Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
BIM, Big Data and Mashup in Architectural Computing – Experimenting with Digital Technologies in Teaching
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

BIM, Big Data and Mashup in Architectural Computing – Experimenting with Digital Technologies in Teaching

363
views

Published on

Boeykens, S., Wouters, N., & Vande Moere, A. (2013). BIM , Big Data and Mashup in Architectural Computing – Experimenting with Digital Technologies in Teaching (pp. 1–2). London: UCL, The Bartlett …

Boeykens, S., Wouters, N., & Vande Moere, A. (2013). BIM , Big Data and Mashup in Architectural Computing – Experimenting with Digital Technologies in Teaching (pp. 1–2). London: UCL, The Bartlett College.

The Architectural Computing course at the Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning (AUP), supervised by Prof. Andrew Vande Moere and Dr. Stefan Boeykens, introduces students to digital design tools. Architectural Computing I introduces CAD drafting including BIM, rendering, digital documentation, freeform modeling. Architectural Computing II focuses on parametric design, digital fabrication, real-time architecture and web mashups. This abstract illustrates two exercises (BIM and Mashup), pertaining to, respectively, BIM and big data. The BIM exercise consists of 1) a semester-long introduction where students learn to model, annotate and publish digital building models via ArchiCAD (i.e. little BIM) and 2) a group assignment where students collaboratively construct shared building models. In addition, teams appoint model evaluators to perform qualitative and quantitative model analyses using Solibri Model Checker. Teams collaborate with students in engineering who perform energy evaluations and design ventilation systems using Autodesk Revit. Since collaboration requires multiple software tools and interoperability, we highlight OpenBIM concepts. The required team coordination also reflects existing collaborations in building industry. Evaluation consists of 1) project-based feedback providing students with simulation results to optimize designs, 2) process-based feedback where students reflect on the design process and ttools for collaboration and communication, and 3) peer assessment. The Mashup exercise offers students theoretical and practical insight into networked datasets, and the relevance for architectural design. Exercises encompass topics such as open data, Internet of Things and locative technologies. Two approaches have been introduced: 1) bottom-up, where large datasets of geolocated urban features are collaboratively constructed, and a personal online front-end for exploring the data is built (using Google APIs, HTML5, jQuery), and 2) top-down, involving topics such as parametric design, integrating real time sensor data that closely resemble environmental data or movement patterns. By integrating real time sensor data with architectural prototypes (via Grasshopper), students can experience continuously reshaping designs, virtually without borders, yet limited in design through self-defined constraints. In both approaches, evaluation focuses on the emergence of forms and data, creativity and representation. We observed students and design studio teachers regularly need convinced about the relevance of our approaches. The relevance of digital technologies as part of the design process needs to be experienced to appreciate, rather than to be used merely as representational tools. By providing well-structured scenarios

Published in: Education, Technology, Business

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
363
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The Architectural Computing course at the Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning (ASRO),supervised by Prof. Andrew VandeMoere and Dr. Stefan Boeykensintroduces students to digital design tools.Architectural Computing I, taught during the second Bachelor year, introduces CAD drafting including BIM, rendering, digital documentation, freeform modeling.Architectural Computing II, a third Bachelor-course, focuses on parametric design, digital fabrication, real-time architecture and web mashups.We illustrate two exercises (BIM and Mashup), pertaining to, respectively, BIM and Big Data.
  • The BIM exercise evolves from little BIMto BIG BIM (Jernigan, 2008). It consists ofintroduction seminarsemester-long introduction where students learn to model, annotate and publish digital building models using ArchiCAD
  • 2) a group assignment where students collaboratively construct shared building models, using the TeamWork BIM Server.In addition, teams appoint model evaluators to perform qualitative and quantitative model analyses.They use Solibri Model Checker to perform analysis of model consistency and clashesand to check against a regionalized set of legislation rules.
  • 24 teams of Bachelor students (Architecture-Engineering – 2nd Bachelor) (Compulsory course ArchComp1 – 3 ECTS)6 master students of engineering in construction (elective course 3D Design)Teams collaborate with master students in engineering who perform energy evaluations and design a ventilation system using Autodesk Revit. Since collaboration requires multiple software tools and interoperability, we highlight OpenBIM concepts and present workable practices using IFC. Different roles are defined per team, including coordination, modeling and evaluation. The assignment demands reflection the collaborative process, preparing students for an evolving building industry.
  • The organization of digital communication and information exchange requires proper technical knowledge and understanding of different communication methods, software tools and best practices.This is complicated by incompatible software systems, application versions and proprietary data formats that can only be used in a single application.E.g. Autodesk Revit does not support saving models for a previous version of the program, making it impossible to cooperate with someone who works in a different version of the software.Subtle differences in IFC interpretation between BIM software
  • Even with compatible software, model exchange is hindered by differingproject structuresWide variety of building practiceResistance to changeFrom traditional design-bid-build till design-build & IPDThe different roles in the building team should not be underestimated either. By effectively taking on a particular role, students discover their specific tasks and responsibilities. This is advantageous over the more traditional approach of the design studio teacher or tutor taking on the different roles themselves towards the student, such as building owner, contractor or consultancy office. In traditional group work in the design studio, all students usually take on the role of the designer.
  • project-based feedback providing students with simulation results to optimize designs,Within the collaboration activities, students receive project-based feedback on their design. This is mostly noticeable when an architectural model is extended with an engineering model and the performance is calculated. This will lead to a more optimized and qualitative design.– ALSO the Model Checker results > clashes, consistency, classification, compliance, validity, reporting & quantities2) There is also process-based feedback, where students are asked to reflect on the information exchange and the collaboration, through questionnaires and peer assessment. They will have to reflect on how to organize the collaboration, when to communicate and ask questions on how, when and with whom. This also implies a reflection on the BIM methodology itself, which is very important, considering the current state of rather limited BIM adoption in our region.With this knowledge, students are being prepared for their upcoming professional career, where such processes will play an increasingly important role.3) peer assessment.
  • In most architectural schools, traditional 2D CAD drafting is still prevalent, while the use of 3D is limited mostly to representation and visualization. Furthermore, some design studio teachers exhibit hesitation or even a negative attitude towards BIM, effectively warning students against the application of BIM. Some of their concerns could be countered, at least partially, by providing additional guidance and learning material, liberating design studio teachers a bit from the difficulties students encounter while learning BIM.Ambrose (2012) specifically argues that “abstraction is at the heart of most design studios in schools of architecture”, whereas BIM presents a “way of thinking that seeks to simulate the construction of a building”. Most design studio teachers are practicing architects, but many of them still rely on traditional 2D CAD for documentation and drafting. However, as further confirmed by Ambrose, BIM is a design methodology and not just a tool and “the way we make architecture is being transformed through the very digital tools, methods and processes we use”. Berwald (2008) also describes how BIM will alter architectural education, even against the prejudice that BIM might hinder design creativity. While on the one hand, BIM provides convenience, by offering pre-defined materials, assemblies or optimized modeling tools or wizards, it also presents complexities that are not encountered with traditional drawing methods. Berwald (2008) argues that “creating new objects […] requires relatively fewer skills” in 2D CAD when compared with setting up custom objects or components for BIM. In 2D drafting a single set of methods can be applied to represent anything.In the long term, BIM should be accepted as a methodology, rather than as a representational software tool and should be provided sufficient support beyond a single introductory course. This is in line with the evolution of BIM from being used locally, as an internal method inside an architectural or engineering office, towards a more global, collaborative usage among project partners. Jernigan (2008) dubs this “Little BIM” versus “BIG BIM”.
  • The BIM exercise leverages guiding documents, with open questions (e.g. how will you deal with versioning?) or lists of roles in the team, to stimulate reflection on the process.
  • Over the two Architectural Computing courses, communication procedures are being adjusted.Large series of video-tutorials, created for Arch.Comp course;shared (via YouTube) with others >> currently in Dutch! // ArchiCAD, AutoCAD, SketchUp, Artlantis, Solibri, Unity, …Video tutorials gradually replace classroom based tutoring, providing students an opportunity to learn at their own pace. (pause, rewind),guided sessions after basic concepts
  • A dedicated social network (http://archcomp.asro.kuleuven.be) acts as a medium for student support and assignment presentations, providing the ability to comment and interact.Buddypress (Wordpress) + few add-onsForums > Q & ABlogs > Submit + commentManuals > HTML + embedded video-tutorials
  • ConclusionThe relevance of digital technologies as part of the design process needs to be experienced to appreciate, rather than to be used merely as representational tools.By providing well-structured scenarios, technical infrastructure and accompanying learning materials, we have achieved better results produced by students and a more positive attitude towards these technologies in the design studio. The social network has proven to be a valuable source of information for students and teaching staff, a platform for learning from each other and a tool to provide personal feedback.
  • Transcript

    • 1. BIM, Big Data and Mashup in Architectural Computing Experimenting with Digital Technologies in Teaching Dr. Stefan Boeykens, Niels Wouters, Prof. Andrew Vande Moere The Bartlett Pedagogy meets Big Data and BIM Conference 24- 25 June 2013, UCL London (UK) * Parts of the work presented here were funded by the “Education Development Fund” of the KU Leuven Association, with reference OOF 2011/24
    • 2. PART 1 BIM & PEDAGOGY
    • 3. From Little BIM... • 1st Semester • Recreate house • ArchiCAD • model • annotate • publish Student: S. Simoens (2012) Student: E. Devos (2012)
    • 4. To BIG BIM * • 2nd Semester • Collaborate • ArchiCAD TeamWork • Solibri Model Checker • Autodesk Revit MEP • openBIM workflow * Jernigan, F. E. (2008). BIG BIM, Little BIM (2nd ed., p. 328). 4Site Press. Student: R. Mertens (2012) source: Jared Banks (shoegnome.com)
    • 5. Technological Challenges • Software differences (platform, software versions, …) • File formats (proprietary vs. open)
    • 6. Organizational Challenges • Project structure • Building & Design practices • Roles in a Building team • designer, architect, engineer, consultant, administration, owner, contractor, constructor, ...
    • 7. Evaluation/Feedback • Project Based > architectural design, building performance, visualization • Process Based > working in a building team, questionnaires, peer assessment Modeled after POLO-IRS-Grontmij-A’Prom (Students Residence @KU Leuven)
    • 8. PART 2 MASHUPS & BIG DATA
    • 9. -Students individually create descriptive datasets -Geotagging -Online front-end Big and Realtime Data BOTTOM-UP -Students integrate realtime sensor values in designs -Environment and movement -Parametric design TOP-DOWN
    • 10. Big and Realtime Data TOP-DOWNBOTTOM-UP
    • 11. PART 3: DIDACTIC APPROACH
    • 12. BIM versus the design studio? • Tradition of 2D drafting & 3D visualization • Hesitation or negative attitude towards BIM BIM > software BIM = methodology BIM = process
    • 13. Didactic Approach for BIM • Learning concepts, but also software • Lifted outside Design Studio work • From little BIM to BIG BIM • Early in curriculum (but not too soon) • Experience scenario of collaboration
    • 14. Didactic Approach for Mashup/Data • Not a course in programming or electronics • Stimulate exploration and emergence - Code examples - Tutors deploy data gathering devices
    • 15. Concluding Remarks • Need to experience digital technologies as part of design process • Scenarios, learning material, positive attitude • Supported by social network
    • 16. Thank you for your attention Questions? More information? http://archcomp.asro.kuleuven.be Dr. Stefan Boeykens (@stefkeB) Niels Wouters (@mediatecture) Prof. Andrew Vande Moere (@infosthetics) * Parts of the work presented here were funded by the “Education Development Fund” of the KU Leuven Association, with reference OOF 2011/24