

Clash22 x:12.18, y:‐25.09, z:3.88

Clash23 x:17.30, y:‐28.25, z:3.66

Clash20 x:17.35, y:‐25.50, z:2.87

Clash21 x:5.96, y:‐12.09, z:2.00

Clash18 x:23.23, y:‐29.91, z:2.87

Clash19 x:17.35, y:‐28.29, z:2.87

Clash16 x:20.87, y:‐26.32, z:2.79

Clash17 x:3.19, y:‐14.36, z:2.85

Clash14 x:14.43, y:‐28.18, z:3.87

Clash15 x:17.20, y:‐28.18, z:4.06

Clash12 x:14.05, y:‐16.54, z:2.79

Clash13 x:5.62, y:‐16.38, z:2.83

Clash10 x:24.26, y:‐31.85, z:2.79

Clash11 x:21.11, y:‐15.02, z:2.85

Clash8 x:14.47, y:‐31.68, z:2.79

Clash9 x:17.35, y:‐23.37, z:2.83

Clash6 x:18.02, y:‐19.52, z:2.80

Clash7 x:17.81, y:‐15.88, z:2.75

Clash4 x:17.35, y:‐25.67, z:2.59

Clash5 x:17.35, y:‐28.45, z:2.59

Clash2 x:20.80, y:‐31.19, z:3.92

Clash3 x:18.04, y:‐26.09, z:2.80

Item 1 Item 2 Solution

Clash Report

Image Clash Name Clash Point

Clash1 x:‐0.50, y:‐19.79, z:3.30

Test 1

New ‐0.08 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 581364


Element ID : 744003


Move the mechanical duct

New ‐0.07 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 609726

Level 1Rectangular Elbow ‐ Mitered

Duct FittingsElement ID : 744218

Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Hole


New ‐0.07 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 609727

Level 1Rectangular Transition ‐ 45 Degree Duct Fittings

Element ID : 744218

Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Hole


New ‐0.07 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 582827

Level 1 Flex Duct RoundFlex Ducts: Flex Duct Round: Flex Duct ‐ Round

Element ID : 744022



New ‐0.07 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 582825


Element ID : 744022



New ‐0.07 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 582823


Element ID : 744022



New ‐0.06 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 581381

Level 1 Round Elbow ‐ 1 D Duct FittingsElement ID : 744003



New ‐0.05 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 573211


Element ID : 744177



New ‐0.05 Hard2014/4/26 20:38.02

Element ID : 573198


Element ID : 744177



Clash48 x:17.35, y:‐25.36, z:2.60

Clash46 x:19.04, y:‐15.24, z:3.00

Clash47 x:17.30, y:‐28.43, z:3.00

Clash44 x:19.65, y:‐31.56, z:2.94

Clash45 x:22.84, y:‐31.56, z:2.94

Clash42 x:20.74, y:‐18.03, z:3.37

Clash43 x:16.76, y:‐31.56, z:2.94

Clash40 x:19.04, y:‐15.24, z:2.86

Clash41 x:20.73, y:‐18.03, z:3.59

Before Model Modiication

After Model Modiication

The igure below shows the method we used to solve the clashes. The red area means we changed the object ofset, the

green (difusers) and yellow (ducts) area means we moved the object to a reasonable position, and the blue area indicate

that we drilled a hole on the architectural wall to let the ducts go through.

When we solved all the Hard Clashes, we noticed that when we change the clash type to Duplicated Clash, there are also

no clash detected. However, if we changed the clash type to Hard (Conservative), the amount of clashes will be the same,

but the status will all change from “Resolved” back to “New”. The Hard (Conservative) is not widely used for general clash

detection process, so this report will not conduct further study in this category. The Clearance Clash is usually used for

identiing the soft clash or the insulation of ducts and walls. We ran the Clearance Clash with tolerance 0.05 m throughout

the whole model, and we found 682 new clashes. We need more detailed information about the settings for tolerance in

soft clash detection, but we still learned that the straightforward user interface will make the soft detection process easy

and eicient.

What construction environments would beneit most from this tool? Complex? Simple?

Why?

Naviswork can beneit both in complex and simple construction. Clash detection is applicable to any scale project due to

its lexibility in detecting any clashes between varying components. In a smaller scale or simple project, clashes can be

identiied easily and perhaps without the need of clash detection tool, but the risk of mistakes may be high. Due to the

lexibility of tolerance level in Naviswork, project in any scale can be calibrated to cater to the scale of projects. For instance,

smaller scale residential projects may utilized less tolerance level for detailed constructions, whereby large scale projects

would do otherwise for increase in eiciency and cost reduction. The tools are lexible enough to cater to any scale.

On the other hand, complex project has to be well-organized to allow for managable amount of clashes per test run. Clashes

between various components within a complex building can be detrimental if not organized properly, which may result in

further complications instead of repairment. There are also varying factors associated with complex models that requires

the designers decisions as the software lack automation (elaborated later). Nevertheless, Naviswork allows great eiciency

in identifying physical clashes between diferent components that may not be obvious to a human eye (especially with

mechanical system components).

Simple project can beneit from Naviswork fast results and quick indication of clashes. However, extremely simple

cosntructions such as a car park with a post and lintel construction may not beneit from clash detection due to its lack of

components.

LARGE SCALE SMALL SCALE FOOLPROOF SCALE

THE OWNER/DEVELOPER

THE ARCHITECT

THE STRUCTURAL CONTRACTOR

THE MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR

“Clash detection is great to solve various errors. Construction

becomes much more eicient and the proposed deadline and

project completion was met. On the other hand, I was not

very pleased with the inished product. The holes through

the walls for the ducts was slightly too big and obstrusive.

A iner project would allow for less tolerance and greater

precision in handiing the sizes. But que sera sera, no money

was wasted and everything was on time, that matters most to

a businessman like me.”

“Undoubtedly clash detection was a great tool that is both

interoperable between the project members. The design

was least compromised although some spaces and programs

has to be made smaller I was most happy with the facade

treatment. Unfortunately, with the BIM process, I was still

restricted to the angular forms that is far from my taste, but I

hope for the best. The reviews went extremely smooth, within

a few iterations, my oicial stamps was on all the drawings.

Since I introduces this process, I have had great reviews from

the clients and less complaints on the buildings.”

“At irst I was a bit hessitant to use the clash detection process

as I am apprehensive about the accuracy of such software.

Clash detection I believe is most beneicial to the structural

contractor. Since structure is the basis and the foundation

of the building, clash detection between any other elements

can be illustrated clearly to the other project members. The

structural integrity remains in tact and was not changed in the

least. All that needed to be done was to identify the holes that

needed to be made for each ducts. The clashed elements was

very easily located since all of its location was identiied.”

“The mechanical elements of a building is usual the most

complicated piece of a project. Although lexible, each ducts

has to be design according to all the other elements. On the

other hand with the clash detection, we were able to utilize it

so that the design can actually take place concurrently with

all the other elements. It turns out, although there are many

errors that were identiied with this method, the errors can be

easily ixed. With the clash detection, all the components can

be designed in a much more organized manner and therefore

allowing the opportunity of an exposed ceiling system.”

The clashes can be selected by each components based on two diferent

iles (as long as the components allign with each other). Due to this

fact, each element can be assessed easily by the various components.

The clash detective selection tool allows better eiciency especially in

complex large-scale projects. Spaces within a building can be divided

into smaller categories and analyzed seperately, allowing a greater

depth of analysis and precision for each space and careful observation

between clashes.

SELECTION A - SELECTION B

How was your experience with the clash detection system? What are the features of the

system that you have liked? What are some limitations? Please create a wishlist of fea-

tures for an “ideal” clash detection environment.

QUICK RESULTSAutodesk Naviswork is a fast tool to determine the clashes within all

the building. A complex building with more elements may have taken

a longer period, on the other hand, repeated elements in high-rise

buildings can be replicated in terms of clash detection. Fast results also

means that clashes can be run repeatedly. Multiple tests categories can

be run in a single ile and re-run.

Tolerance level can be adjusted by the diferent components that are

tested based on the selections. Adjusting tolerance can help increase

construction precision especially when prefabricated components are

used. Tolerance level can also help avoid narrow and tight construction

that requires a lot of space. In a real project, construction tools (e.g.

crane, tractors, etc.) and “invisible space” may be included within each

space to ensure suicient construction space for larger components.

Unlike Solibri, which is not in sync with Autodesk Revit, Naviswork on

the other hand can refresh corrected model (perhaps due to the fact

that they are both Autodesk software). The model can be updated

as frequently with every correction and therefore everything can be

done digitally instead of having to print and review collectively on a

traditional drafting board. The refresh tool becomes an interoperable

tool that helps link the modelling and clash detection, hence increasing

worklow eiciency.

Clash detection can be tabulated easily. Tabulation imports clash

location based on the drawn grid on the model. Additionally, each

clash image is included with the decription of the clashed component

and nature of the clash. The tabulated data eases the project report and

increase eiciency in progress of any project. The tabulation can also

become a checklist and shows the date whereby the clashes happened

within the design progress. Clashes can be resolved and also recorded

which allow designers to trace back design progression and identify

resolutions that were unsuccessful.

TOLERANCE LEVEL

TABULATED RESULTS

EASY UPDATE

ST

RE

NG

TH

S

Clashes may overlap between diferent elements and it can become

confusing when the clashed of one element is recorded three times.

Although repeated clashed elements can be opted out, the clash

detection tool does not inform designers on the recommended

solution (e.g. the clashed components can be resolved by afecting

one instead of two components). Adding multiple selections or adding

sub-selections may ix the problem and can be used as a determinant

for the ixing other components when it comes to clash detection.

SELECTION C - SELECTION D?

HIERARCHICAL NATUREThe most noticable limitation happens due to the unseen hierarchical

nature of the components. Since the Naviswork does not indicate any

hierarchical components, each individuals responsible for the building

element would automatically prioritize their elements instead of the

others. The designer would be tempted to move some of the structural

elements that may be in the way of the space, but may not be aware

that the structural component is in fact structurally vital. Discussions

can become heated when no components are assigned a priority.

Model has to be repaired in Revit however small the repair is.

Although components can be moved in XYZ direction, repair is limited

and components cannot be deleted. This reduces the eiciency of

modeling, but simultaneously is done to increase precision of building

modeling. Perhaps if there is a greater integration between modeling

and clash detection, construction process can be catalyzed without the

full dependency to a modeling tool.

HOWEVER SMALL THE REPAIR IS...

The clash detection software only provides physical clashes between

components. Gradient diferences in HVAC duct is not considered in

clash detection or components that may be detrimental to the change

due to initial clashes. Without such detection, the components still

have to be carefully planned to ensure its functionality. Autodesk

Naviswork can become an extremely dangerous tool when overused

by designers. The automation of the tool can be improved signiicantly

to allow much more eicient analysis.

PHYSICAL CLASH

LIM

ITA

TIO

NS

?

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

• Increase the level of intelligence of Naviswork to detect not just physical clash but

perhaps parametric or HVAC clashes.

• Introduce a hierarchical tool to indicate components that are vital to structure,

mechanical systems, or even a key design element.

• Increase eiciency in navigation and repair for Naviswork and reduce its dependency

on Autodesk Revit.

Contempoporary Topic:BIM and Building Energy Modeling

INTRODUCTION: BIM in Architecture-Engineering-Construction Insustry

According to a report made by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), the lack of interoperability

and unsatisfying data management costs construction industry $15,800,000,000 annually, which is 3-4% of the cost

for the total industry. [13] BIM (Building Information Modeling) is regarded as the key to solve this problem. However,

currently, BIM has not been very prevailing in the Architecture-Engineering-Construction Industry.

In a survey in which participants are from A-E-C industry, result shows that 55% people believes that BIM is a tool for

visualizing and coordinating AEC work to avoid errors omissions and 25% people believes that BIM is an open stan-

dards based information repository for the facility lifecycle. [14]

Another part of the survey focuses on how people think BIM improves KPI (Key Performance Indicators). Among

participant of this survey, 87.7% say BIM improves quality, 83.7% say BIM improves cost, 82.8% say BIM improves

schedule, 74.9% say BIM improves productivity, and only 53.7% say BIM improves safety. [14]

It can be concluded from the survey result that the importance of BIM is obviously realized by A-E-C industry. Most

people understand BIM in certain important aspects and there’s not a single, widely accepted deinition of BIM.

DEFINITION: BIM, BPM and BEMThere’s not a single, widely accepted deinition of Building Information Modeling (BIM). Various deinitions focuses on

diferent aspects of it: what kinds of information are stored, whom does it serve, when is it used, and what’s the func-

tion of it.

National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee: Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a digital

representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for informa-

tion about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle; deined as existing from earliest concep-

tion to demolition.

ArchiCAD: A single repository including both graphical documents -drawings - and non-graphical documents -specii-

cation, schedules, and other data.

Bentley: A modeling of both graphical and non-graphical aspect of the entire building life cycle in a federated database

management system.

AutoDesk: A building design and documentation methodology characterized by the creation and use of coordinated,

internally consistent, computable information about a building project in design and construction. [22]

A common misunderstanding by some companies in A-E-C industry i that BIM refers to BIM softwares. In fact, BIM in

neither a collection of software nor a single step in construction management, but a process that goes through the

whole lifecycle of buildings.

Building Performance Modeling (BPM) analysis is the creation of a digital deinition, description, and simulation pro-

cess of a building behavior. In essence, it illustrates performance and operational components of a facility. [3] The two

terms, BPM and BEM, are often regarded as interchangeable. Building Energy Modeling (BEM) focuses on the simula-

tion of building energy. As a human body consists of circulatory system, the respiratory system, the nervous system,

etc, which correlate to each other and function together as a whole, a building consists of lighting system, HVAC sys-

tem, equipments, etc, which are like parts of a human body. [6] Building Energy Modeling is a way to put the systems of

the building together to foresee how the design will perform in energy aspect.

Important aspects of building energy modeling include air distribution, HVAC, lighting, daylighting performance, glaz-

ing and envelope. Building Energy Modeling inputs include location-- setpoint, orientation, etc; loads and occupan-

cy-- people, lighting, computer, occupancy hours, etc; construction information-- wall to window area, glazing, opaque

area, etc; mechanical system-- heating, cooling, dual duct variable air colume, water cooled chillers, heat recovery or

economizers, fan and pump inputs, and renewable energy, etc; domestic hot water-- storage size, etc; and speciality

equipment.

BEM/BPM works in the cycle of modeling, automating, monitoring, analyzing and improving.

Building Energy Modeling are conducted with modeling softwares. Some of the commonly used ones are illustrated in

the following parts of this study. However, the modeling results are close to actual energy consumption in some cases

and not as accurate in other cases.

Allows the user to “play”

with design ideas at

the conceptual stages,

providing essential analysis

feedback from even the

simplest sketch model.

ECOTECT progressively

guides the user as more

detailed design information

becomes available.

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

Autodesk Ecotect

Autodesk Green Building Studio

eQUEST - DOE2

EnergyPlus

Integrated Environmental Solutions

BENEFITS RESULTS AND OUTPUTINPUT VARIABLES

- Enables hourly analyses

much earlier in the design

process

- Reduces design and

analysis costs

- Compression of early

design time, speeding

project time to completion

- Accelerates analysis for

LEED compliance

The unique strength of

eQUEST is that it is an

energy performance

design tool that

evaluates whole-building

performance throughout

the entire design process.

it supports detailed

analysis throughout the

construction documents,

Accurate, detailed

simulation capabilities

through complex modeling

capabilities. Input is geared

to the ‘object’ model way

of thinking. Successful

interfacing using IFC

standard architectural

model available for

obtaining geometry from

Comprehensive analysis

options ofered across a

wide range of metrics

Simulation results are

linked between modules

Unrivalled interoperability

with other CAD/BIM

platforms

Intuitive 3D CAD interface

allows validation of the

simplest sketch design to

highly complex 3D models.

Can also import 3DS and

DXF iles.

gbXML-enabled BIM

gbXML-enabled 3D-CAD

Inputs can be provided

at three levels: schematic

design wizard, design

development wizard, and

detailed (DOE-2) interface.

In the wizards, ALL inputs

have defaults (based on the

California Title 24 building

energy code).

EnergyPlus uses a simple

ASCII input ile.

Geometrical building data

may be imported from a

range of CAD/BIM systems

(e.g. Revit/SketchUp/

Trelligence/Vectorworks/

Graphisoft) or gbXML, IFC,

DXF iles.

Metailes, Bitmaps

animations, Tables of data

RADIANCE, POV Ray

VRML, AutoCAD DXF

EnergyPlus, AIOLOSHTB2,

CheNATH, ESP-r, ASCII Mod iles,

and XML.

- Estimated energy;

- Cost summary

- Renewable energy potential

- Weather data summary and

- User deined graphics

- gbXML ile for import to Trane

TRACE 700 or

- other gbXML-compliant tools

- VRML ile

- Graphical summary reports

- Single-run results summary

- Comparative results summary

- Parametric tabular reports

EnergyPlus has a number of

ASCII output iles - readily

adapted into spreadsheet form

for further analysis.

Tabular, graphical, video,

photorealistic images,

colour contoured 3D

geometric visualisation

of analysis results, fully

populated reportage to

match LEED / BREEAM /

daylighting / solar shading

all included within the

package.

SOFTWARE USER RECOMMENDATION

For general user, Green Building Studio and Ecotech are recommended:

A computable Revit design model is the simplest way for the gerneral users analyse for sustainable design—even

during schematic design. As soon as the layout of a building’s walls, windows, roofs, loors and interior partitions

are established, the information Revit model can be used to perform whole building analyses directly. In addition,

most analysis software is complex and requires special training—making it unsuitable for occasional users like entry-

architects or designers. And the output of most analysis programs is complicated, making it hard for entry-users to

understand. Using the Autodesk Green Building Studio web-based and Ecotech to analyze building designs within

the BIM worklow greatly simpliies this process.

Figure.1

The Autodesk Green Building

Studio web-based service

enables whole building energy,

water, and carbon emission

analyses of a Revit –based

building design. It’s very simple

for entry-level user to learn by a

up-down website interface.

For professional experts, Integrated Environmental Solutions are recommended:

The IES Virtual Environment (IESVE) is a very powerful, in-depth building performance analysis tools. Whether work-

ing on a new build or renovation project, the VE allows designers to test diferent and more professional options

VE-Pro ofers a lexible choice of modules across: Energy, Carbon, Thermal, Solar, Daylight, Light, CFD, Bulk airlow,

HVAC, Climate, Egress, Ingress, Value, Cost, and Low Carbon/Renewable strategies

VE-Navigators are region speciic tools which address Global Rating System and Regulation requirements.

VE-Gaia is IES’ architectural analysis tool. Its step-by-step worklow system demystiies simulation and allows users

to progress from earlier ballpark comparisons into detailed early-stage calculations

It is also a powerful central data has direct links to SketchUp, Revit, Trelligence, and gbXML, IFC iles.

PARTICIPANT ROLE PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATION

UTILIZING BEM IN CURRENT PROJECTSIn 2010, Shady Attia conducted two surveys focusing on the building performance modeling software. The participants

included AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE), USGBC, 2030 Challenge, 2007 Solar Decathlon entry teams, and also

schools and departments of architectural engineering, environmental design and architecture irm which received Top Ten

Green Architecture Awards from 2005 to 2008. The survey has a balanced amount of architects and engineers, the amount

is controled in order to compare the condition of adoption between architects and engineers industry. The survey also

asked about the participants’ ailiation. There are 15% of AIA certiied architects, 25% of ASHRAE certiied engineers, 36%

of LEED AP, and the “Other” includes construction management professionals and students.

The survey also asked about which kind of BPM tools and geometric modeling tools the participants used. The purpose of

the question is to identify how the building industry link the geometric models and the thermal models. The results are the

architects mostly used AutoCAD and Sketchup with Ecotect, and engineers tend to use Revit with EnergyPlus. The result

shows an obvious inconsistency of tool use between designers (architects) and engineers or consultants.

BPM TOOLS USED BY PARTICIPANTS

GEOMETRIC MODELING TOOLS

USED BY PARTICIPANTS

ARCHITECT

ENGINEER

ARCHITECT

ENGINEER

To analysis the diferent tools used in diferent phase of the projects, the survey designed a follow up questions for BPM

tools used. The results shows that ECOTECT, eQUEST and Energy 10 are more widely used in the early design phase (pre-

conceptual and schematic design), and DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus are mostly used in detailed design and design

optimization since they are able to conduct more detailed analysis.

Pre-

conceptual

Schematic

Design

Design

Development

Design

Optimization

HEED 38 7

Energy 10 56 6

GBS 34 18

Ecotect 86 107 13

eQUEST 56 110 67 9

DB 77 84 87

EP SU 4 23 27

EP 43 45

DOE-2 15 19

There are also questions about which features are the most important in the BPM tools, and the results shows a contradictory

priority for architects and engineers. For the architects, the ability to develop complex design strategies are the irst priority,

and the following abilities are renewable energy system simulation, and ability to evaluate emissions related to building

energy use. The engineers, on the other hand, concern most about the ability to support HVAC system, life-cycle analysis

and then the complex design strategies.

PRIORITY AND ABILITY OF BPM TOOLS

BPM TOOLS PRIORITY ARCHITECT

ENGINEER

The below chart is the actual abilities comparing the ten BPM tools. The abilities of software has matched the current

adopt condition of architects and engineers. For instance, the software that engineers widely used such as EnergyPlus and

DesignBuilder support HVAC system, and the architects’ favorite ECOTECT has the ability to analysis the emissions due to

energy use.

DB

DO

E-2

En

erg

y+

IES

VE

GB

S

En

erg

y 1

0

eQ

UE

ST

Ske

tch

up

EC

OT

EC

T

HE

ED

Complex Design Strategies X X X X

Renewable Energy System Simulation X X X X X

Evaluation of emissions evaluation X X X X X X

Support HVAC system evaluation X X X X X X X

Life-cycle analysis X X X X X X X X

Support various building types X X X X X X X X X X

Overall ability (%) 85% 85% 85% 83% 78% 63% 61% 35% 35% 33%

LIMITATIONS ON THE SOFTWARE

Although the development of BIM has improved signiicantly since its conception, there are still discussions of discrepancies

between predicted and actual data. The few major causes of discrepancies are due to the unpredictable variables, diferent

assumptions, and impending errors in multiple data inputs and sensitivity. Many diferent studies have been done to

determine the solutions to increase accuracy and predictability, such as using evidence-based assumptions and using ‘top-

down’ or ‘bottom-up’ approaches, therefore Increasing accuracy of BIM simulation has been know to reduce project cost

and time (Nassar 2010).

The three-way interactions between people, climate, and building dictates the energy needed in building. BIM tools lack

considerations in terms of occupant’s behavior. According to a presentation by Dr. Rajat Gupta of UNEP, certain variables

such as the it out, equipment added, and pattern of use by occupants are most unpredictable in BIM. Furthermore, building

quality and commissioning is also not taken into consideration of the energy performance analysis.

Building assumptions in BIM plays a big role in the discrepancy between predicted and actual data. In new building

constructions, most building energy performance standard (BEPS) tools typically evaluate its baseline in terms of ASHRAE

90.1. The assumptions though may suice in terms of achieving the standard building code, yet limitations of the tools may

cause certain anomalies.

The graph illustrates the predicted vs measured EUI

(kBTU/sf) in BIM. Although there is an obvious pattern

in the relationship between the two, the data points

remain sparse and unpredictable (Turner et al 2008).

BEM CASE STUDY: A Successful BEM Case—BEM of DPR Construction Inc. Head-

quarters Building [15]

The building energy modeling of DPR Construction Inc. headquarter building was conducted in 2 phases.

Not as common cases in which energy modeling only happen in design phase, DPR Construction Inc. headquarter

building have done energy modeling both in design phase and and in operation phase.

The phase 1 modeling, which happened in design phase, was conducted in order to help the building obtain LEED

certiication and comply with California’s Energy Eiciency Standard for Residential and Non-residential Buildings,

also known as Title 24. It happened in design phase, year 2002.[15]

Phase 1 modeling was made using a non-BIM software, EnergyPro, which was chosen because of its compliance with

Title 24.

EnergyPro, provides duplicates of the forms provided by the California Energy Commission. EnergyPro also in-

cludes external links to the Common Energy Standard (CES) ile technology to allow the user to plug in new energy

standards, such as Standard 90, as they become available. Using the Standards software, government agencies can

deliver fully functional CES iles that contain speciic implementations of energy standards for code compliance

purposes. [19]

Phase 1 modeling result shows that DPR Construction Inc. headquarter building improves energy performance by

20% as compared to California’s Energy Eiciency Standard for Residential and Non-residential Buildings , which

equals to $25,000 annual energy cost savings [15]

In order to satisfy the clients’ desire to know how LEED certiied building improves performance, phase 2 modeling

was conducted in year 2008, in the operating phase of the facility. To do this analysis, DPR Construction Inc. devel-

oped a building information model using software IES Virtual Environment. Input data include contextual data—

weather, location, time-period, ground relection rating, terrain type and wind exposure rating; HVAC data--- fuel

type, generator seasonal eiciency, heating delivery eiciency, cooling mechanism type, and auxiliary equipment

information; building envelope performance--- materiality and thermal properties; and space usage data--- number

of building occupants, lighting types, equipment types and occupancy schedules. Output data include annual cool-

ing load, annual heating load, CO2 emissions, natural gas usage and electricity usage. [15]

IES Virtual Environment (VE), which is mentiond in the Software Comparison and Conclusion part of this study,

allows various types of input iles including Revit, SketchUp, Trelligence, Vectorworks, Graphisoft, gbXML, IFC, DXF

iles. Input of data relating to materials, occupancy, internal gains, climate, weather iles, air movement and systems

is managed entirely through graphical interfaces and supported by extensive database. Uses can get a 3D meomet-

ric visualization output package. [20]

Phase 2 analysis shows that the facility energy usage is 27% percent less than Building Owners and Managers Asso-

ciation (BOMA), which equals to $2,800 annual energy savings, close to previous estimation of $25,000. [15]

This building energy modeling case is regarded as successful because of the accuracy of phase 1 prediction. A simu-

lation model is often considered accurate if it falls within a speciic error margin (e.g., 5%). [16]

Reasons for the success of the energy modeling in this case may include:

• Accurateinputmeasuredinformation• Comprehensiveandcompletedatainput• Exactpredictionofscheduling

BEM CASE STUDY: A Failed BEM Case— A Semi-Detached house

An energy modeling of a refurbished two-bedroom, 76.9 sqm, semi-detached dwelling in Oxford, England is consid-

ered a failed energy modeling case because of the extremely large diference between predicted energy consump-

tion and actual energy consumption.

The dwelling was built in nineteen century and refurbished in twentieth century, occupied by a couple. One occu-

pant stayed in the house most of the weekdays and weekends due to health reasons. The other occupant works part-

time during weekdays.

Pre-occupancy energy prediction in this case was conducted in compliance to SAP 2005. SAP (Standard Assessment

Procedure) is UK Government’s standard assessment procedure for energy rating of dwellings. The SAP rating/cal-

culation is based on the energy costs associated with space heating, water heating, ventilation and lighting, less

cost savings from energy generation technologies. It is adjusted for loor area so that it is essentially independent

of dwelling size for a given built form. [21] SAP software is used in SAP ratings/calculations. It is required that data

should be inputted in the form of worksheet into SAP software.

The SAP calculation is based on the energy balance taking into account a range of factors that contribute to energy

eiciency:

• Materialsusedforconstructionofthedwelling• Thermalinsulationofthebuildingfabric• Ventilationcharacteristicsofthedwellingandventilationequipment• Eiciencyandcontroloftheheatingsystem(s)• Solargainsthroughopeningsofthedwelling• Thefuelusedtoprovidespaceandwaterheating,ventilationandlighting• Renewableenergytechnologies

The SAP calculation is independent of factors related to the individual characteristics of the household

occupying the dwelling when the rating is calculated, for example:

• Householdsizeandcomposition;• Ownershipandeiciencyofparticulardomesticelectricalappliances;• Individualheatingpatternsandtemperatures.[22]

It is obvious that SAP energy calculation is diferent from the common energy modeling in US since the energy mod-

eling in US do consider factors that SAP calculation are independent of. And SAP in used especially on dwellings.

Pre-occupancy modeling results in predicted annual gas consumption of 26,800 kWh, annual electricity consump-

tion of 803 kWh and total annual energy consumption of 333 kWh/m2.

The actual fuel bills of 29 Jan. 2008 – 28 Jan. 2009 showed that actual annual gas consumption in the year was 965

kWh, actual annual electricity consumption was 2,481 kWh and actual total annual energy consumption was 155

kWh/m2. [16]

24800

803 333

9465

2481155

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Gas(kWh/year) Electricity(kWh/year) Total Energy(kWh/sqm/year)

Predicted vs. Actual

SAP 2005 (predicted) Fuel bills (actual) ( 29 January 2008 - 28 January 2009)

COST ANALYSIS: BUILDING INFORMATION ANALYSIS (BIM)According to the U.S. Department of Energy 2009 statistics, architecture accounts for 48% of energy consumption. The

extensive amount of energy use in both residential and commercial sectors is an issue that needs to be addressed. Within

the sector itself, according to Construction Industry Institute 2004 data, 57% of money spent on construction is non value-

added. In 2008, U.S. Construction Market estimated US$ 1.288 trillion worth of energy is being spent solely on construction,

which accounts for a total of US$600 billion per year worth of waste (Eastman et al. 2009). With the recent economic crash in

2009, energy cost has inlated beyond the point of no return, and therefore adaptation of new design process needs to be

implemented in order to sustain the architectural industry.

OVERALL DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING

Through the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), design process can be made more eicient. The products are

equally efective in terms of reducing energy and material consumptions. Today, BIM can be calibrated to accurately

predict the actual energy usage of speciic buildings (Pan et al. 2007). Furthermore, the article added that these calibrated

models could be utilized to “simulate and calculate energy savings of possible energy conservation measures (ECM)”. The

advancement of BIM has indeed changed the perception of the traditional design process. Implementation of BIM modelling

in the early design stage supports the goals of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and potentially could reduce cost and

increase functional capabilities. According to AIA, “The principles of trust, transparent processes, efective collaboration,

open information sharing, shared risk and reward, value-based decision making, and utilization of full technological

capabilities and support [creates] the opportunity to design, build, and operate as eiciently as possible” (AIA 2007).

Further evidence shows that ineiciencies in the building industry are contributed by inefective management practices,

the recollection/reentry of data, and the stalling of resources (human and material) throughout the project phases. BIM

modelling can mitigate these problems, which accounts for an average increase in construction cost of $6.35 per square

foot (Eastman et al. 2008), and reduce the total time of construction up to 50% (Becerik-Gerber et al. 2009).

INEFFECTIVE

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

RECOLLECTION/REENTRY

OF DATA

STALLING

OF RESOURCES

INEFFICIENCIES IN BUILDING INDUSTRY

50% TIME REDUCTIONFOR $6.35 PER SF

Despite concerns of the training cost and initial loss in employees productivity due to the transition from traditional CAD

program to BIM, short-term productivity payback will help ofset loss. According to Autodesk Revit® Building Information

Modeling, initial productivity loss of 25-50% is expected, but surveys also show that the same level of productivity can be

attained within the period of 3-4 months. Based on this statistic, the estimate of overall increase in productivity ranges from

10-100%. Upon further analysis, more than half of the respondents experience greater than a 50% increase in productivity

(Autodesk 2011). Additionally, a recent study on BIM’s return of investment (ROI) calculated that among three case studies

the range of productivity varies from 16% to 1654% (Giel et al. 2013). The vast range of results suggests that savings may

be realized regardless of the size of a construction project.

According to several sources, Building Energy Modeling (BEM) can potentially has a payback period of approximately 0.5 to

4 years depending on the baseline standards, energy savings goal, software application, and scale of project (BuildingGreen

2013). The current ROI is predicted to be approximately 65%. Nevertheless, payback period are predicted to continue to

reduce as BEM software continue to advance in terms of its eiciency, precision, and interoperability (Altan et al 2013).

With such promising statistics, it is imperative that BEM will become a prominent role in the building design process. BEM

will continue to lourish and afect the current rate of energy consumption. For instance, a 2014 report from the Southeast

Energy Eiciency Alliance (SEEA) has proven to create a 387% return of investment (ROI) from 2010-2013 -- a mere three

years period. The report calculated that the retroit efort spurred $3.87 million in economic input and 17.28 new jobs for

every $1 million invested (CleanTechnica 2014).

COST ANALYSIS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)

According to several sources, Building Energy Modeling (BEM) can potentially has a payback period of approximately 0.5 to

4 years depending on the baseline standards, energy savings goal, software application, and scale of project (BuildingGreen

2013). The current ROI is predicted to be approximately 65%. Nevertheless, payback period are predicted to continue to

reduce as BEM software continue to advance in terms of its eiciency, precision, and interoperability (Altan et al 2013).

With such promising statistics, it is imperative that BEM will become a prominent role in the building design process. BEM

will continue to lourish and afect the current rate of energy consumption. For instance, a 2014 report from the Southeast

Energy Eiciency Alliance (SEEA) has proven to create a 387% return of investment (ROI) from 2010-2013 -- a mere three

years period. The report calculated that the retroit efort spurred $3.87 million in economic input and 17.28 new jobs for

every $1 million invested (CleanTechnica 2014).

Human behavior has a huge impact on the operation phase of the building life cycle. It includes operation and maintenance

(O&M), occupant behavior, and indoor environment condition. A study indicates that poor operation and maintenance

could increase the energy consumption predicted in the design phase up to 50 percent, and occupant behavior without

environmental awareness could also increase the consumption up to 80 percent. To accurately simulate the building

performance in the operation phase, human behavior would be a signiicant factor. Using a quantitative way to describe

and analysis enables human behavior to be simulated and become one of the parameters in building performance analysis.

According to a case study in Beijing, Occupant behavior in residential building can be categorized into three typical lifestyle

based on their environmental awareness and wealth distribution (Chen Peng, 2012).

The economic limitations lie in the precision and accuracy of the various software. Aside from the unpredictable occupant’s

behavior, an article on Green Building Advisor many software require incalculable inputs (e.g. window shading percentages,

wind exposure ratings, soil conditions etc.) Furthermore the article iterated that there are too many assumptions that may

afect the baseline result, hence boosting the percentage increase energy savings due to the proposed retroit (Holladay

2012). According to a study of 300 houses by Earth Advantage Energy Performance Score Pilot, the percentage error

(simulated vs actual) for four diferent energy models are the following:

• Simple, 25.1%

• Home Energy Saver (full), 33.4%

• REM/Rate, 43.7%

• Home Energy Saver (mid), 96.6%

ECONOMIC BENEFITS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)

ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)

With prior assessment of some limitation and bent results from various energy modeling, it is important that one questions

the truth on the economic beneits of implementing energy modelling. Due to the misconstrued data and ignorant

assumptions made by inexperienced consultants, many owner and clients become apprehensive to utilize BEM. As

mentioned repeatedly throughout the report, it is utmost important that BEM is done with a balance between assumptions

and actual measured data. In addition, tolerance or calculated marginal errors for results should be provided to indicate

that energy performance might vary according to variable inpredicted factors. Furthermore, occupants should be informed

of the various allowable plugloads and energy eicient appliances.

Not too far from the truth, although results of the economic beneits of BEM may not be entirely correct, but case studies have

proven whereby if the simulation is done properly there are incidences where actual energy load may even be lower than

the simulated load. In the long run, the economic truth of BEM is very much dependent on both the software development

for precise results and the conscience of many consultants to render a genuine output.

ECONOMIC TRUTH

ADVANTAGESDISADVANTAGES

• Lack of interoperability between diferent

softwares, especially with DOE-2 engines,

such as missing feedback between modules.

Absence of common ile format.

• Older software does not have the capability

to adapt newer systems and adding more

functionality is cumbersome compared to

component-based engines.

• Engines need to be frequently updated to

adapt to the fast growing new technologies.

• Lack of user-friendly graphical inteface,

which result in the dependency of other

modeling software.

• Ideal HVAC components (simple and compact

deinition without detailed information

about components and topology).

• Various baselines on diferent standards

can be used to determine the diferences

between the desired building benchmark. As

a result, energy performance improvements

become unreliable.

• Incomplete qualities or disadvantages of

programs are sometimes hidden or diicult

to evaluate. There may be lack of resources

to navigate through the software.

• May be unapplicable to large scale studies,

such as region or market wide, due to over

generalization and conlicting manufacturers

and resources.

• Driven by various incentives, mandatory

code compliances instead of environmentally

conscious educational choice.

• Newer simulation engines has started to

introduce greater interoperable ile format,

such as the development of IFC.

• Faster running engines and computer help

render faster, while results can be tabulated

and represented clearly.

• Educational program starts to introduce

an interdisciplinary approach to better

understand diferent aspects of building

design. The knowledge overlap is crucial to

increase communication eiciency.

• Provide a benchmark to determine operation

and maintenance cost of building, hence

proitting client/owner in the long run.

• Development of software has increased

precision and accuracy of energy modeling

through various mandatory input.

• Increase in incentives for certain standard

compliancy or accreditation.

• Increase in availability of energy modeler,

professional auditor, and product

manufacturer, which allow for faster and

inexpensive retroit.

• Ensure occupant’s comfort and productivity.

• Greater environmental awareness.

CONCLUSION: FUTURE OF BEM in BIMTo Solve current market obstacles mentioned in the previous sections, the idea of Design-Built-Operation Energy

Information Modeling (DBO-EIM) is proposed as one of the solution. The idea of the DBO-EIM is to build an energy model

which can calculate throughout the whole building life cycle, and enables buildings to meet the high eiciency standards

proposed in the design phase. However, diferent from modeling in the design and construction phase, the operation phase

needs to take human behavior into consideration.

To realize the idea of DBO-EIM, the new building in Pittsburgh, the Phipps Conservatory Center for Sustainable Landscapes

(CSL) has become the test-bed of the idea. Using DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus programs, the energy simulation model of

the whole building life cycle was built and the building are expected to reach net-zero in energy consumption. During the

design stage, the design team build a baseline design with design alternatives (with diferent HVAC system, envelope design,

lighting control, etc.) to compare the energy eiciency and ind the optimal solution. The annual energy consumption is

predicted to be 82.0 kWh/m2 and the annual energy generation is expected to be 101.3 kWh/m2, so the goal of net-zero

consumption can be made.

Source: Zhao, J. (2010). Design-Build-Operate Energy Informaion Modelling (DBO-EIM) for Green Buildings.

Five Selection Criteria (Major Challenges)

Shady Attia has identiied 5 major challenges for the BPM tools future development, by summarizing literature indings.

The 5 criteria are shown below:

1. Usability and Information Management (UIM) of the interface

“The usability and information management of the interface refers to the human-computer interaction” (Shady

Attia, 2010). The challenge means that both tool users and presenters expects the tools have more simpliied and

lexible control interface, and are able to generate a more straightforward results. This requires the software to

have better abilities to manage large information data and produce a concise graphs and results.

2. Integration of Intelligent design Knowledge-Base (IIKB)

The building performance simulation industry is still in the early stage of development. Hence, the BPM tools

should educate the users and designers in order to provide guidance and directions in the design process.

3. Accuracy and Ability to simulate Detailed and Complex building Components (AADCC)

This challenge is the most widely found in the literatures related to BPM tools. The challenge lies in not only have

the ability to simulate complex and detail building components but also achieve an accurate result of simulation.

4. Interoperability of Building Modeling

The development of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the applications of the IFC format have enable the

potential of integration project delivery in the building industry. However, the challenge is that only in the detailed

design phase of BIM can the project team deliver the information for conducting energy simulation. On the other

hand, if the project team adopt BIM in the early design phase, the complexity of the procedure will limit the potential

design options. (Eisenberg, Done et al. 2002; Donn, Selkowitz et al. 2009)

5. Integration of tools in Building Design Process (IBDP)

The inal challenge lies in improving the way to utilize the BPM tools. The current BPM tools are contradicted to the

nature of the design process. (Morbitzer, Strachan et al. 2001; Yezioro 2008).

Source: Shady Aia (2010). Building Performance Simulaion Tools: Selecion Criteria and User Survey.

REFERENCES

1. Autodesk. Autodesk Building Information Modeling: Realizing the Beneits of BIM. 2011.

2. Autodesk. Revit Building Information Modeling: Transitioning to BIM. 2007.

3. Becerik-Gerber, B. and Rice, S. The Value of Building Information Modeling: Can We Measure the ROI of BIM?.

University of Southern California AECbytes Issue 47. August 2009.

4. Eastman, Charles M., et al. BIM Handbook : A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,

Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2008.

5. Eastman, Charles M., et al. BIM Handbook : A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,

Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.

6. Giel, B. and Issa, R. Return of Investment Analysis of Using Building Information Modeling in Construction. Journal

of Computing Civil Engineering Vol 27 Issue 5. September 2013.

7. Kendra Tupper, Ellen Franconi, Coreina Chan, Stephanie Hodgin, Aaron Buys and Merritt Jenkins. (2011). Building

Energy Modeling: Industry-Wide Issues And Potential Solutions. Hanover, NH.

8. Ibrahim, M. and Krawczyk, R. The Level of Knowledge of CAD Objects within the Building Information Model.

Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture. pg 173-

177. 2003.

9. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and AIA California Council. Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide Version

1. 2007.

10. Shady Attia (2010). Building Performance Simulation Tools: Selection Criteria and User Survey. Architecture et

climat, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium.

11. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Data Book. 2008.

12. Zhao, J., Lam, K.P., Karaguzel, O.T., Ahmadi, S. (2012). Design-Build-Operate Energy Information Modelling

(DBO-EIM) for Green Buildings: Case Study of a Net Zero Energy Building. Proceedings of the 1st Asia conference of

International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA). Shanghai, China.

13. Gallaher, M., O’Connor, A., Dettbarn, J., and Gilday, L. (2004). “Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the

U.S. Capital Facilities Industry”

14. Patrick C. Suermann, Raja R.A. Issa. (2009). “Evaluating Industry Perceptions Of Building

15. Information Modeling (Bim) Impact On Construction”

16. Salman Azhar, Justin W. Brown, Anoop Sattineni. (2010).” A Case Study Of Building Performance Analyses Using

Building Information Modeling”

Maile. 2010. “Tobias A Method to Compare Measured and Simulated Data to Assess Building Energy Performance”

17. Gupta, R. and Chandiwala, S. (2010). “Understanding occupants: feedback techniques for large scale low-carbon

domestic refurbishments, Building Research & Information”

18. Kristopher Baker, Rob Bolin. Syska Hennessy Group. Energy Modeling Improves Building Performance

19. EnergySoft: http://www.energysoft.com/main/page_energypro_ep_information.html

20. U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Software Tools Directory http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=615/pagename_submenu=hvac_systems/pagename_menu=materials_

components/pagename=subjects

21. The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. 2005 edition. Revision 3.

22. Carnegie Mellon University, BIM cours lecture

BIM and IT Based Analysis for Construction Project Manager - Clash Detection & 4D Modeling

Documents

Transcript of BIM and IT Based Analysis for Construction Project Manager - Clash Detection & 4D Modeling