HEALTHCARE BIM DESIGN
BIM: Challenges and lessons learnt
During the design process, the team faced some limitations and difficulties with the BIM approach, and many lessons have been learnt to improve the implementation of future projects.
The team were able to identify a number of previously unforeseen coordination issues using automated clash detection. However, we first had to align the three models and wade through thousands of clashes. The team very quickly learnt that it is essential to get protocols right from the start, in order to make such processes effective. In this case, clash detection at an earlier stage with more basic models would have saved much time during detailed design.
At the start of the project, much of the software was immature (particularly MEP software), and links between software platforms were very cumbersome to begin with, so many of the ‘ideal’ BIM methods were put
aside.The capabilities of the software have now improved, and it is also
much quicker to transfer models to other packages such as thermal analysis or visualisation software. Hopefully this will further improve and extend to links with all analysis packages, as this will be a key opportunity for supply chains to provide the NHS with a more streamlined workflow.
All the teams used the same software platform for reasons of interoperability. If you are using different platforms, it is well worth trialling file exchanges and identifying problems at the start of the project.
BIM supports NHS
aspirations because it reqiures full collaboration between the supply chain and client. By adopting BIM from the early stages, the design team naturally collaborated to resolve issues. Using the 3D model made problems obvious and often presented clear options for resolutions. Sharing responsibility for these problems meant that the team could decide upon the best solution in each case and assign an action accordingly.
Model ownership and
responsibility are often raised as concerns with this approach, but for this project, the responsibility did not differ greatly from a traditional approach. Each team member was responsible for their own model and it was agreed what would go in each model. Any information formally issued is the responsibility of the issuer. Models can be passed on as ‘work in progress’ for development by others (such as for fabrication), but anything issued from this model will then be ‘owned’ by the new issuer. The interface between MEP designer and installer needs to become more collaborative, with the installer providing their requirements before the design model is created, and with the designer monitoring the implications of changes after detailed design. This way, ownership of the model is passed over at a recognised stage, but information is shared between the two parties in order to smooth out the handover process.
Improved collaboration and communication between designer and installer Traditional process:
Design taken to tender stage by consultant
A B C D E MEP Consultant MEP Consultant
Performance design by consultant
Collaborative process:
Contractor appointed based on tender design
F1 F2 K MEP Sub-consultant
MEP Sub-consultant MEP Consultant
Review by consultant
Installer informs designer of installation requirements/implications, such as pre-fabricated module arrangements
A B C D E MEP Consultant
F1 F2 K L MEP Sub-consultant
Responsibility of the model moves over to installer as they take on installation details
34 CIBSE Journal August 2012 Post Occupancy
Facilities Manager
Designer reviews installation model and considers impact on design
L Post Occupancy
Facilities Manager
Facilities Manager
or planning submittals, embedding automated calculations into virtual equipment, circuiting and automated panel schedules, and links to prefabrication software. The combined models were used for co-ordination and clash detection, sequencing, client presentations and for discussing design intentions. The team are now looking at the feasibility of the Trust using the model to monitor and maintain the building. It may be linked into software tools for asset management or with the building management system (BMS) to assist with controlling and monitoring systems. The Trust will be responsible for keeping the model up to date, and for providing future teams with access to the record models. A BIM approach suits healthcare projects for a number of reasons. The requirements of the end-users in hospitals are very specific, meaning there is much communication between the occupants and designers. As non-technical users, it is much easier to convey design intention using a virtual representation of the rooms. Hospitals typically host a wide
range of MEP systems, and service distribution routes are often congested. Coordinating these accurately before starting on site is of significant benefit to buildings with complicated servicing strategies. Healthcare buildings often use prefabrication for this reason and, if standard modules are ascertained during the design stages, they will not have to be reinvented after detailed design. In addition to co-ordination, the diverse
range of services means that hospitals generally consume a lot of energy during use. Although the technology is in its infancy, operators can link the BIM model to their BMS in order to monitor performance against the design intent.
www.cibsejournal.com
Hoare Lea
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60