Come for the snark, stay for the beer? No, wait... too early?
I've recently stepped up and jumped into the deep abyss of office BIM standards and while building templates and cleaning up linetypes/families is easy enough, I feel an increasing shadow behind me. This is the contractual development levels required when working with BIM.
My concern is, and using the latest LOD definitions available here, has anyone run into a situation where a high LOD is required by a client or RFP simply because it sounds better? One example I've been cautioning our office's principles is not to agree to developing models above 300LOD... but I could see someone somewhere thinking that they must require the max simply because (like wanting LEED triple diamond platinum because marketing!).
The jump from 300 to 350 is logarithmic... even more if going to 400.
Anyone out there working in the 350-400 LOD world?
We've had to go fully coordinated models, completely checked through navisworks. Required zero conflicts. Luckily, it's not on all projects.
Feb 4, 19 9:53 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Yes, that's kinda where I'm heading with this because agreeing to a LOD on the arch side also means our consultants have to follow and we have no end of troubles finding competent BIM P.eng, specifically M & E.
Feb 4, 19 10:12 am ·
·
joseffischer
We have this problem a lot as well, again, double with MEP.
the standard is, everyone creates their own standard.
if you have to be completely coordinated, no conflicts, does that mean you draw all details with annotation lines? That is something i've heard PMs suggest in my office.
In my locality, the prevailing approach around here is model to a 2-300 level and then everything after that is drafting views.
Higher levels would require employees to have a combination of architectural detail knowledge and BIM skills that most don't have.
The smaller consulting engineers around here often rely on drafting services for their drawings. Most of these services are not currently BIM capable.
Feb 4, 19 1:20 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Thanks, that is my feeling as well. I think I'd be finishing my models at 325 (which does not exist) but I can't rely on the rest of the team + consultants to follow. It's hard enough to stop folks from drafting in autoCAD on layer 0 and over-writing dims... can't imagine the struggle we'll have when they get tossed under the Revit train.
LOD 300 + drafting views is where I want the line to stay.
Feb 4, 19 2:27 pm ·
·
thisisnotmyname
I think 300ish is the best one can do and still stay in business, but I'm not super happy with the current state of affairs, as I don't think it fully utilizes BIM's potential. However, until either the young BIM people learn how buildings are put together, or older senior architects get more proficient with modeling rather than drawing details, I see no way forward.
Feb 4, 19 3:40 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
We should form a club then. I foresee many additional Guinness in my future.
I know my office has some teams that will end up working in the higher levels but it’s on an as needed basis and paid for as something extra. It’s not just the time to model at that level that kills time, all of those large files build up and slow down the performance of the model.
Problem with going over level 200 is that you are now just bullshitting about things that may or may not be correct.
Your cladding assembly could be installed with 5 different support systems. You will pick one of them based on energy modeling and cost analysis. If you can meet the code why spend another penny more.
So what did you actually model in this case? Hopefully proof of concept that assembly works and can facilitate intended transitions. Delegated design will resolve alternate options. You are wasting time modeling it to level of every clip or purlin or Z channel.
My example is one of thousands of design items that will not be installed as drawn.
Feb 4, 19 5:27 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Perhaps bullshitting during DD phase, but we're typically pretty damn confident about assembly types by the time we get to working drawings. I think the challenge is explaining to the one doing the BIM wizardry how to put things together in a way that allows future changes without causing the model to implode... but yes, it is a total waste to design for studs and girts and whatnot. I can also see the situation you explain be very common in large offices where the DD staff is not the same as the CA staff. We run the same folks in the larger jobs from start to finish.
I have worked under a Design Build Delivery, where we were hired under a GC along with MEP trade partners. Some of the MEP designers were also builders too, so they were at 400 LOD level. Our GC was building the construction model based off of our 300 LOD model. Then, they used NavisWork and BIM Glue to combine models from every trade partners. We had a weekly BIM coordination before the contractors start fabricating their elements. So, it depends on how the team/GC/owner set up a BIM execution plan.
Personally, I would not want to go higher than 300. The installation method may change during construction anyway. That level of details can be addressed during RFIs and Shop Drawing review.
Mar 6, 19 3:57 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Was a guest lecturer in a tech college class recently and your comment summarizes well the conclusion I tried to make to the students.
Under what reason should an architectural model be modelled above 300? It's completely unnecessary almost all the time unless you're design something so out of the ordinary which is unlikely.
The federated model should and will range in LOD. I understand why a installation/facade firm would have a higher LOD but majority of the time it's absolutely useless and a waste of time.
It frustrates me that GCs, PMs and clients shout BIM 500/5 without understanding what any of it means, people need to start exploring other technology avenues for their designs.
Verification construction, point could, meshing, heat maps etc. There's a lot out there to explore for each individual project where a highly detailed model just isn't necessary.
/Rant
Mar 6, 19 5:44 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Rant is justified I feel. I agree, too easy for some to ask 400 LOD (or offer it) with the assertion that it’ll be a better project.
On larger jobs, we, the architect and our consultants, model to 200-300. Then the trades for structural, MEP, fire protection, security, food service, access flooring, and framing gets modeled at 350-500 by the trades in Revit and other modeling software. We and the trades do Navis and Glue clash detection and sort out who's going to move elements to avoid conflicts. Works pretty well!
Part of my job has been trying to integrate BIM with specification and QTO - for these purposes, the higher the LOD, the better. At the very least, please Please PLEASE use real materials in your details - not dumb lines.
Apr 8, 19 11:46 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Excellent points. I'm currently creating typical materials in our template so that when the next junior BIM "guru" that pops in fresh from college gets started, they will at least have some materials available to start their wall families. No, god, damn-it, gypsum board is not a structural item! ffs.
I feel like half the time I have to require a higher LOD from the engineers, especially structural, just to get what I'd think should be expected in a 300 model... "oh, you wanted all your columns to be on column lines, and not 51/256 off? AND our column lines should match your architectural ones?... jeez, this isn't a BIM 500 model." I blink about 5 times before I can respond to those type of comments.
I also like how in the cover sheet for the link, when you go from BIM 350 to 400, you add 2 extra floors to the elevator. I think that captures the client's mind on this, LOD400 magically gets me more building for the same price!
Apr 8, 19 12:12 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
My structural and mechanical P.eng blink 5 times when I given the coordination issues to sort out. Don't think I put the story in this thread, but recently, we had our mechanical consultant freeze our architectural model and decided to trace an outdated cad site plan in order to position the AHU and other misc venting pipes on the roof. No grids, no respect to any previous coordination efforts, ducts hosted 2' above levels, etc.
Apr 8, 19 12:19 pm ·
·
joseffischer
hah, we had a ME who would set the roof units and refuse to change them. He always set them high so that they didn't show up on the RCP below, but in my elevations, all his units were floating. It didn't matter what I swore on to promise the roof heights weren't going to change, he wouldn't touch them.
Apr 9, 19 2:40 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I had to force my M consultant to pass their flex ducts through the OWSJ instead of lowering the entire ceiling by 6". I don't care if the draftsmen available does not know how to do it, we are not changing the entire ceiling system just because you can't work the software!
Apr 9, 19 2:45 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
BIM Development Levels
Come for the snark, stay for the beer? No, wait... too early?
I've recently stepped up and jumped into the deep abyss of office BIM standards and while building templates and cleaning up linetypes/families is easy enough, I feel an increasing shadow behind me. This is the contractual development levels required when working with BIM.
My concern is, and using the latest LOD definitions available here, has anyone run into a situation where a high LOD is required by a client or RFP simply because it sounds better? One example I've been cautioning our office's principles is not to agree to developing models above 300LOD... but I could see someone somewhere thinking that they must require the max simply because (like wanting LEED triple diamond platinum because marketing!).
The jump from 300 to 350 is logarithmic... even more if going to 400.
Anyone out there working in the 350-400 LOD world?
We've had to go fully coordinated models, completely checked through navisworks. Required zero conflicts. Luckily, it's not on all projects.
Yes, that's kinda where I'm heading with this because agreeing to a LOD on the arch side also means our consultants have to follow and we have no end of troubles finding competent BIM P.eng, specifically M & E.
We have this problem a lot as well, again, double with MEP.
the standard is, everyone creates their own standard.
if you have to be completely coordinated, no conflicts, does that mean you draw all details with annotation lines? That is something i've heard PMs suggest in my office.
No 350-400 around here...
In my locality, the prevailing approach around here is model to a 2-300 level and then everything after that is drafting views.
Higher levels would require employees to have a combination of architectural detail knowledge and BIM skills that most don't have.
The smaller consulting engineers around here often rely on drafting services for their drawings. Most of these services are not currently BIM capable.
Thanks, that is my feeling as well. I think I'd be finishing my models at 325 (which does not exist) but I can't rely on the rest of the team + consultants to follow. It's hard enough to stop folks from drafting in autoCAD on layer 0 and over-writing dims... can't imagine the struggle we'll have when they get tossed under the Revit train.
LOD 300 + drafting views is where I want the line to stay.
I think 300ish is the best one can do and still stay in business, but I'm not super happy with the current state of affairs, as I don't think it fully utilizes BIM's potential. However, until either the young BIM people learn how buildings are put together, or older senior architects get more proficient with modeling rather than drawing details, I see no way forward.
We should form a club then. I foresee many additional Guinness in my future.
I know my office has some teams that will end up working in the higher levels but it’s on an as needed basis and paid for as something extra. It’s not just the time to model at that level that kills time, all of those large files build up and slow down the performance of the model.
Problem with going over level 200 is that you are now just bullshitting about things that may or may not be correct.
Your cladding assembly could be installed with 5 different support systems. You will pick one of them based on energy modeling and cost analysis. If you can meet the code why spend another penny more.
So what did you actually model in this case? Hopefully proof of concept that assembly works and can facilitate intended transitions. Delegated design will resolve alternate options. You are wasting time modeling it to level of every clip or purlin or Z channel.
My example is one of thousands of design items that will not be installed as drawn.
Perhaps bullshitting during DD phase, but we're typically pretty damn confident about assembly types by the time we get to working drawings. I think the challenge is explaining to the one doing the BIM wizardry how to put things together in a way that allows future changes without causing the model to implode... but yes, it is a total waste to design for studs and girts and whatnot. I can also see the situation you explain be very common in large offices where the DD staff is not the same as the CA staff. We run the same folks in the larger jobs from start to finish.
I agree with Rusty,
I have worked under a Design Build Delivery, where we were hired under a GC along with MEP trade partners. Some of the MEP designers were also builders too, so they were at 400 LOD level. Our GC was building the construction model based off of our 300 LOD model. Then, they used NavisWork and BIM Glue to combine models from every trade partners. We had a weekly BIM coordination before the contractors start fabricating their elements. So, it depends on how the team/GC/owner set up a BIM execution plan.
Personally, I would not want to go higher than 300. The installation method may change during construction anyway. That level of details can be addressed during RFIs and Shop Drawing review.
Was a guest lecturer in a tech college class recently and your comment summarizes well the conclusion I tried to make to the students.
Under what reason should an architectural model be modelled above 300? It's completely unnecessary almost all the time unless you're design something so out of the ordinary which is unlikely.
The federated model should and will range in LOD. I understand why a installation/facade firm would have a higher LOD but majority of the time it's absolutely useless and a waste of time.
It frustrates me that GCs, PMs and clients shout BIM 500/5 without understanding what any of it means, people need to start exploring other technology avenues for their designs.
Verification construction, point could, meshing, heat maps etc. There's a lot out there to explore for each individual project where a highly detailed model just isn't necessary.
/Rant
Rant is justified I feel. I agree, too easy for some to ask 400 LOD (or offer it) with the assertion that it’ll be a better project.
On larger jobs, we, the architect and our consultants, model to 200-300. Then the trades for structural, MEP, fire protection, security, food service, access flooring, and framing gets modeled at 350-500 by the trades in Revit and other modeling software. We and the trades do Navis and Glue clash detection and sort out who's going to move elements to avoid conflicts. Works pretty well!
Part of my job has been trying to integrate BIM with specification and QTO - for these purposes, the higher the LOD, the better. At the very least, please Please PLEASE use real materials in your details - not dumb lines.
Excellent points. I'm currently creating typical materials in our template so that when the next junior BIM "guru" that pops in fresh from college gets started, they will at least have some materials available to start their wall families. No, god, damn-it, gypsum board is not a structural item! ffs.
I feel like half the time I have to require a higher LOD from the engineers, especially structural, just to get what I'd think should be expected in a 300 model... "oh, you wanted all your columns to be on column lines, and not 51/256 off? AND our column lines should match your architectural ones?... jeez, this isn't a BIM 500 model." I blink about 5 times before I can respond to those type of comments.
I also like how in the cover sheet for the link, when you go from BIM 350 to 400, you add 2 extra floors to the elevator. I think that captures the client's mind on this, LOD400 magically gets me more building for the same price!
My structural and mechanical P.eng blink 5 times when I given the coordination issues to sort out. Don't think I put the story in this thread, but recently, we had our mechanical consultant freeze our architectural model and decided to trace an outdated cad site plan in order to position the AHU and other misc venting pipes on the roof. No grids, no respect to any previous coordination efforts, ducts hosted 2' above levels, etc.
hah, we had a ME who would set the roof units and refuse to change them. He always set them high so that they didn't show up on the RCP below, but in my elevations, all his units were floating. It didn't matter what I swore on to promise the roof heights weren't going to change, he wouldn't touch them.
I had to force my M consultant to pass their flex ducts through the OWSJ instead of lowering the entire ceiling by 6". I don't care if the draftsmen available does not know how to do it, we are not changing the entire ceiling system just because you can't work the software!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.