BIM building product libraries – just digital stencils or more?

Manufacturers and suppliers of building products have a long history of promoting to designers; Sometimes this is above-board, they provide informative sessions, library manuals, samples etc. Sometimes they are less ethical – promotional lunches, free products for own use, other perks; Rarely but occasionally, downright dodgy.

Do you fault manufacturers and suppliers for their marketing strategies? I do – but not that they are trying to get designers’ attention but on how they are doing it.

Manufacturers and suppliers in construction have a great opportunity but also an obligation to get their hands ‘dirty’ in developing virtual design and documenting tools;

Yes, we have had branded stencils for sanitary ware for yonks. Flatcad served up customised blocks for various brands.

Some are promoting their digital (BIM) libraries now – however I find this initiative far too weak;

What I’d love to see is intelligent digital representation of building objects that will know everything that there was to know about what they represented, from full specification to where they can be used. Comprehensiveness, common sense and clarity of expression combined with smart constraining of elements would be excellent.

Some examples of tools that are heading this way can be seen on this Hungarian website: 

www.eptar.hu

Do you know others that do more than just represent building products virtually?

Tomorrow I’ll show you an IKEA example I have come across.

BIM cannot substitute for lack of fundamental technical knowledge...

I like to look at any building as a ‘kit of parts’, and while comparing construction with any type of manufacture gets frowned on, I like how buildings are made up of components, subcomponents and assemblies.

Typically, a component is any item that originates from a single source; (arrives on site as a self contained unit) and gets fixed to other components; (window, manhole cover, brick, entire facade)

The key determining factor in identifying a component is: the largest single recognisable unit supplied (and installed) by a single manufacturer or trade; Another simple rule to remember: the lead designer/architect/engineer should be responsible for junctions between components – individual trades/manufacturers for what is happening ‘inside’ their components!!!)

Under the ‘traditional system’ these components were rarely drawn. When they were drawn, it was done in the simplest terms and only for those items not available ‘off the shelf’.

BIM has changed this approach. While BIM cannot substitute for lack of fundamental technical knowledge BIM offers manufacturers of building components the opportunity to get better presence for their products on the market but also influence where and how their products are used; There is quite an opportunity to provide USEFUL tools to designers and construction documenters/managers that are also promoters as well.

Manufacturers, step up and lead! 

More tomorrow.

Picture book documenting: a good way to ease into BIM!

Traditional working drawing methods were based on the idea that the designer has developed a solution to a problem and that needed to be turned into a reality by people of varying skills and most not party to the initial brief or the reasons that were behind the solution.

The basic principles of A3 based ‘picture book documenting’ are not that different from traditional drafting, the aim being to achieve:

1.       An accurate and complete record of the designer’s intentions

2.       Easily understood by all concerned

3.       Comprehensive and sufficiently detailed for its purpose (LOD)

4.       Easily retrievable and searchable

5.       Technically sound (buildable)

There are differences though:

1/ Scale – everything is scalable within LOD limits; views are set up to be easily read at A3 size (if A1s are needed the entire book is enlarged)

2/ 3D views are used ahead of 2D projections

3/ Ease of navigation is highest priority, misleading and ‘stuffing up’ of documentation is prohibited;

So, reading this, you can say, what is new in this? Remarkably little in principle but a significant advantage is gained when applied;

Check the file provided;

With one press of a button a user can access information that complies with all 5 points described.

Paper copies may be needed for contractual and approval processes ‘sheets’ from the book can be printed, bookmarked, referenced;

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4GF8MRLb0DAZWMxOTM1NWYtZTBmMC00ZjA4LTk0ZDgtYjY1MjZlNDkxOThl&hl=en_GB&authkey=CNfV4NYH

Why do we use silly scales when documenting buildings?

I prepared a file that shows the basic principles of A3 based ‘picture book documenting’. (will post soon); Before I describe the approach, I need to cover another tool in the building documenter’s kit: the scale;

Historically building documenters used scales to draw objects in exact proportion to their true size, Common metric scales were 1:100, 1:50, 1:20, 1:10 and 1:5; 1:25 was less favoured though with the advent of the A1/A3 output partnership it gained some traction (1:25 reduced turned into 1:50).

While studying architecture a quarter of a century ago I was encouraged not to use a scale ruler;

We were told to measure with a normal ruler and work dimensions out in our heads and were assured, that in time we will be able to ‘see sizes’; Look at a door, you’ll be able to tell what scale the drawing was drawn at and estimate sizes of spaces; The imperative was that the entire drawing was true-to-scale and where a dimension was critical, it was noted as such;

Roll in Flatcad and da-da: we now have scales ranging from 1:150 through 1:400 to 1:725; Combine these with the ‘do not scale’ instruction, the reduced-size outputs and suddenly your job becomes even more difficult;

Are there not enough challenges anyway with documenting buildings to be disadvantaging ourselves with using silly scales as well?

(am sick today – so blog a bit off-beat too)

A common disclaimer that is a major roadblock to any progress with BIM

In the mid nineties, Mark Burry – a lecturer at VUW (School of Architecture) was photographed with a CD to promote his course. The capture said, ‘this is the medium soon entire buildings will be documented on and handed to contractors to build from.’ This quote is totally from memory – no offence intended for inaccuracy. This ad was published in the local newspaper.

I am still waiting to see the prediction happen;

These days DVDs do get handed over in Tenders and BID documents, they carry however information not much different from a trailer-load of paper drawings, printed specifications, graphs.

I don’t think that was what Mark meant when he was referring to digitally documenting yet-to-be-built buildings.

I dare to speculate, based on some hazy memories that he was predicting contractors setting the environment of building-communication where the digital data was carried between parties with data integrity intact.

Mark and I presented a conference paper in Vienna in 1997; During the research for my part I contacted Joern Utzon, in his eighties at the time. To my delight he responded;

In my numerous shifts over the years since, his letter got misplaced but I remember it as being encouraging of the use of digital tools to document complex buildings.

Picture book documenting tomorrow, today a common disclaimer.

Also a major roadblock to any progress with BIM.

Do we need to work on larger desks or expand our minds?

I am getting interesting ‘offline’ comments. Many choose to ‘sit on the fence’ and wait and see.

I must not be ungrateful – the support of this blog has been excellent, albeit largely invisible to outsiders.

I talked previously about the irony of CAD managers (preventing ‘Flatcad grow up and move on’) being put in charge to herald in the ‘new’ (BIM) approach;

There is another paradox the industry can claim:

Buildings get documented by building documenters.

Generally they work in offices and on computers placed on modestly sized desks.

Should not matter much – we work in virtual environment, where even Flatcad provides endless space to document entire cities in infinite detail and 1:1 scale.

A scroll-mouse is needed and a flat screen and there is a pleasant working environment.

Wait on – there is another part of this communication story: the outputs; These are controlled by two forces – one is a combination of contractual requirements and lack of understanding of processes the other governed by economy and size preference; So, we output everything on A1 sheets as well as A3s (same information reduced);

A1s because we have to and A3s because they are cheap to reproduce and fit onto our desks.

Why are we basing an entire industry’s communication on information provided in such bad shape?

I’ll tell you about A3 based ‘picture book documenting’ tomorrow.

Push the lifts up to the top of the building!

Have you downloaded my ‘lift‘ file yet? Do it now! Then, tell me – how long did it take you to push the 4 lifts from their starting position at the bottom of the building to the top?

Gimmicky? Not, at all; In this ‘simple’ (and small) file you’ll find numerous features of good BIM.

I talk often about how ‘good BIM does this or that’; I have been dodging defining my BIM so far and to some extent I intent to stick with that.

BIM is such a great acronym, unfortunately, rarely used unequivocally. Not surprisingly though –  take the two ends – ‘building’ can be a noun or a verb, same can the ‘model’; So are we modelling building information or are we building (an) information model?

Often you see BIMM instead, where one of the Ms is for Modelling, the other for Management; Managing Building Information by using (a) Model;

I can see traditional documentation as a type of BIM too, Building information management centred on multiple 2D drawings (BIMD) and Flatcad is BIM as well – Building Information Management based on electronically produced disconnected 2D drawings (BIMF). Strictly speaking both drawings – traditional and digital are models too  – representations of future buildings.

Why does all this matter? Well, I believe that these acronyms are often used to misinform as much if not more as to inform.

 

Download this file: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4GF8MRLb0DAMTUwMzlkZWUtYWYxNS00ODVhLWIzMGItZjg3YTMwYzZmZGFj&hl=en_GB&authkey=COG1r_cB

We document buildings by constantly ‘reinventing the wheel’ (RTW);

How do we document buildings? By constantly ‘reinventing the wheel’ (RTWo distinction is made between ‘mundane tasks’ (that can be automated, controlled and performed cheaply) and ‘important tasks’ (unavoidably risky but manageable);

In the case of the ramp and overbridge: A brief was written; A consultant designed it; Design was approved and documented; Consents were given, building constructed;

Using a RTW approach, each stage would have taken a loooong time with little results. Each party handling the documents would have needed to interpret, understand, assess the information and make a decision;

There is an alternative BIM approach:

I like to look at any building as a ‘kit of parts’.

Generally, the terminology is applies to modular and prefabricated buildings – I extend it to building parts and assemblies that are also ‘typical’ over a large range of buildings but are neither prefabricated nor fully standardised;

The consultant designing the ramp would have previously developed the intelligent kit of parts containing: Numerous versions of complying ramps (straight, circular, concrete, steel..), the bridge’s elements, the stairs; Each element would have carried non graphical parameters as well, like materials, cost, availability... Multiple options of design could then have been prepared in minimal time, presented, documented and checked for compliance simultaneously.

In the first case, valuable time is spent on the mundane, in the second the mundane is automated.

Download this file: (related question will be published tomorrow)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4GF8MRLb0DAMTUwMzlkZWUtYWYxNS00ODVhLWIzMGItZjg3YTMwYzZmZGFj&hl=en_GB&authkey=COG1r_cB

Ramps that can not - not comply with building codes

Many in construction believe, that because all buildings are unique, one-off-creatures created through a high percentage of manual labour, there is little room for automating tasks and applying quality control based on discipline and efficiency. Standardising operating procedures into easily replicable processes is looked at as being not appropriate to construction and even less for the design process, something being the realm of manufacture only. Still, creating buildings is a lot about how consistency is achieved.

I find it amazing that an industry that churns out ‘products’ in billions of dollars annually is constrained by haphazard, unscientific processes that carry huge amounts of (often unnecessary) risks;

The construction industry is like others and standardisation and sound quality management practices can be applied. The trick is in knowing what and where.

How to separate the Mundane from what Matters?

Take for example yesterday’s ramps: The NZ Building code is pretty specific what parameters an accessible ramp should have. There are BIM tools that will allow objects to have built-in controls for these code specific parameters. When these objects are set up properly they control what a user can do with them. This on its own would not make the previously mentioned councillors suddenly see what the impact of a 70+m ramp will have on the GE Village but would do a lot of good. More tomorrow.

KiwiRail removes 'eyesore' ramps

Today, I digress from big picture BIM issues, focusing on New Zealand. Check out a local news item: In Auckland a  pedestrian ramp over a railway, built less than 5 years ago is being demolished because of the locals’ outcry (NZHerald’s article);

It cost $1.8M to build it, $0.6M to remove it; Would have cost less than $600 (0.0006M) to properly model it, not just for the consultation and approval processes but also construction;

This is of course over-simplifying the issue. I could not resist commenting! Look at another article:

“..Fellow Waitakere councillor and former Glen Eden mayor Janet Clews acknowledged that although her community had been denied the benefit of an information open day, unlike others along the western railway line, council staff had been shown drawings of the new bridge.

"We really should have picked it up earlier - but nobody could ever have recognised from those, the scale that turned up."” (NZHerald, June 21, 2007)

I like this last statement: let’s build a 1.8M investment – the drawings look good, sad we are unable to assess the size it will turn up at!

So, mister ‘building owner’, you failed miserably here. This was not even a stadium! (I’ll come back to that later).

Tomorrow , I plan to speculate a bit on what may have happened on this project;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10698828