I thought people were trying to make the connection here that BIM models will comunicate directly to the jobsite. There was an article in Wired, or maybe an extreme engineering show, that showed a hydrolic slip stage that was full of robotic arms setting and bolting steel in Japan. Ive also heard of crawler bots that ride the flanges of I Beams to their target connections and start welding and bolting. I was under the impresion thats what people are expecting. But of course BIM will comunicate directly to fabricators because ACAD already gets sent directly to fabricators, as did pencil drawings 50 years ago get sent directly to fabricators.
emaze - those electronic transits are the same thing but with added features such as laser distance measuring, gps locating and the ability to do multi point surveying meaning multiple control points rather than one that cant be disturbed. But really it does the same thing just faster.
I'm working on a DD set in Revit right now and it's great, don't expect any problems in CDs, either. Revit is cool because you can always revert to just drawing on top of the model when you need to.
I've only been using BIM for a few months, but it seems to me you wouldn't want to be giving your whole model to the contractor, the cost estimator, or any other third party without some serious contemplation (and editing) first.
As convenient as having the model might be for those people, imagine the logistical and political nightmare that could ensue if anybody starts going to the client with the model in their pocket suggesting changes.
BIM is a great design and documentation tool, and it could be a great construction tool if the proper legal and conceptual framework is in place first (what exactly are these 'drawings' the GC is supposed to build to if they've got a 3D model? Do you wanna model every rivet to cover your ass legally?).
But the real power of BIM lies in it's potential use as a political tool: whoever controls the model, controls the project, and we want to keep that control in the hands of the architect, right?
ideally yes but the man with the gold makes the rules and as long as were playing with models and pretty pictures were playing by someone elses rules. We would have much more power if when the client asks us "yes, but how much will it cost?" we will be able to answer. Until then, the contractor rules 95% of the time.
the issue for me would be just because we set out for sub contractor pricing based on the model, doesnt mean we'll get the right numbers or have factored in trade cordination and sequencing. Our model will never be able to cordinate onsite materials handling, gas and fuels prices, parking and bonding fees. Are we then prepared to hold firm our tender when its 30% too low? Will be leagally bound to our tender if not, then its for nothing.
That's the builders' business, the contract price and delivery date. I see no reason why we architects should, could or would want to take on this burden, this risk and presure. I actualy see it as a further erosion of our role in the process as we become keepers of the data while others keep telling us how to update it and give them feedback faster and more detailed as we save THEM time and money, not nessessarily ourselves. Feeding cnc panel cutters some cad files for cutting wall panels and shelving is one thing, building structures is quite another.
Yeah, these are really interesting questions, right? Especially since some people are proposing integrating trade schedules, coordination, and even the supply-chain stuff you're talking about (including the price of gas). Look up '4D CAD' (4DH?) sometime.
4D is a very interesting process to see happen, but it is far more useful in the hands of a GC or a CM than it is to the architect (in a typical practice). The architect will still be involved, but not in control of that process.
If we assume that cd's will still need to be produced for the near future:
The interesting developments will be in the exchange/referencing of models between project team members as well as the interoperability between software platforms. Mainly because the architect, structural engineer, and MEP engineer(s) will build their models in the most efficient way to produce the required 2D information. Those models may or may not be fully coordinated between all trades or include complete construction elements (wall bracing, lintels, blocking, and other items covered in 'typical details' and/or written in the specifications) ... construction companies will/already have in-house BIM teams to sort out the design models (if available) to create quantities, pricing, and sequencing schedules.
Certainly there are firms who are expanding the 'role of the architect' (SHoP & Peter Gluck come to mind) and will probably take on more construction phase responsibilities with these tools, but the typical architectural firm, will back off from the increased liability or develop good design/build relationships.
I agree, and think that BIM is only a part of a larger group of themes including cross-disciplinary collaboration, integrated practice, and a shift towards design-build or forms of digitally-enabled fabrication.
Excellent communication and useful well-made accurate models can make design intent legible and biddable by contractors. This is true even for non-geometrically complex forms and even before parametric modelling and building information modelling became available as tools.
Besides Gehry and SHoP, for applied uses of advanced building modelling check out Jean Nouvel's 100 11th Avenue New York, Sejima's Novartis office building in Switzerland for MEP integration, and in the future keep an eye on Asymptote's current projects.
StuntPilot - when i worked for Gulck, we did drawings by hand (and i'm not an old timer)!
"...the same thing but with added features such as laser distance measuring, gps locating and the ability to do multi point surveying meaning multiple control points rather than one that cant be disturbed. But really it does the same thing just faster." exactly, ep
so isn't bim just the same paradigm?
BIM and Construction
BIM will be able to communicate with the tower crane eventually.. just don't be surprised if the port o let lands on you.
"must ... destroy... humans"
I thought people were trying to make the connection here that BIM models will comunicate directly to the jobsite. There was an article in Wired, or maybe an extreme engineering show, that showed a hydrolic slip stage that was full of robotic arms setting and bolting steel in Japan. Ive also heard of crawler bots that ride the flanges of I Beams to their target connections and start welding and bolting. I was under the impresion thats what people are expecting. But of course BIM will comunicate directly to fabricators because ACAD already gets sent directly to fabricators, as did pencil drawings 50 years ago get sent directly to fabricators.
emaze - those electronic transits are the same thing but with added features such as laser distance measuring, gps locating and the ability to do multi point surveying meaning multiple control points rather than one that cant be disturbed. But really it does the same thing just faster.
I'm working on a DD set in Revit right now and it's great, don't expect any problems in CDs, either. Revit is cool because you can always revert to just drawing on top of the model when you need to.
I've only been using BIM for a few months, but it seems to me you wouldn't want to be giving your whole model to the contractor, the cost estimator, or any other third party without some serious contemplation (and editing) first.
As convenient as having the model might be for those people, imagine the logistical and political nightmare that could ensue if anybody starts going to the client with the model in their pocket suggesting changes.
BIM is a great design and documentation tool, and it could be a great construction tool if the proper legal and conceptual framework is in place first (what exactly are these 'drawings' the GC is supposed to build to if they've got a 3D model? Do you wanna model every rivet to cover your ass legally?).
But the real power of BIM lies in it's potential use as a political tool: whoever controls the model, controls the project, and we want to keep that control in the hands of the architect, right?
ideally yes but the man with the gold makes the rules and as long as were playing with models and pretty pictures were playing by someone elses rules. We would have much more power if when the client asks us "yes, but how much will it cost?" we will be able to answer. Until then, the contractor rules 95% of the time.
Well, yeah, that's the point: we answer, not the GC. So don't give out your BIM model without thinking about that for a minute.
the issue for me would be just because we set out for sub contractor pricing based on the model, doesnt mean we'll get the right numbers or have factored in trade cordination and sequencing. Our model will never be able to cordinate onsite materials handling, gas and fuels prices, parking and bonding fees. Are we then prepared to hold firm our tender when its 30% too low? Will be leagally bound to our tender if not, then its for nothing.
That's the builders' business, the contract price and delivery date. I see no reason why we architects should, could or would want to take on this burden, this risk and presure. I actualy see it as a further erosion of our role in the process as we become keepers of the data while others keep telling us how to update it and give them feedback faster and more detailed as we save THEM time and money, not nessessarily ourselves. Feeding cnc panel cutters some cad files for cutting wall panels and shelving is one thing, building structures is quite another.
I see a strange relationship between the promise of BIM for construction and the promise of 3dh.
Yeah, these are really interesting questions, right? Especially since some people are proposing integrating trade schedules, coordination, and even the supply-chain stuff you're talking about (including the price of gas). Look up '4D CAD' (4DH?) sometime.
For example:
link
It could happen. But why would the architect want to be responsible for all this? Could an architect be responsible for all this?
4D is a very interesting process to see happen, but it is far more useful in the hands of a GC or a CM than it is to the architect (in a typical practice). The architect will still be involved, but not in control of that process.
If we assume that cd's will still need to be produced for the near future:
The interesting developments will be in the exchange/referencing of models between project team members as well as the interoperability between software platforms. Mainly because the architect, structural engineer, and MEP engineer(s) will build their models in the most efficient way to produce the required 2D information. Those models may or may not be fully coordinated between all trades or include complete construction elements (wall bracing, lintels, blocking, and other items covered in 'typical details' and/or written in the specifications) ... construction companies will/already have in-house BIM teams to sort out the design models (if available) to create quantities, pricing, and sequencing schedules.
Certainly there are firms who are expanding the 'role of the architect' (SHoP & Peter Gluck come to mind) and will probably take on more construction phase responsibilities with these tools, but the typical architectural firm, will back off from the increased liability or develop good design/build relationships.
I agree, and think that BIM is only a part of a larger group of themes including cross-disciplinary collaboration, integrated practice, and a shift towards design-build or forms of digitally-enabled fabrication.
Excellent communication and useful well-made accurate models can make design intent legible and biddable by contractors. This is true even for non-geometrically complex forms and even before parametric modelling and building information modelling became available as tools.
Besides Gehry and SHoP, for applied uses of advanced building modelling check out Jean Nouvel's 100 11th Avenue New York, Sejima's Novartis office building in Switzerland for MEP integration, and in the future keep an eye on Asymptote's current projects.
StuntPilot - when i worked for Gulck, we did drawings by hand (and i'm not an old timer)!
"...the same thing but with added features such as laser distance measuring, gps locating and the ability to do multi point surveying meaning multiple control points rather than one that cant be disturbed. But really it does the same thing just faster." exactly, ep
so isn't bim just the same paradigm?
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.