Cr and-vm-reduced
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Cr and-vm-reduced

on

  • 456 views

Augmented Reality

Augmented Reality

Statistics

Views

Total Views
456
Views on SlideShare
456
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cr and-vm-reduced Presentation Transcript

  • 1. CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWAND VIRTUAL MOCKUPSBIM for Constructability Review of Building Envelopes:Examples and Best PracticesDace A. Campbell AIA, LEED AP // BNBuilders A Campbell, AIAVirtual Mockups: A Collaborative SolutionRick Khan, LEED AP // Mortenson Construction
  • 2. BNBuilders Founded in 2000 Significant work in collaborative, integrated Headquartered in Seattle delivery Integrated Project Delivery San Francisco, San Diego Portland, Montana Francisco Diego, Portland Design-Build GC/CM $300+ million in annual volume Negotiated work 250 250+ employees Key markets Life Science and Research $10K-$70M projects Healthcare / Medical Facilities Public / Civic Spaces Offices and Corporate Headquarters National Recognition Education (K-12 and Hi h Ed Ed ti (K 12 d Higher Education) ti ) 2010 - ENR Top 400 Contractor Mixed-Use Facilities 2009, 2008, 2007 - AGC of America Hospitality Construction Safety Excellence Award Commercial / Retail 2008 - Winner of AGC’s Grand Award for Safety Excellence for Mid-Size Companies 2008 ENR Best of the Best Award for Project BIM Management In use since 2006 2008 AIA BIM Award Applied to $500M and 2M s.f. in new construction Focus on PE’ and Supts as BIM users F PE’s d S t Recognized as national and local leader
  • 3. Mortenson Construction Family owned and operated since 1954 Headquarters in Minneapolis, MN Seven Geographic office Locations Five industry-specific operating groups International operations in China 2,200 team members Leadership, stability & financial growth $2.3 Billion in Revenue - 2010 Strong repeat customer base © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 4. Mortenson VDC Timeline © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction © Copyright 2010 Mortenson Construction
  • 5. Constructability Review and Virtual Mockups WHY BIM? CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW BEST PRACTICES VIRTUAL MOCKUPS WHAT S WHAT’S NEXT
  • 6. Constructability Review and Virtual MockupsWHY BIM?
  • 7. Why BIM? We’re inefficient 30-60% waste We’re unproductive 40-year decrease Source: CII & LCI 2004 Manufacturing sectors have doubled We’re wasteful Consume 40% of global raw materials g We’re deadly 4 deaths in construction daily
  • 8. Why BIM? BIM as simulation Unlike manufacturing, there is only one chance to “get it right in construction get right” Mockups are expensive and time-consuming BIM is a “virtual prototype” Build it virtually to perfect the product and process Simulate the building to: Increase Reduce Confidence Delivery time Understanding Project cost Waste Communication Injuries ju es Conflicts & RFIs
  • 9. Why BIM? Don’t do rework. Do prework.
  • 10. “Top 10” Uses of BIM in Construction0 Design Visualization1. Surveying2. Design Assistance & Constructability Review3.3 Site Planning & Site Utilization4. “4D” Scheduling and Sequencing5. “5D” Model-Based Estimating6. Subcontractor/Supplier Communications7. Systems Coordination8. Fabrication and Installation9. Prefabrication10.Operations and Maintenance
  • 11. “Top 10” Uses of BIM in Construction0 Design Visualization Analyze and test “means and methods”1. Surveying while preserving design intent2. Design Assistance & Constructability Review Quality control of3.3 Site Planning & Site Utilization design documents BIM exposes potential errors and omissions in4. “4D” Scheduling and Sequencing design documentation5. “5D” Model-Based Estimating Design assistance6. Subcontractor/Supplier and detailing Communications Ensure design can be built to meet targeted schedule, cost, and7. Systems Coordination quality8. Fabrication and Installation Virtual Mockups9. Prefabrication Prototype complex details and inter inter-10.Operations and Maintenance disciplinary assemblies for quality control
  • 12. Constructability Review and Virtual MockupsCONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW
  • 13. Laboratory Expansion and T.I. WEST ELEVATION DESIGN COORDINATION MODEL CURTAINWALL SECTIONL2 STRUCTURAL FRAMING PLANL2 ENLARGED WEST STAIR PLAN CURTAINWALL SILL DETAIL
  • 14. Laboratory Expansion and T.I.
  • 15. Laboratory Expansion and T.I.
  • 16. Library and City Hall
  • 17. Library and City Hall
  • 18. Five Community Libraries
  • 19. Five Community Libraries
  • 20. Community Youth CenterBuilt detailed model of cornercondition based on architect’s 2Dsection detailsAnalyzed condition as designed:complicated formwork vs. trades out of psequenceDeveloped alternative detail andsubmitted to design team for reviewand approval
  • 21. Laboratory Core and Shell
  • 22. Laboratory Core and Shell Construction Sequencing
  • 23. Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion
  • 24. Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion EXIST 1936 NEW 2010 EXIST 1936 BUILDING ADDITION BUILDING
  • 25. Campus Outpatient Clinic Expansion ROOFING MEMBRANE ROOF SHEATHING RIGID INSULATION ALUMINUM SCREEN FRAME VAPOR BARRIER ALUMINUM PANEL SYSTEM RIGID INSULATION METAL DECK W/ CONCRETE EXTERIOR TOPPING SHEATHINGMETAL STUD FRAME STRUCTURAL STEEL WINDOWS ACT
  • 26. Tribal Early Childhood Education Center
  • 27. Community College Science Building
  • 28. Community College Science Building Concrete elevated deck Curtain wall embeds Plumbing deck penetrations Post-tensioned cables Shear stud rails Mild steel reinforcement
  • 29. Tribal K-12 School Campus Structural t l St t l steel vs. hollow h ll metal door and window frames (4) unique conditions repeated throughout campus Finding these issues saved up to 6 weeks of delay
  • 30. Laboratory Core and Shell 2nd FLOOR SLAB CURBARCHITECTURAL DETAIL SHOP DRAWING DETAILED COMPOSITE MODEL Enabled BNB to discover and resolve discrepancies between design intent and means/methods To fix this in the field would have cost $25,000 in rework, weeks of delay Not catching this would have meant certain failure of the building enclosure Eliminate conflicts reduce rework, lower costs = happy subs and higher quality work conflicts, rework
  • 31. Brewery/Winery/Food Facility Supporting design dialogue in detailing Asking and answering RFI’s RFI s
  • 32. Brewery/Winery/Food Facility Model used to study interface between plaster, roofing, and parapet cap Roofing/Plaster/Flashing details being worked out by team using Revit design model & SketchUp Collaborative problem-solving “means and methods” together Solution developed, printed, and signed-off in meeting
  • 33. Tribal Behavioral Health Clinic Inconsistent design docs Uncoordinated footing depths Complicated brick ledgers Complex pourback conditions at exterior column locations Details Revised
  • 34. Tribal Behavioral Health Clinic Isolate and analyze a single scope of work Create task-specific views of the model p Illustrate and clarify design docs Support RFIs Preserve design intent Generate Field Drawings Plans, Sections, & 3D Reference complete details in construction docs Complete dimensions – no math in the field! 11” x 17” for easy duplication and lamination Approval/sign-off for QC Make installation clear and obvious Color-coded Easy to understand “IKEA” instructions IKEA
  • 35. Constructability Review and Virtual MockupsBEST PRACTICES
  • 36. BIM “Rules of Engagement” for Building Enclosures BNB’s suggested best practices for using BIM in design and construction Apply “Lean” p pp y principles p Assume interdisciplinary collaboration, even IPD Prepare models anticipating “downstream” use by future parties Best practices based on real-world experience By applying BIM to $500M of construction 30+ projects with several A/E’s and owners Across wide range of building types and delivery types For your consideration on future projects y p j Not a “manifesto,” just a work-in-progress Published regionally and nationally Targeted towards designers and owners Will inform our next generation of contracts BNB wants your feedback!
  • 37. 1. Model FirstBuild the model first, ABCthen draft over 2D extractions Draft only to format graphics or to add, but not change, information In this workflow, there should be no discrepancies between models & drawings in terms of: scope size location number of objects/components Any discrepancies between the model and drawings should be limited to level-of-detail For BNB, we are responsible for noting discrepancies discovered between models/drawings, design team is responsible for reconciling them* Discipline is required to for newbies not to stray from “new” workflow
  • 38. 2. Share the ModelShare the source model data with others Publish it at moments “frozen” in time consistent with document delivery milestones (50% DD, etc) ( , ) Ask for the model from others, upstream and downstream p All model data to be compatible with industry standards y For BNB, acceptable file formats include RVT, DWG, NWC, IFC PDF’s and screenshots helpful for visual reference, but not much more* A/E’s have concern about ability to “lock down” proprietary information like custom families
  • 39. 3. Assign ResponsibilityDetermine early who is responsible for modeling which project scope (and when) Ideal: Do It Yourself If you would traditionally draw/design something, then you should be the one to model it y Example: architect would model plumbing or electrical fixtures, engineer would model pipes/conduits connecting to them) Model it only once No duplicate elements between disciplines For BNB, we can check accurate quantities and generate estimates BNB* Most BIM software doesn’t inherently support this way of working doesn t working, we need creative workarounds to borrow/copy data between disciplines
  • 40. 4. Level of DetailAccuracy is more important than detail Minimum suggested detail in the model is consistent with what would traditionally be shown in drawing sets y g 1/8” scale plans, sections, elevations 1-1/2” scale detail plans/sections Abstractions for some shapes are okay as long as everything is in the right place Example: extrusion cross-section of window mullion not as i lli t important as external profile t t t l fil Do not use dimension overrides For BNB, we can transfer XYZ coordinates from the model to northing easting BNB northing, easting, elevation points for survey/layout* Some BIM software is good with LOD control, and warns against dimension overrides
  • 41. 5. Model Standards & Digital HygieneCoordinates Determine, publish, and promote a single project origin Do NOT rely on Revit “shared coordinates” which are not exportable downstream y p to other applications Publish the relationship between the building/grid and a site datum (like the state plane coordinate system or local survey datum) For BNB, sea-level for Z=0 is preferred for construction layout, but not critical if the design team picks another vertical datumNamingN i Keep file names consistent and overwrite them Do not include dates within the file name Instead archive backups in folders with dates/descriptions* These practices are fundamental to file sharing and collaboration, p g , and shouldn’t be new to most teams with good CAD standards.
  • 42. 6. PhasingManage “phases” to distinguish work conditions: Existing to-remain Demolition Proposed work* Consistent with traditional A/E scope of work, and i d important for downstream filtering of model d f d fil i f d l data
  • 43. 7. Support Bid PackagesOrganize and structure the model in a way that reflects anticipated bid packages For BNB, we can include colored, highlighted views of the model to supplement traditional bid packages Other work can be shown halftone or transparent for reference Beyond geometry, leverage the “I” in BIM VS.* E Exceeds traditional A/E d li d t diti l deliverables, bl but easily accomplished with thoughtful use of BIM tools
  • 44. 8. Reflect Means and Methods Build the model anticipating typical construction means & methods Avoid using “cheats” or shortcuts to represent an object if there is a better BIM component/family available Example: don’t use Revit curtain walls for doors or punched windows Example: don’t use Revit walls to wrap columns Model structural and architectural elements to reflect likely construction logic For BNB, we can pro ide inp t regarding construction joints and seq encing BNB e provide input constr ction sequencing Example: don’t use a single 4-story concrete column if it will be site-cast as (4) one-story columns, but a 2-story steel column is okay if that’s the way it’s fabricated/erected Details still best left to detailers* There’s more than one way to model, but often there is a “best” way
  • 45. 9. Revisions: Managing Change Develop a strategy early for revision control during design and construction Publish models in (near) real-time with frequent/nightly data transfers so everybody has (nearly) live and up to date data at all times up-to-date Use technology that supports collaboration, not just allows communication For BNB, a common/shared project server is superior to frequent postings and downloads with an FTP site Team should determine how to manage changes to the design (or as- builts) during/after coordination and construction* Revision control and management continues plague our industry. Not unique to BIM, but cultural issues magnified by the technology.
  • 46. 10. Test early, test often Immediately, all team members contribute sample, representative data to be compiled and coordinated Verify alignment of geometry in single master model Supplement early model submissions with screenshots from y pp y your native software so others can verify what they see (versus what you hope they might see)* Not unique to BIM, just common sense!
  • 47. Constructability Review and Virtual MockupsVIRTUAL MOCKKUPS
  • 48. San Diego, CAFebruary 10, 2011Mortenson ConstructionVirtual Mockups – A Collaborative SolutionRick Khan, LEED APSenior Integrated Construction Manager Building what’s next. © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 49. Virtual Mockups: Agenda  Introductions  What are Virtual Mockups What?  How do we use Virtual Mockups  Physical Mockup vs. Virtual Mockup How?  Project Case Studies Why?  Safety planning / Construction Sequencing  Quality plan / Inspections  Subcontractor model Increase Planning coordination / Physical Mockup  Value of Virtual Mockups Increase Communication Increase Collaboration Eliminate Interpretation © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 50. 2D or 3D - You be the judge… The answer maybe obvious… © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 51. Virtual Mockup? (VM)Highly detailed 3D model used as the central medium of collaborationto resolve constructability issues virtually prior to constructionactivities Level of Development = 400 (AIA E202 model progression spec) Model elements are modeled as specific assemblies, accurate in terms of quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation. Model elements are virtual representation of the proposed element and are suitable for construction. © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 52. How?Virtual Mockups – 3D Constructability High Risk Planning - Enclosure Quality Planning / Inspection Safety Planning Physical Mockup Review Construction Sequencing  Micro Level 4D Integrating:  Owner  Design Team  Construction Team Effective Virtual problem solving through Collaboration © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 53. How?Virtual Mockup Process PLAN PLAN  Project team identifies high risk areas Mortenson Construction  Gather data from all sources SIMLATE CM/GC  Verify data Trade  Generate 3D Model Owner Contractors  Identify problems 3D Virtual Mockup Review APPROVE SIMULATE  Integrated team meetings  Model = Live meeting minutes Design Product  Distribute updates to team Manufacturer Team Approve  Document solutions – Shop Drawings  Individual party approval per scope  Construction team implementation REVIEW Start with the End in Mind! © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 54. Why?Physical Mockups Inefficiencies of physical mockup processNon collaborative approach © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 55. Physical MockupMost projects require a physical mockup per the contract which may include an exterior and/or interior mockup Limitations of a Physical Mockup  Problems uncovered during construction of physical mockup  One physical mockup doesn’t address all conditions!  Delays actual constructable solutions  Expensive – time, material, labor  Wasteful – usually destroyed1800 LarimerOffice BuildingDenver, Colorado © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 56. Why only build one Physical Mockup…When you can build multiple virtualmockups for a fraction of the cost! © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 57. Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup Virtual Mockup should be used as part of the Physical Mockup planning process! PLAN CM/GC Owner 3D Virtual SUBS Mockup APPROVE SIMULATE DT P/F REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 58. Virtual Mockup & Physical MockupThis Virtual Mockup provided a VALUE ADD to the physicalmockup requirement! © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 59. Project Case StudiesSafety Planning / Construction SequencingBallard Medical Office BuildingSwedish Medical CenterCompleted Customer HealthCare Real Estate Solutions / Swedish Health Architect Callison Construction Cost $35 million Size 90,000 sf Location Ballard, Washington © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 60. Quality / Safety PlanningIntegrated Work Planning Micro level 4D – High Detail Focus on the install sequence Safety Planning integration  Pinch points  Material Handling  Worker access / movements  Equipment movement  Scaffolding Trade workflowMicro level 4D allowed us to planeffectively for the entire building. © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 61. Project Case StudiesQuality / Inspection PlanExempla Lutheran Medical CenterNorth Pavilion AdditionCompleted Customer Exempla Healthcare Architect H+L Architecture Construction Cost $143 million Size 295,000 SF addition Location Wheat Ridge, CO © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 62. Quality / Inspection PlansIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joints  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing  2D design details did not address direction change  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 63. Quality Plan / Inspection PLANIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint CM/GC  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing Owner 3D Virtual SUBS  2D design details did not address direction change APPROVE Mockup SIMULATE  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction DT P/F  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 64. Quality Plan / Inspection PLANIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint CM/GC  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing Owner 3D Virtual SUBS  2D design details did not address direction change APPROVE Mockup SIMULATE  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction DT P/F  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 65. Quality Plan / Inspection PLANIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint CM/GC  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing Owner 3D Virtual SUBS  2D design details did not address direction change APPROVE Mockup SIMULATE  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction DT P/F  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 66. Quality Plan / Inspection PLANIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint CM/GC  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing Owner 3D Virtual SUBS  2D design details did not address direction change APPROVE Mockup SIMULATE  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction DT P/F  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 67. Quality Plan / Inspection PLANIntegrated Work Plan – Roof / Expansion Joint CM/GC  5 high risk areas were identified b/w new and existing Owner 3D Virtual SUBS  2D design details did not address direction change APPROVE Mockup SIMULATE  Multiple trades involved in expansion joint construction DT P/F  Conflicting constructability solutions prior to VM process REVIEW © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 68. Project Case StudiesSubcontractor Coordination / Physical MockupRalph L. CarrColorado Judicial CenterIn Progress Customer Trammell Crow Architect Fentress Architects Construction Cost $195 million Size 600,000 SF Location Denver, CO © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 69. Subcontractor Coordination / Physical MockupBridging the overlap between design and Construction Fast Track Schedule Subcontractor Model Scopes: Construction activities begin before  Gage - Precast design completion  Cold Spring / Gallegos – Handset stone Virtual Mockups process becomes part  Trainor – Curtain wall / Glazing of design completion / constructability solution  Mortenson – Cast in Place Concrete Subcontractor providing LOD 400  Zimmerman - Steel Enclosure Models per MC Contract  Clash Detection between enclosure scopes Spray Foam Insulation Physical Mockup © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 70. Virtual Mockup & Physical MockupEarly Virtual Mockups prior to design completion Physical Mockup – VDC IWP work packages Integrating design and construction team in collaborative problem solving for design detailing Design team provide higher level design detailing as result of integrated work flow Virtual Mockup assisted in completion of design detailing, eliminating interpretation and potential re-work © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 71. Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup Subcontractor Enclosure Coordination  New level of enclosure modeling LOD 400  Required new coordination efforts  Performed clash detection between trades  Stone vs. Precast  Precast vs. Steel supports  Stone/Precast vs. Concrete (wall base conditions/haunch beam)  Precast Foam Insulation vs. Others  Steel Fire Proofing vs. Others © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 72. Virtual Mockup & Physical Mockup Spray Foam Insulation VM & PM  Spray Foam is a high risk activity  Complex design and constructability of enclosure required further investigation  Construction team Virtual and Physical Mockup solved critical application issues 1 2 3 © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 73. Value of Virtual MockupsPlan the Work, Work the Plan! Increase Planning Increase Communication Increase CollaborationEliminate Interpretation © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 74. Cost Aversion ExampleCost of Physical MockupEnclosure  Cost of one physical Mockup = $56,700  Constructed 1st and then problems were resolved PHYSICAL MOCK-UP COST Precast: $22,000 Curtain Wall: $25,000 Framing: $5,000 Caulking: $1,200 Foundation: $3,500 TOTAL $56,7001800 LarimerOffice BuildingDenver, Colorado © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 75. Cost Aversion ExampleValue of Virtual Mockup  Reduce waste = greener solution  Saved time, material, labor = owner cost!  Increased visual communication and collaborative solution for all project stakeholders Let’s say that we had to build 4 physical mockups to capture all the conditions on the enclosure to address the high risk factors! Cost Aversion Calculation: Cost of PM $56,700 x 4 = $226,800 Cost of 4-VM - $11,680 $215,120 Minus cost of 1 PM - $56,700 Cost aversion = $158,420 © Copyright 2011 Mortenson Construction
  • 76. Constructability Review and Virtual MockupsWHAT’S NEXT
  • 77. What’s Next All BIM, all the time LEGAL Model-sharing more prevalent in AEC CULTURAL “Old school” designers and builders changing habits, changing careers REGULATORY Agency review PHYSICAL “Paperless construction at project sites Paperless construction” trending towards Augmented Reality OPERATIONAL “6D” use of BIM to support f facilities operations and maintenance
  • 78. Thank youDace.Campbell@BNBuilders.com Ricardo.Khan@Mortenson.com Ri d Kh @M t