In this week’s reading from the BIM handbook chapter 3
covered Interoperability which is the process or the ability to take a BIM or
CAD file from one program say Revit to Bentley and have Bentley be able to read
the Revit file. The chapter talked about
different Industry Foundation Classes or IFC and its various formats and their pros and
cons. The main problem is that not all
the features of a BIM get carried along with it for one program to another.
This week I decided to look into IFC and CIMsteel
Integration Standard or (CIS/2) – for structural steel engineering and
fabrication.
The two articles I read were A Case Study of IFC and CIS/2Support for Steel Supply Chain Processes and Driving Toward an Integrated Solution
The increasing usage of BIM and other computer-based
construction programs has created various types of programs that are not very compatible
with each other. One such solution has
been the IFC and CIS/2 files that professionals in the industry can exchange with
each other to easily share information without the need for rewriting it to a
different program. One section of the
industry, the steel fabrication section, has benefited greatly from this
technology. But many think that this technology can be further improved. The first
article looked at IFC and CIS/2 files and how they are used for the steel
supply chain process. By using these
file types steel fabricators and suppliers can streamline the process of constructing
steel parts for construction. IFC and
CIS/2 can be exported from a BIM or Structural analysis program. The authors created flows charts explaining
the current practices in steel fabrication and erection. They also give
suggestions on how the IFC and CIS/2 file format can be improved to further
streamline the process. Such as
providing information about how much lead time is needed to make a part and
when the earliest delivery date is possible.
This gives a good look into how interoperability is used in the
industry.
The second article looks at some issues facing the AEC
industry regarding BIM so it can be may be more readily accepted in the industry. There are 5 main
issues. The first issue is BIM contracts. How BIM should be used in
a legal sense. What would be the contractual implications and if BIM by itself should
govern a project. The second issue is
that legal help is needed to write BIM contracts. There are almost no laws regarding if BIM can
be used as a legal document. Lawyers and
construction professionals will have to assess what level of technical
knowledge is needed to write a BIM contract. Such as can you stamp a BIM. The third issue
is that BIM contracts are difficult to insure. Insurance companies are not familiar with BIM
yet and do not know how to go about insuring the project. The fourth issue is the lack of a BIM umbrella
group. There is no one BIM oversight
group to regulate BIM standards and to dictate how BIM is used. The Fifth issue is that Interoperability is
still lacking. There is still no one
universal file that can translate all the information from one BIM program to
another. These last two Issues ties in
directly with our reading. As of today
there is no one BIM umbrella group but a series of groups that define how BIM
should be used. Each particular
organization has different interests in BIM such as Architecture or Structure. Interoperability
is another problem BIM is facing that this article discusses the need for a
neutral file format. A lot of time and
effort is used when a person converts a Revit file to a fully working Bentley
file. A lot of information is lost and needs to be re-inputted back into the
software.
The third point mentioned in the second article you read, insurance for the BIM technology, is something I have not even thought of even after reading an article or two on legal issues surrounding BIM. That issue is probably related to the fact that there aren't any laws connected to it yet, so the insurance companies may be hesitant since new laws may go into affect which hurt them financially. Also, from the article that I read, which was a few years old so it was probably outdated, the IFC data interchange has major issues depending on the elements being imported and which application is being used. Thus, in that particular reading, the author concluded that the IFC was only good for basic building geometry and some additional data (“IFC Certification”).
ReplyDeleteThe points covered in both of your readings are very valid. The legal side of BIM, I believe will be resolved in due time, especially when interoperability takes another significant step forward. Based on the articles I read, as well as many post on this blog, I am still struggling identifying the actual definition of Interoperability. When you think about 2D CAD interoperability - it is so simple - there is a number of paid and free programs/ viewers that can read the document and retrieve all of the data needed from that 2D document (even if you cannot edit it). For example the simplest being a PDF file. From the pdf yo can read all the information, which you can read of the dwg file (with new version of above reader even layers are available). What about a BIM mode - BIM is not just a 3D model, it contains an enormous amount of information associated with each model in general, as well as each object and component within it. Haw far should the concept of "universal interoperability" should be take? I think that in order to make further progress on IFC or other options out there, the actual definition should be determined and made clear across all of the groups working on the solution.
ReplyDelete