LIGHTING BIM
The complexity of modelling light means that synergies between BIM and lighting design are not straightforward. Jill Entwistle speaks to leading engineers about the benefi ts – or otherwise – of embracing the concept
As a representative of smaller practices, I am very concerned with the future of lighting design in a BIM world Kevan Shaw
n the face of it, Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a good idea and, with the government requiring it be
DARK O
used on its projects from 2016, somewhat inevitable.
Any strategy that helps to get people singing from the same hymn sheet throughout the construction process would seem a positive move. However, such is the complexity of the
process – with disparate disciplines, working methods and scales of operation – that knitting them all together around the 3D modelling concept is clearly easier said than done. That,
at least, is the message that is emerging from the professional lighting design fraternity. No one is dismissing the idea, but concerns are being expressed about the practicalities on a number of levels. One of the issues that has been raised
is about the software used for the 3D modelling. At the moment this is primarily Autodesk Revit. ‘Having a dominant software house in any industry is a problem as, once you’re in, you are tied in by default and it almost becomes too expensive to leave,’ says Andrew Bissell of Cundall Light4. ‘Revit is close to achieving that where M&E BIM is concerned. ‘For any company, the cost – of training, of high-spec PCs, of document management and of staff who only do BIM – is high. If there is no software competition, that cost will only increase. That can’t be allowed to happen. The standards for BIM should be robust enough that fi les can be shared across platforms and across different BIM software. I would question whether that is happening.’ While independent lighting designers are working on large, international projects, they are generally small-scale operations, as are the lighting departments within M&E and multidisciplinary consultants. However, the latter have more resources and recourse to in-house expertise.
www.cibsejournal.com
March 2014 CIBSE Journal 41
IN THE
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80