Creating high-performance buildings and infrastructure with BIM Martin Fischer Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science Director, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) http://www.stanford.edu/~fischer
[email protected] Additional Roles: • Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy • Lead, Building Energy Efficiency Research, Precourt Energy Efficiency Center (PEEC) • Affiliated Faculty, Woods Institute for the Environment • Affiliated Faculty, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) • Advisory Professor, School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai • Visiting Professor, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK
What does a BIM look like?
2
Slide Content Courtesy Optima
Why BIM? • BIM: Building Information Model • Pre 1900: Masterbuilder – The Designer is the builder – Design and construction are in his head – Immediate feedback on mistakes
• Post 1900: Specialization – – – –
Design and construction are separated Nobody has the whole building with details in their head Everyone sees a different and incomplete part of the building Divide and conquer project management
• 21st Century: BIM-enabled high performance project organizations – Number of project challenges increases dramatically – BIM combines the perspectives of the key parties – Enables visualization and information management
Can you achieve high-performing buildings quickly and reliably without BIM? If yes, can your competitor create such buildings faster and more cost-effectively with BIM? • Consider that – Computing is free – Data are abundant – Integration is critical – Little precedence for integration exists
What if … • Buildings performed as designed in all critical aspects? • You could develop and analyze a structural design option for a large project in 3 seconds? • You could do an energy and daylighting analysis for a city-block size building in 3 minutes? • You knew what the most effective management attention or intervention is for this week? • Everyone on the project used the same playbook? • You could adjust wind turbines “on the fly” to maximize power production?
The CIFE community (industry, academia) invents the next practice together
Practice
Research Education
Past Present Future • Yesterday’s practice: YCASWYG You can’t always see what you get • Today’s practice: WYSIWYG What you see is what you get
}
• Next practice: WYMIWYG What you model is what you get performance
Scofield 2002
(c) 2010
7
Engage all critical stakeholders in decision making when their input actually matters
In Collaboration with the GSA, Image Courtesy Walt Disney Imagineering
If you can’t build it virtually … What you see is what you get and it fits
Image courtesy of DPR
9
Slide Content Courtesy Optima
Fabrication from 3D models • DPR: – ~25-30% fewer crew hours in the field – No shop drawings – Safer, faster field assembly
• ConXtech:
Image Courtesy DPR Inc.
– Connection Tolerance: 0.006” – Beam welding: 5 min 35 sec (typical: 180 min); 0.2% rejects (typical 5-8% rejects), 97% time improvement – Lead time: days vs. months – Construction: 10,000 sf/day up to 9 stories (4,000 sf with stairs, railing, etc.), often 6 months overall savings
Image Courtesy ConXtech, Hayward, CA
BIM combines data and visualization Social Interface with Stakeholders Visualization
Conceptual project planning & design
Design
Procurement
Construction
Start-up
Operations
Data Interface with Engineering and Project Management Systems 12
Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Client/Business Objectives Project Objectives Process Design
Current State Process, T5 Rebar Detailing for Construction
NOTE: Design changes during detailing (from: architecture, baggage, systems, etc.) are upsetting RC drawing development.
Design input/ changes
Draft spec
Engineering
Preliminary design
Preliminary RC detailing
GA drawings
Refine RC details and concept for buildability/ detailing
Prepare RC detail drawings (drafting)
Update spec
Release spec
CAD check (1d/dwg)
Check against engineering calcs (.5d /dwg)
Independent final check & sign off (2 weeks)
Detailed engineering design information
Building control check & sign off (BAA, time?)
Release paper P4 dwgs & bar bending schedules
Consists of: engineering calculations, sketches, etc.
NOTE: Drawings are batched into sectionsthen subdivided into building components. Each component is an assembly package, e.g. rail box floor, wall, etc. The number of drawing sheets per building component vary depending on the work. On ART for example, each component may consist of 8-15 GA drawings and 8-15 RC detail drawings.
Iterative process
Most of the checking process is done concurrently with RC detail development.
BAA building control accepts the opinion of the independent design check - and does not perform a check of its own
Document control delay (1 week)
Release CAD dwg, rebar schedule (*.CSF) in Documentum
All of the GA drawings are complete pending changes from other design disciplines
Manufacture
ICE
Rebar factory starts bending
Use model to develop and communicate methods
Assembly
BIM+
Comment on spec
Pre-assembly
Model rebar component (Use digital Prototyping tool)
Back drafting 1 week
Preliminary drafting 2 weeks
Timeline:
Technology:
Check and coordinate detail drawings
AutoCAD
CAD RC
IDEAS
Arma +
Other / None/ Unknown
Ship to site
Checking 2 weeks
Issue and resolve TQ’s (Technical Queries)
Document control 1 week
Existing Process - 6 weeks
13
Site assembly
CIFE carries out three types of research • Automation / Optimization • Managing with VDC • Case studies of best practice
CIFE teaches two types of courses • Stanford students: all students in our undergraduate and graduate programs learn BIM-based method (2D-based methods are no longer taught) • Professional: VDC certificate program
REDUCING
STEEL STRUCTURES USING C O M P U TAT I O N A L D E S I G N O P T I M I Z AT I O N THE
COST
OF
FOREST FLAGER / MARTIN FISCHER
DESIGN PROBLEM
CASE STUDY RESULTS
Objective: Minimize steel weight
COLLABORATION WITH ARUP
conventional design method
Constraints: Safety and serviceability Variables: 1955 size and shape variables Possible design alternatives: ~ 102435
FCD (128 cpu) design method
PROCESS
BiOPT METHOD
Design cycle time Alternatives evaluated Total design time
GEOMETRIC MODEL GEOMETRIC MODEL 1 ANALYTIC MODEL
3 sec
39
12,800
216 hrs
151 hrs
2,728 met t
2,292 met t
-
$4 M (-19%)
PRODUCT
2
OPTIMIZE SIZING
Total steel weight Est. cost saving (USD)
3
OPTIMIZE SHAPE FCD Sizing Algorithm = (Flager, et al. 2011)
4 hrs
SEQOPT Algorithm = (Booker, et al. 1999)
4
• Orders of magnitude reduction in design cycle time • Evaluation of a greater number of design alternatives • Improved product quality
70 70
0 30 30 30 30 9.02E4
East Façade Glazing %
West Façade Glazing %
Annual Energy Cost (USD)
North Façade Glazing %
180
South Façade Glazing %
Building Orientation (deg)
See which variables are driving building performance
= Baseline Design Configuration
70 70 1.09E5
16
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Automated Look-ahead Schedule (LAS) Generation and Optimization for the Finishing Phase (Research collaboration between CCC and CIFE)
05/05/08
05/19/08
07/10/08
07/17/08
07/31/08
08/14/08
08/21/08
Work Calendar
When
Where
Room ID
Who
What 17
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Motivation – lots of data, so little time 50+ Crews Hundreds of activities 200+ rooms Who will do what when where?
18
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Results – Time-cost trade-off study
The schedule with the shortest duration is not always the schedule with the lowest cost.
19
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Results – Resource Utilization Study
Working in as many rooms as possible does not lead to a schedule with minimum cost.
Making crews as busy as possible leads to the schedule with minimum cost.
20
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Results – the # of Crews on Site
Project cost
Project duration
Project cost increase when too many crews are on site. 21
IVL Method for measuring effectiveness of MEP coordination (Atul Khanzode, DPR & CIFE) 1. Develop Strategic Goals and Objectives for MEP Coordination 2. Organize a multi-disciplinary team for coordination 3. Co-develop performance and outcome objectives 4. Co-Develop Technical Logistics to manage coordination 5. Develop Pull Schedule to structure the work based on construction sequence 6. Manage against the performance objectives 22
The IVL method seems to lead to better performance Outcome Metrics Mechanical Prefabrication % Plumbing Prefabrication % Electrical Prefabrication % RFIs due to Conflicts during Construction Number of Change Orders due to conflicts during Construction Minutes per day Superintendent spent resolving issues between MEP trades Average Planned Percent Complete % Rework Hours compared to Total Hours 23
Case Study 1: 90% 90% 40%
Case Study 2: 30% 0% 25%
2 of 677
30 of 200
0 of 311
30 of 230
20 - 30 80%
180 Did not track
Less than 1%
20%
8/13/2014
ENERGY STAR Score Trending Up for All Adobe HQ Towers
100
95
90
85 Almaden
80
East West
75
70
65
60 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Data center calculation different
Ideally life cycle performance would be considered for design, construction, and operations decisions $ energy, CO2, human costs, etc. Value from Facility
DesignConstruction Costs
Facility Maintenance Cost Building Operations Cost Business Operations Cost
t
I have made all my generals out of mud. Napoleon
