In the mid-70s, the development of solid modelling using Boolean operations (3D object overlap functions such as union, intersection, subtraction, etc) or Construction Solid Geometry (CSG: line-work of 3D shapes with no face or surface boundaries). Parametric modelling defines 3D solids using both Boolean operations and CSGs. Using these methods, parameters and relationships between boundaries can be defined and will hold true even if other aspects of the geometry change. These relationships may include things like parallel lines, fixed angles, dimensions, and more. The major difference between direct modelling and parametric is direct modelling requires the designer to change every aspect manually, whereas parametric modelling uses the defined relations to alter the design automatically. Software that use parametric modelling were available in the late 70s and early 80s; however, the computing power commercially available was minuscule in quantity and expensive. The software itself was also very pricey, “costing upward of $35,000 per seat in the 1980s” (Eastman 1), or approximately $70-85,000 today. These factors made parametric modelling nearly inaccessible for the average-sized construction business.
While the manufacturing and aerospace industries continued to pursue parametric modelling and automation, the AEC industry invested more heavily in additional direct modelling and drafting software like AutoCAD for creating construction documents. The development of these architectural tools led to the standardization of these documents and defining industry conventions for drawings. Standardization and interoperability continues to be one of the most pressing problems with integration of BIM programs today. Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is the data specification for AEC industry data. IFC is an ISO, but not all BIM programs manipulate IFC data in the same way. These differences are major obstacles between transferability of models between programs.
Another major benefit to firm-wide BIM adoption is the development of object libraries in a database. This significantly decreases drafting time by eliminating the need to modify the generic, software-provided structures and materials that are commonly used(ex. Walls, concrete slabs, masonry, etc). The platform can then be used to tag materials and objects that could be exported to a bill of materials, operational & maintenance information, and project schedule. It is critical that this database of objects be available to all designers, collaborators, and engineers on the project so that there are no clashes in the model.
There are several components that make up an overall BIM system:
- BIM Platforms are applications that host the model and have the capabilities to perform design functions (Revit, Tekla, Vectorworks, etc)
- BIM Tools are the methods by which a model is altered or data is extracted to be used for another purpose (rendering, simulation, clash detection, etc)
- BIM Servers are places where data is collected from platforms, tools, and libraries
- BIM Environment is the loose grouping of platforms, tools, servers, links, and data libraries
Management of a BIM system and securing its data is paramount for successful adoption and use for a firm. Investing time and resources into proper training and equipment can produce extraordinary results and drive innovation in the construction industry, but it does take a commitment of quality education, method-sharing, and execution.
Comment 1:
I really like that you brought up the point that data transferability is more than just the subjects of the data (lines, shapes, values, etc) but also the actual language in which the data is recorded. It is an extra layer that in the US, we tend to overlook because the main language used on our sites is English. With IFC being an international standard code it's critical that there is a clear path in which the data is translated.
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/b2-interoperability.html
Comment 2:
Pritesh,
Although BIM is now almost mainstream among many medium to large sized companies, using it in the design phase of a project still requires quite the upfront cost (especially if the owner opts for an IPD method of delivery), which is ideally balanced later in the project with shortened coordination time and fewer mistakes. Choosing a tech-heavy project approach requires more capital up front than traditional methods (with, as you mentioned, higher savings later in the construction process).
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-2.html
Comment 3:
Cory,
I disagree slightly with your perspective. Although collaborative BIM settings have the potential to be highly accurate design spaces for a project, more often than you would think, the model generation is not seamless. The proper training and attention to detail is critical to successful BIM coordination and without it, mistakes are bound to slip through the cracks. However, I do agree with you on the value of BIM for owners AFTER a building has been delivered. The ideal BIM model has all trades, components, and systems represented in the model, thus delivering a perfect "as-built" closeout document for the owner. Granted, changes made during the construction phase are not always revised in the BIM model, so it is up to the owner to decide the level of detail they wish to have in the closeout file given to them.
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/bim-handbook-chapter-5.html
12 comments:
Comment 1:
I really like that you brought up the point that data transferability is more than just the subjects of the data (lines, shapes, values, etc) but also the actual language in which the data is recorded. It is an extra layer that in the US, we tend to overlook because the main language used on our sites is English. With IFC being an international standard code it's critical that there is a clear path in which the data is translated.
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/b2-interoperability.html
Spencer,
It’s crazy to think that people used to draw floor plans, sections, and elevations all by hand. It seems like such a tedious task but at the time, there was no easier way to design a building. It must have been even more frustrating when changes needed to be made. The creation of BIM technologies has allowed architects and engineers to create more complex buildings. It is especially important for us as students to keep up with the advancement of BIM technology because has really taken over the industry.
Spencer,
I really like how you highlighted just how far BIM technology has come and how quickly things have advanced. It's shocking how expensive the parametric software was in the 1980s; I can see why that made it so unattainable for people. It makes you wonder what's available now that most small scale companies can not afford but would really benefit from. I like the way you broke down the components of a BIM system it was helpful to see how it is broken up and what they are in such a clear and concise manner.
I think you are right on target and I have seen how the “development of object libraries” can decrease the drafting time. Companies often use the same details over and over but modify them to a specific situation. The section on the history of modeling was very interesting and gives good perspective on what we have today.
Knowing the type of technology and BIM software we use for design and construction now makes looking back at the past methodology so intriguing. I can only imagine what the future design process will utilize that will make our current means feel as crazy as designing a building entirely by hand does now. The fact that the modeling software in 1980 cost what is now in the ballpark of $80,000 is so insane to think about, especially because of how common design programs are in our industry. The software that we have is so incredible and allows for so much to be done, and I can’t wait to see what advancements will be made in the future as technology and demands for design change.
Spencer,
Often times when people are using modeling programs we are go through the motions not knowing how the geometry relations are made(parallel lines, angles, dimensions). I found it interesting to know the development of solid modeling and parametric modeling and how expensive it was to have a parametric modeling software back in the 70’s and 80’s. Apart from the interoperability problems of BIM, it is impressive to see the technological advances made over the 50 years and how we went from only hand drawn models to almost all computer drawn models.
Spencer
This was quite the interesting history lesson for the majority. I did not think about how long engineers have been drawing everything by hand which is probably why this very fast innovative technology is knocking every entrenched engineer off their feet. As a side note, humans have not been making engineering project for tens of thousands of years. Also it is much cheaper now to do projects because the software has gotten so much better. I also like the international language, because if everything is standardized, the method of sharing and ironing out issues becomes streamlined.
Spencer,
I really like your section on the history of modeling because I think it is important to understand where we have come from in order to appreciate what we have now. I think that having perspective for when we are frustrated that software isn't working the way we expect it to, or if we are having trouble modeling a certain thing using it, that these are technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago. The development of these softwares are always evolving and I'm sure that as our professional careers progress, we will see all sorts of changes that we cannot even imagine now.
The evolution of modeling has rapidly progressed in recent years and it is evident from your post. As we discussed in class, the profession of draftsmen has declined due to improved technology. Imagine the profession BIM would vanish when it is fully developed in the near future. The workflow will be more efficient and productive as more and more decisions and calculations are autotomized.
Comment 2:
Pritesh,
Although BIM is now almost mainstream among many medium to large sized companies, using it in the design phase of a project still requires quite the upfront cost (especially if the owner opts for an IPD method of delivery), which is ideally balanced later in the project with shortened coordination time and fewer mistakes. Choosing a tech-heavy project approach requires more capital up front than traditional methods (with, as you mentioned, higher savings later in the construction process).
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-2.html
Comment 3:
Cory,
I disagree slightly with your perspective. Although collaborative BIM settings have the potential to be highly accurate design spaces for a project, more often than you would think, the model generation is not seamless. The proper training and attention to detail is critical to successful BIM coordination and without it, mistakes are bound to slip through the cracks. However, I do agree with you on the value of BIM for owners AFTER a building has been delivered. The ideal BIM model has all trades, components, and systems represented in the model, thus delivering a perfect "as-built" closeout document for the owner. Granted, changes made during the construction phase are not always revised in the BIM model, so it is up to the owner to decide the level of detail they wish to have in the closeout file given to them.
https://ae-410-510-ay19-20.blogspot.com/2020/01/bim-handbook-chapter-5.html
Spencer,
Since I am unfamiliar with BIM, I didn't realize firm-wide object libraries were a thing. On my second co-op, the majority of my job was AutoCAD drafting. Having access to firm-wide standardized objects would've significantly decreased my drafting time, giving me more time for other things. We definitely had some shared objects, like span arrows, but those still had to be brought in from other drawings. A firm-wide library makes a lot of sense.
Post a Comment