R5 - Interoperability

This week’s assigned reading was chapter 3 of the BIM handbook. This chapter stressed the idea of interoperability. It mainly discussed the problems associated with communication between all the different file formats and how the industry began fighting back. There have been many ‘open’ file formats developed, but the most prominent in the AEC industry is the Industry Foundation Classes. IFC is supported by a number of programs including, but not limited to, Revit, Bentley Architecture, and Archicad. It was developed by buildingSMART to facilitate interoperability. The data model is required by some agencies, such as the GSA, to be used in all projects.

The first article I read is a blog post titled ‘IFC is rubbish, it never works properly’. It is primarily an opinion based article supported by facts. This blog article examines the argument that IFC is a bad file format for data interchange. The author first suggests that many of the people that argue against IFC jump to conclusions. Instead of blaming the BIM software that IFC is imported into, the author says that people blame the file format, which isn’t the right way to go about it. In the past, Revit users have experienced a loss of data fidelity in the exchange, but this isn’t because of the file format. Revit received IFC certification in 2007 for ‘Revit Building 8’. Since then, there has been several new version releases, but no new certifications. Undoubtedly, the new releases have not been fully tested for use with IFC, but still bear the certification. With the newer version, there is a loss of data fidelity, but only because of the lack of certification requirements. The author states that buildingSMART has introduced a better testing process in determining if a software program is capable of IFC file exchange.  With the introduction of a new certification process, we should expect to see better results with IFC and compatible software suites.

The second article I read is titled ‘The Case for Data Interoperability’. This article develops an argument for interoperable software. Based on this article, interoperability only has benefits to industry. For example, in a large financial institution, a problem arose when each department began using separate systems for labeling buildings. This created confusion and it was difficult to ‘tie work orders to a specific building, much less a room’. This seemingly avoidable error causes a great deal of lost time. Another example is in building design. Drawings are taken from each step of the design process to finished construction. In the end, the client will receive drawings for as-built, mechanical, electrical, etc. This process is highly inefficient and introduces human error. Increasing interoperability will in turn create an efficient environment in design and prevent the loss of important information. The article also states that, in 2002, ‘owners and operators were paying an average of 23 cents per square foot in costs related to inadequate interoperability’. This is an extremely high cost for the refusal of interoperability.

Overall, I personally believe that the AEC industry will become more open in the future. The various BIM software developers need to agree on an open file format. It is important to growth of the industry that people begin sharing information.

Interoperability_R5

Chapter 3 of the BIM handbook discusses essentially what we discussed a little bit about at the end of our last class which was passing data between multiple applications so that the structural engineer can take what the architect did and expand on it, or the MEP or any combination. However, that data exchange method was only the first type of four listed in the chapter, which is direct/proprietary links. As mentioned in the chapter, companies like this method because it allows them to support the software better and it keeps the users from using applications from competing software companies (Eastman 68). The IFC was discussed in great length, but mainly what I got from the reading was, in part, that it is a data model interchange that created a standard for building and architecture and which is used worldwide for both public and private use (Eastman).

The first paper I read, “Chapter 57. IFC Certification process and data exchange problems,” discussed the quality of the IFC certification and the problems with the data exchange. Test cases were analyzed for several of the exporting software applications, including Bentley Arch., Revit Arch., Tekla, ArchiCAD and others (518). A figure indicating the average passing rate of the IFC 2x3 certified applications is provided. However, the author indicates that because of the shortcomings of the documentation this analysis cannot be used to verify the quality of the IFC data exchange to any software application. Ultimately, what I got from this reading was essentially what the author concluded which was that “IFC 2x3 data exchange is still limited mainly to simple building geometry including some additional information” (520).

In “BIM Interoperability. The Promise and the Reality,” the author lists three ways in which interoperability can be achieved between various BIM software applications. These are: by direct/proprietary file format, using an interface that connects multiple applications called an Application Programming Interface (API), and thirdly using data exchange standards like the IFC. The article had a visual representation of the connection between several different software applications. One example of this interoperability shown was Tekla Structures with SAP2000, STAAD.Pro, S-Frame and others (Burt). Overall, I thought that the author did a good job explaining the purpose and usefulness of BIM, why interoperability is a growing demand and what problems are associated with data interchange.

BIM and Interoperability

This week we had to read Chapter 3 of the BIM Handbook, which discussed the various issues of Interoperability with BIM and how the industry was overcoming this speed bump. The first effort to create a universal format for interoperability was NASA in the post-sputnik era, from which Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) was formed and is still widely used in the design and engineering community.. The handbook goes on to discuss the different kinds of exchange formats and the varying levels of complexity for each. The article spends a good amount of time discussing Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) which can be most easily compared to libraries of objects in Revit.
The other article that I read this week was BIM Interoperability from the StructureMag website. The article was written in 2009 and discussed the future of BIM regarding interoperability issues and it was quite interesting to see how accurate the article really was. It stated that Interoperability would affect the rate of the Industry's transition to BIM but the transition is going to be inevitable and two years after the article was written, this statement is proving true. There are still a good deal of issues with the interoperability of BIM programs and related building programs for structural analysis, energy analysis, etc, but large steps have been made towards making a unified program that is able to perform all of the tasks necessary to for the design and construction of a new building. Autodesk has a large amount of programs that are able to perform many of the tasks needed for the design and analysis of a new building. Monika's example in class of how Revit Structure was able to take a building floor plan from Revit Architecture and be able to size the structural needs of the building was very interesting and showed us first hand just a small fraction of the capabilities of these programs.
One thing that crossed my mind this week while reading these articles was the video that Professor Mitchell showed us at the start of AE-390 with the Rocky Mountain Institute and how they have collaboration between the Architect, Structural Engineer, MEP Engineer, and everyone else involved with the design of a building right from the start of the design process so that buildings can be designed smarter. This process can be more easily adopted and executed much faster if interoperability were more prevalent and designers didn't have to recreate the same building multiple times in their program of choice.

BIM and Interoperability

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.  

R5 Assignment

Data interchange is a phrase that crosses many fields, industries and social networks. The BIM reading ties right into the topic. Smooth work flow, in theory, can change the way business gets things done and makes money. The first barrier to overcome is "sharing". A simply humanly characteristic that most of the world learns and commits to moral memory when they are in childhood. In business sharing can be eliminated for reasons of greed. This maybe only plainly apparent in some industries but exists to a degree in most. With the BIM technology, there is a way to completely share work and help progress the idea of BIM programs, operation and archiving. With the work that can be done, saved and shared, the industry can catch up to the aerospace industry. The sharing of models, components proved by manufacturers, and data can united the building process to move collectively, create amazing buildings and improve their technologies all across the world. This idea of sharing also relates to the article I read.

The article I read this week, E-logistics and the Natural Environment, relates in a similar way. The article summarizes that as e-commerce, business that is done over the internet or with almost the complete use of technology, grows to make many industries more efficient but the waste and disposal of outdated computers and technology that is used to do this can not be overlooked. It further continues to state that businesses must also think about the "cradle to grave" process for all aspects of their business. Some ideas where to donated computers to schools in need or to collectively come together to dispose of the all wastes in an orderly manner. Bringing the article's summary back around to sharing, the fact is that the use of the internet and all sorts of data interchange can be done in a effective manner to run a smoother world. Technology has brought the human population so far in such a short amount of time and in all aspects united us. We, as its users, must have a moral ethic to use it in its best form.  Now I understand that this may seem like a environmental rant or tangent, but its what purely came to mind through both of my readings. 

BIM Reading Week 5

The two articles I read are listed below:
“Interoperability”.
“Interoperability (AcessScience)”.

The assigned reading in the BIM handbook was an interesting and lengthy read. This article went into extreme detail explaining the progression of BIM programs and their interoperable capabilities. At times this article was difficult to digest due to the vast amount of acronyms used. To be honest it got a bit much to keep looking up what each acronym stood for. Despite the immense detail, I understood the overall concept of why interoperability was necessary between BIM software. Companies utilizing the software such as NASA pressured the software companies to provide functionality between programs to ensure the best outcome in design. This resulted in several different approaches in attacking the interoperability of each program. The approaches they took are as follows: 1) Direct, proprietary links between specific BIM tools, 2) Proprietary fi le exchange formats, primarily dealing with geometry, 3) Public product data model exchange formats and 4) XML - based exchange formats. It became necessary for programs to be somewhat interchangeable to satisfy the user’s needs and companies began to oblige. The goal of these companies was to provide enough interoperability between programs without allowing one program to operate solely on a single platform without competition. I found this article interesting in how it explained the progression of interoperability but at times difficult to follow with all of the technical programming terminology.
The additional article I chose to read happened to have the same title as the assigned reading; however it detailed interoperability in a broader sense of the term. This article did not just highlight on programmatic interoperability, but also technical and operational interoperability. I found this article interesting when it talked about military interoperability between forces and aspects of the government. The article then continued to detail into the programmatic interoperability which gave a broader definition to the one determined in the assigned reading. What I found interesting was how this article was able to correlate the interoperability into several categories in how they affect society. Whether it’s for computer compatibility or military interoperability it is an important and necessary stage that has to be addressed by its user or operator. I look forward to learning a little more about this type of operation.

Week 5 - Data Interchange

I thought the assigned chapter was very significant because it covered what I believe to be the single most important hurdle preventing BIM from being widely adopted. I found it hard to follow much of the language concerning the software development and programming but was able to glean enough information to get a better appreciation of whats needed for different modeling programs to be capable of interoperability. I definitely agree with the writer’s view that the future of IFC and proprietary solutions to interoperability will influenced heavily by the users of this technology.

I found a very interesting document about interoperability called Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. The bottom line from this document is their estimate that inadequate interoperability costs the U.S. capital facilities industry $15.8 billion per year, two-thirds of which are carried by facility owners and operators. The document highlights the highly fragmented nature of the industry as well as the high number of small companies that cannot or will not adopt advanced information technology. To determine the financial implications of inadequate interoperability, the author compared scenarios of traditional building practices with hypothetical scenarios with seamless data transfer and sharing, breaking down the financial impact each scenario would have on every stakeholder throughout a building’s life-cycle. The document went into a very detailed discussion about how interoperability works or should work, similar to what  was covered in the assigned reading. The author did a very good job explaining why these cost estimates should drive building stakeholders to push for standards to eliminate interoperability issues.

I also came across a second document that focused on the financial issues related to interoperability issues titled Value Proposition of Interoperability of BIM and Collaborative Working Environments. The authors of this article also made an assessment of the actual and potential financial benefits of solving interoperability issues in the AEC industry. They looked beyond just the incompatibility of the physical model and focused how there is no integration of ERP systems to track marketplace transactions. The authors also discussed a great deal about the links and interactions between modeling programs and other software used in project management such as spreadsheets/databases for cost tracking, charts for planning and text documents containing product information. This means that information from many different software tools needs to be translatable into a file format that can be transferred between programs seamlessly. Rather than having a single program that handles all aspects of the project, the authors see more value in standardizing how multiple programs interact, creating a market with diverse software and vendors coexisting to enhance efficiency.