Initially, this section comments on
the importance of contractor input in the design process. I personally, have
often wondered how the plans that are created are digested by contractors. It
is difficult for the engineer to think as a construction worker because the
construction process is very different than the beautifully furnished indoors
of the engineer. The contractor needs to comment on the progression of the
project and its necessities which are almost never put on plans. With this
construction consultation, many new ideas could come about because of multiple
stakeholders. The project managers would be able to see things about the
construction site that the engineers usually don’t think of such as facilities
and parking.
This leads
to the 4D, aspect of design and modelling, which was touched on later in the
piece. 3D design is obviously the way construction plans should be for every
type of construction. The only problem is that the contractor can not always
view the 3D design well or at least it is more difficult without an ipad. I do
not believe these changes will be difficult, however, the firm that I currently
work for only uses 2D design and I am one of the only people pushing for 3D
design. The reason for this is that the standards in bridge and road
engineering is dense, entrenched, and different for most states. 4D design
includes time, which will make it all the harder to create plans. Although I
think it’s easy, change is always fought. 3D and 4D plans are a good use of
time because they mitigate issues that could be overlooked. It is difficult to
determine the scope of a project unless it is in 3D. The stakeholders will also
most likely get involved; the “smart” engineers use the 2D models to ignore the
public largely, if unintentionally. When the public gets a good idea of what
the project is more problems occur, which although makes it tougher, it becomes
a better construction plan with happier people.
Prospective
problems with 4D design are numerous. Sorry to be negative about this but I
don’t see it happening for a few years. The first problem is the program, with
multiple types of 3D software coming and competing, it is difficult to
implement just one singular one. This problem pervades further because all the
states in america have different codes. Having a program that sticks to one
would be tough, however, other countries are using 3D and maybe 4D design
successfully. This is something that I hope will be prevalent in the next few
years.
Madeleine
I wrote a very similar analysis but from a completely different
section. Most of my points were analogous to yours as well, including the idea
that multiple disciplines should be taking part in the design process to
eliminate unforeseen problems, overlap and confusion. You however, said that
the different disciplines should have the same tools which I assume means
teaching civil and structural engineers revit or architects microstation or
cad. I appreciate how you explain that the it should be easy to convert
everyone to one program but is basically impossible because nobody likes change,
apparently. Sorry I don’t have any contradictory points, but we happened to
land on adjacent conclusions.
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.
Andrew
I liked how you spoke about cost being the main issue which
it is. People don’t want to invest in an integrated BIM system because
currently, the design build protocol “works”. But people don’t see how much
easier and better projects could move through phases which is the toughest part
of design. Also it is important to note that when one thing is changed, the parametric
aspect changes multiple factors. This is very good, I think that it could be
very beneficial but it could also cause huge problems if they aren’t connected
correctly.
4 comments:
Dane,
I definitely have experienced firsthand the differences between the engineers, construction workers, and contractors. Each individual sees the plans one way and often times it is completely different from how the others see it. Common contractor complaints are that engineers design systems without any real understanding of what it actually takes to build what they're asking for. I can definitely see how integrating 3D and 4D design would be an improvement, although on site technology to view the plans would have to compatible for all those involved.
I think you made a good point about contractors in the field not having a good way to view the 3d models and I think that is one way that they could get a better understanding of what is going on in the building. It is also important for the engineer to have the construction worker in mind
Dane,
I can’t imagine how there is an engineering firm that doesn’t support 3D modeling. BIM isn’t a new tool, but the only thing that I can think about that prevent them from using these programs is money. Some small firms don’t want to pay more for better tools which gives the employees a hard time. However, these programs help all parties that are involved to have the best presentation of the project including the stakeholders. These 3D views can be edited using the IPAD as you mentioned. This could be handy while the contractor and the engineers are at the worksite. It gives perfect results in designing which means better projects and that counts toward the firm’s reputation.
Dane,
You touched on an important conflict that I think a lot of companies face. 4D/3D models are time consuming to create but they are the most effective in the long run. On my first co-op most projects had a Revit model which several departments worked on to add every minute detail and took time out to fix errors and sync work. Although this meant projects took time to complete, the virtual model could be looked at by anyone and understood within minutes. It is important to think of it as investment that gives better returns on larger initial costs.
Post a Comment