CAFM & IT TESTING BIM AT GREENWOOD FOREST PARK
Through a case study in North Wales, THSP’s Simon Cole, looks at whether BIM could be used in existing buildings and how this can help Facilities Managers.
The challenge facing many organisations at this time of year is how to manage energy consumption. Building Information Modelling (BIM) pits our most advanced software against the challenge of predicting energy flows. I will also look at the emergence of Computer-Aided Facility Management (CAFM) and whether it stacks up against BIM Software.
“THE CHALLENGE IS TO TEST WHETHER BIM COULD BE USED
TO MANAGE ENERGY FLOWS IN EXISTING BUILDINGS.”
Greenwood is a sustainable family tourist attraction, blending seamlessly into the woodland it has an enormous timber-framed, visitor centre made out of green oak, with a slate roof. This building was created in the 1990s by owners Stephen and Andrea Bristow, and is astonishingly 8,000 ft2
, 115 ft.
long by 36 ft. wide. The atrium houses an 18KW log-burner that heats a large canteen and children’s indoor play area. Other parts of the building include the 2nd floor offices with eight members of staff, a large shop, store rooms and private hire rooms. As you might expect, visitor footfall each year is very high.
The challenge was to test whether Building Information Modelling (BIM) could be used to manage energy flows in existing buildings like Greenwood. Surprisingly, some of the best software was free - such as OpenStudio 1.10.0, but you also need to
42 | TOMORROW’S FM
be competent at creating 3D drawings. The best way to generate the 3D drawings of buildings is to use another free programme: Google Sketch-Up. Once you have added the 3D drawing into Open Studio, you create thermal zones and can simulate different environmental conditions. It’s as easy as that. You can predict changes in energy use, staffing, utility costs; just to name a few uses of this remarkably adept technology.
An alternative programme to OpenStudio is EFEN: it does basic calculations on the HVAC system, internal loads, water services, daylight and space heating. Could this one be any better? We really liked the way it could simultaneously predict future utility costs; and not many people know that it is free for the first 30 days. At Greenwood, we felt it was far more user-friendly: there is no need to create or import 3D graphics, which means it is suitable for facilities managers who might not know very much about computer- aided design.
But before we sing the virtues of financial forecasting your utilities based on BIM data, you should consider three major factors:
1. Model stability is a major factor in choosing BIM software. We felt that OpenStudio was a little bit too unpredictable and had a tendency to “abort” certain simulations. EFEN was better, but there are many alternative programmes available. If you are using consultant, you should expect them to have enough knowledge and resource to provide consistently stable software.
2. Generating a 3D building from geometric measurements was also very challenging and
lengthy because the building would periodically move and shift under the tensile stress of its immense green oak frame. No two measurements were ever the same. The building was ultimately made from natural materials, and not steel or concrete. We knew little about what was inside the walls, whether they were insulated, or the exact arrangement of utility pipelines and cables.
3. We found that Greenwood would struggle to implement BIM technology. Some degree of expert knowledge is still needed to run energy modelling simulation software that ironically is designed to be user-friendly. Greenwood are not BIM experts.
Facilities Managers must therefore decide whether or not to go it alone. At Greenwood, the following would have been the next logical step:
DOES IT WORK?
Theoretically speaking, if BIM software completes its simulation cycle, then the modelling has been successful.
HOW GOOD ARE THE
MODEL RESULTS? We fitted an Eco-Eye Smart Electricity Meter at Greenwood to test this theory. Greenwood are quite unusual, in that they have a gravity- powered roller coaster, thought to be the only one in existence; they also operate several smaller satellite buildings that draw power for a wide range of park attractions. We then took this data and used it to run EFEN. When we compared the EFEN prediction against historic energy costs, there was no statistical correlation. This shows how difficult
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
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