OPINION How to start a revolution
We need more collaboration between MEPs and architects, as well as better software, if we are truly to embrace BIM, says Thomas Taggart
As I see it, our job, as mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP)
designers – in embracing BIM processes and culture – is twofold. First, we need to begin embedding our geometry with data from which to drive the analysis and design. The goals should be to create internal effi ciencies for our teams during the design phase, as well as longer-term information management and distribution strategies. Ultimately, we are seeking to create a data-rich environment based on the construction of a virtual model – a common goal in the construction industry. We also need to understand the value
that the creation, use and management of this information can have for our clients further downstream. We are long past the days of populating models with information ‘because we can’. Harnessing that information to work for us, and to provide a more dynamic product with a longer life cycle, is key. Second, we need to focus on collaboration – an area that can always be improved upon and an important factor towards time and cost-savings. Joining forces with other disciplines through information-modelling is expected to open many doors. And, as we move towards common fi le formats and cloud-based data management systems, this is happening. But, at ground level, there are still some basic issues for MEP designers. Take for instance load/energy modelling. Typically, we replicate the building geometry to perform this analysis in specialist software, which sits outside the main MEP model. But in our vision, BIM gives the
ability for the building geometry to be driven from one place – the architectural model. To simplify somewhat, the live architectural design geometry should directly drive what we export to specialist software for engineering analysis, not building services teams rebuilding the models and entering design parameters outside of the live design model. Software can support the idea of this
www.cibsejournal.com
Ceiling coordination is now standard BIM practice, but what else can it offer us?
We need a
dedicated tool to review and selectively inherit geometric change in a palatable way
particular workfl ow. The architectural model room defi nitions, which drive the MEP, model volumes for analysis. We link the architectural version into ours, map its room geometry to our analysis volumes and, hey presto – the architecture is driving the MEP analysis. A true BIM process in action. Sadly, that’s not quite the case. Perhaps, this might work on a
simple building – a training model where everything falls into place – but, the reality on mid-to-large-sized projects, with relatively complex geometrics, is different. There is no real proven workfl ow that enables the architectural model to drive load/energy models successfully. Therefore, the building of two, or maybe three, versions of the project still happens. Why is this? There are a variety of reasons. I
recently heard the opinion expressed that it was a ‘people’ issue – architects not building the geometry accurately for MEP use. Of course, different designers have to think in different ways, but there are many workfl ows to tackle this; the endgame of a single-model environment for all disciplines comes to mind. I would also agree that we are all struggling with insuffi cient skill sets
as the models grow in complexity and functionality, but this doesn’t quite nail it for
me.The software? There are inter- operability issues between packages that can cause ineffi ciencies, yes; some parameters don’t carry over when we export, which means we are back to the data being stored across more than one model. Not very BIM. Change management systems can
have weaknesses, especially in this area. We need a dedicated tool to review
and selectively inherit complex geometric change in a palatable way – one which enables us to update our analysis models seamlessly, directly from the architecture. This is an ideal scenario and, I
suspect, the eventual solution lies with stronger collaboration between architects and MEP designers. It needs to be backed up with software development and some clever workfl ows that cross the traditional boundaries between these disciplines. This is what BIM is all about – a shift in existing practices, represented by change: cultural, technical, social and legal.
THOMAS TAGGART is a BIM coordinator at Arup’s London offi ce.
June 2013 CIBSE Journal
39
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72