Building Information Modeling Clash Dete

48-764 BIM Final Report
Group 1_ Structure
Widjava, Aswin ( awidjava)

Wu, Hau-Wen (hauwenw)
Yu, Chiaowei (chiaowey)
Song, Xiaoxi (xiaoxiso)
4D Modeling
4D Modeling video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dK7deA5YM&feature=youtu.be
Explain your phasing plan showing how the work will be completed? Where the
work is going to start (e.g., north side, south side), and how it will proceed?
The images below shows 3 options of contruction method which could be applied in this project:
OPTION 1: TRADITIONAL PROCESS
OPTION 2: PREFABRICATED PROCESS
OPTION 3: SMART LABOR PROCESS
Option 1 and option 2 use normal construction sequence-- finish constructing all the exterior walls before con-
structing interior walls. The difference between option 1 and option 2 is that option 2 uses pre-fabricated walls
well option 1 does not.
We determined the option 3 -- smart labor process -- as our construction method of this project. In this method,
for the convenience of interior wall construction, 3 exterior walls -- east wall, south wall and west wall -- are to
be constructed before interior walls, but the north wall won’t be constructed untill interior wall construction is
finished. So that interior wall construction will be more cenvenient. The reason why we chose north exterior wall
as the last exterior wall is because it has fewest doors/windows.
According to the construction method we selected, we decomposed the project into tasks and subtasks and
assigned predecessors to each subtask. In this part, we carefully consider every components’ relation based on
the construction sequence and logistic. For example, when we were defining the predecessor of each wall, all
the wall should follow consistent to the construction method we selected, and also the rationality in real con-
struction condition. Since we set this project as a fast track project, we defined all the exterior wall should be
built at the same time except for north exterior wall. And the north exterior wall should be built after exterior
walls and interior walls are done. The predecessors are the shown in the next page.
Next step is to define how we decomposed each task, as we learn in former project, it is useful and fast to do Quan-
tity take-off in Vico Office. However, the division of building components in Vico Office’s automatic quantity take-off
model is not entirely consistent with the way we divided our tasks. So we used the paint mode to re-divide building
components in the 3D model to get a more accurate and useful quantity take-off.
Crew type and labor rate was found in RS Means. In order to achieve fast-track construction, we determined to use
larger labor amount than what’s given in RSMeans.
Task Name(description) Code/Line Number Crew Type Crew Amount Unit Quantity Unit Labor Hours Total Labor Hours Duration(hours)
Footing
Strip Footing C.I.P. concrete forms, footing, continuous wall 031113450500 C1 3 L.F 755.3 0.064 48.3392 16.11306667
Sread Footing 6.56’ * 6.56’ C.I.P. concrete forms, 8’ * 8’ Footing 031113456100 C1 3 Ea. 40 1.6 64 21.33333333
Spread Footing 10.83’ * 12.27 C.I.P. concrete forms, 12’ * 12’ Footing 031113456150 C1 3 Ea. 1 1.882 1.882 0.627333333
Steel Column
East Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E2 3 meter 26.28 0.175 4.599 1.533
South Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E3 3 meter 36.88 0.175 6.454 2.151333333
West Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E4 3 meter 21.06 0.175 3.6855 1.2285
North Exterior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E5 3 meter 31.61 0.175 5.53175 1.843916667
Interior Steel Column W 10 * 45 (W 250*67) 05223177000 E6 3 meter 82.2 0.175 14.385 4.795
Wall
Foundation Wall Concrete Block, Foundation Wall, Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210260600 D9 3 S.F 1867.6 0.137 255.8612 85.28706667
Exterior Wall
East Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D9 3 S.F 1493.6 0.192 286.7712 95.5904
South Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D10 3 S.F 1994.9 0.192 383.0208 127.6736
West Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D11 3 S.F 1505.1 0.192 288.9792 96.3264
North Exterior Wall Concrete Block, Exterior,Normal Weight, 12” * 8” * 16” 042210240300 D12 3 S.F 2299.6 0.192 441.5232 147.1744
Interior Wall Concrete Block, Partitions with non-reiforce(8”*16”*4”) 042210341100 D8 24 S.F. 24484.7 0.091 2228.1077 92.83782083
Windows
Window 1000*2000 Aluminum window,2’8”*6’8”, standard 085113203300 2 Sswk 3 Each. 1 2 2 0.666666667
Window 1220*1500 Aluminum window,3’4”*5’, standard 085113202700 2Sswk 3 Each. 21 1.778 37.338 12.446
Window 4000*1000 Aluminum Windows ,2.8’*13.6’ 085113203300 2Sswk 3 Each. 1 4 4 1.333333333
Window 1000*1000 Aluminum windows, 3’1”*3’2” 085113201000 2Sswk 3 Each. 2 1.6 3.2 1.066666667
Doors
Door 2134*915 Smooth wood doors(3’*7) 081416090108 2Carp 3 Each. 55 1 55 18.33333333
Door 2134*1830 Smooth wood doors(6’*7) 081416090112 2 Carp 3 Pr.(pair) 2 1.778 3.556 1.185333333
Door 2083*1830 Birch Face(2*3’*6.8) 081416090180 2 Carp 3 Each. 4 1.882 7.528 2.509333333
Door 1525*915 Birch Face(3’*6.8’) 081416090180 3 Carp 3 Each. 2 0.941 1.882 0.627333333
Door 1525*813 Standard hollow Metal Doors 081313130020 2 Carp 3 Each. 3 0.8 2.4 0.8
The fast-track contruction scheduling result of this project is shown below:
Since 3/1/2014 is Saturday, the actual start date of the project is 3/3/2014.
The finish date will be 5/28/2014.
Explain to what level of detail you decomposed activities in your schedule.
The level of detail in our decomposed activities in our schedule depended on both RS Means’ standard and
construction sequence. For example, when we were defining footing components, we classified footing as strip
footings and spread footings based on the construction sequence, therefore, we could break down spread foot-
ing into more specific classification based on RS Means’ standard: Spread Footing with dimension 6.56’*6.56’
and Spread Footing with dimension 10.83’*12.27’
Level of Detail of Steel Column:

Since the Steel Colum is the same type of steel, we classify steel column based of construction consequence.
The window classification is based on the standard of RS Means, we choose the window type has the most similar dimension
to our models.
Since there is only information about door’s dimension but type in Revit model, the door classification standard is also based
on the standard of RS Means, we choose the door type has the most similar dimension to our models.
To define details of wall, we check the wall type in Revit model first, the type of exterior wall is Concrete Exterior Wall
with12”*8”, and Concrete with non-reinforced 8”*16” for interior wall. After knowing the type, we classify each wall based on
the construction consequence:
Project schedules and even designs get changed and updated frequently during con-
struction. Assuming that you might have a modified schedule, discuss how easy it would
be to recreate the 4D model.
Project schedule changes and design changes require updates in the models, the more frequently the changes hap-
pen, the more workload are in demand, which has been a major problem in the industry. Making updates to 4D model
in Synchro has both convenience and impediments.
The features that make the 4D model updating easy include:

• In the situation that the only certain task durations change and there’s no new tasks added to the schedule, the
update can easily be done by changing the values in Duration column of Gann chart and modify the camera and focus
time points in animation editor to update the animation. There’s no need to reimport the schedule or model. And
there’s no need to reassign building components in 3D model to tasks in schedule.
• If more changes are made to schedule, we can always import the new .xml file created in MS Project easily.
• Schedules made in MS Project (.xml format) can easily be imported into Synchro. There’s no need to do manual infor-
mation transfer.
•Shedule changes can also be made directly in Synchro. So we do not need to go back to MS Project when there are
only minor changes in schedule.
The features that cause trouble to the 4D model updating work include:
• When new tasks are added to the schedule, and when the decomposition of tasks changes, we have to reassign
building components s in 3D model to tasks. Since this assigning work cannot be done automatically done by Syn-
chro, manual assigning is needed, which takes a lot of time and effort.
• The updating of animation also need to be done manually. When task duration changes or when there are new tasks
added to the schedule or when the decomposition of task changes, time and effort need to be spent on the modifica-
tion of the camera and focus time points in animation editor.
• As compared to schedule changes, design changes are more troublesome. When design changes happen, new 3D
models need to be created and imported into Synchro. In this situation, we have to repeat every step in the creating
the original 4D model, including assigning building components to tasks, editing animation, etc, and create a whole
new 4D model.
In summary, it is easy to update the 4D model when there’s no change in design and the changes in schedule are mi-
nor, it is not easy to update the 4D model when the changes in schedule are large or when there’s changes n design.
However, in real cases, schedule changes happen frequently and there are often new tasks added or old tasks de-
lected. What’s more, design changes happen. So even though there are both convenience and inconvenience in
updating the 4D model when schedule changes and design changes happen, the convenience still could not counter
balance the inconvenience.
The inconvenience mostly come from the need to do redundant works. Since there are already inconveniences in
creating a 4D model in Synchro even when creating an original model, as opposed to updating, the more redundancy
there are in the work, the more we are influenced by the cost brought by the inconvenient features. Those inconve-
nient features will be illustrated in detail in the anwer to the following question.
Discuss the features that you liked and the things that can be improved in the 4D system
that you used. Create a wishlist containing 5-10 items that you would like to have in an
“ideal” 4D system.
According to our experience of the 4D system, the things that we like include:
• Schedules made in MS Project and saved in .xml format can be easily imported into Synchro without losing import-
ant information.
• The 3D model and the Gant chart, including task information, can be shown at the same time, which gives us a good
understanding of the whole project and makes it easy to assign building components in 3D model to tasks.
• We can assign building components in 3D model to tasks. Even though this requires manual work which takes time
and effort, this feature is still favorable in a certain degree because it brings in flexibility. Since schedules of different
projects decompose tasks to different degrees of detail, for example, there are different types of doors in some build-
ings but only one type of doors in other buildings, it is makes the 4D model more accurate to assign building compo-
nents to tasks manually than automatically.
Things that can be improved in the 4D system include:

• After project schedule is made, each task has already been assigned a duration, a start time, and a finish time. How-
ever, when we create animation, the task duration, start time and finish time information cannot be automatically
detected and included in the animation. We still have to assign the view of certain construction phases to certain time
points manually, using focus time points function or other function in animation editor.
• We have to assign building components in 3D models to tasks manually. This feature is also listed as a thing that we
like above. However, it is very time consuming to do this task manually and mistakes, omissions and repeating hap-
pens especially when the model is complicated. It’s better to have an automatic take-off and some manual modifica-
tion, as how the take-off model in Vico Office works--- automatic quantity take off in which building components can
be reassigned to categories in the paint mode.
• Even though the IFC model contains size information, and can contain material and other information, those infor-
mation of the model cannot be seen in Synchro. However, thoso information are needed when we assign building
components to tasks. For example, when there’s construction of 6’ * 6’ doors and construction of 6’ * 8’ doors in sched-
ule, we need to assign the doors in the model accordingly.
Our wishlist for an ideal 4D system is as below:

• Animation can be generated automatically according to task information in the scheduling: duration, start time and
finish time.
• Have the function of automatic quantity take-off, as the take-off model in Vico Office.
• Building components can be automatically assigned to tasks and e modified manually after it.
• Size information of building components can be checked. So there’s no need to open the model in Revit to obtain
such information.
• __Have RS Means content included in the software, either a function of finding code automatically, or simply a plat-
form for user to search code by themselves, as how they do on RS Means Online.
Discuss what some value propositions for creating a 4D model during construction are.
Similarly, discuss what some impediments are. What are some characteristics of a project
that would benefit the most from a 4D system?
ZAHA’S DILEMMA
A recent article on Zaha Hadid’s comment “Preventing migrant deaths at Qatar Stadium
site is not my duty as an architect” has sparked controversies all over the world. The article
seems to suggest that the Qatari government is the one held responsible for these deaths.
In response, the issue has not came up in any of other Zaha’s projects around the world, but
the question whether or not the architect has power or not seems otherwise.
The use of 4D modeling construction in relation to BIM has allowed a vast improvement
in construction safety. Each process and concstruction elements can be mapped onto a
time map, which allows construction to much safer. Since BIM is the epitome that “Building
equals to Data”, each component can also be mapped digitally precisely on a vector point.
With such technology, the era where workers have to be hoisted loosely on a rope or
pry themselves across trusses to screw a bolt are over. Using a 4D BIM process is almost
a foolproof method to prevent casualties and deaths. If everything can be mapped from
a vector point, then however complicated the building geometry is, each scaffolding
and safety features of the construction phase can be mapped and included within the
construction cost.
Some artists would say that s/he would die for art, but the question is “do you have to?”. No.
Aside from increasing construction safety, 4D modelling benefits construction time,

construction efficiency, and interoperability between project members. Modifications
during construction can also be easily implemented due to the software’s efficiency. Since
4D model illustrates construction method digitally, it can be stored efficiently, and may
be used for litigations purposes proving the safety measures taken during construction
process. With that being said, a few impediments include...
Clash Detection
How did you define the order of model overlaying for the clash detection session? How would you define this
order if you had to coordinate the work with more parties, such as electrical, plumbing, fire protection design
companies bringing their own models to the session?
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE
ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
The first come first serve basis is dependent on whoever finishes the model first. The file that was open first became the
basis of the file that is being modified. In this process, ideally mechanical elements are most flexible and should be modified
first. On the other hand, in reality, the mechanical elements are most complicated and therefore frequently finished last.
Consequently, architectural and structural elements are often modified first as to the mechanical systems. The first come
first serve basis may also be confusing due as each elements are modified to its extremities as the process progresses. Due
to the number of Links in each model, fixing clashes might be confusing and causes redundancy and repetition. The step is
most ideal if the individual has three different computers and a good eye to spot error.
INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE HIERARCHICAL
ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
The first come first serve basis is dependent on whoever finishes the model first. The file that was open first became the
basis of the file that is being modified. In this process, ideally mechanical elements are most flexible and should be modified
first. On the other hand, in reality, the mechanical elements are most complicated and therefore frequently finished last.
Consequently, architectural and structural elements are often modified first as to the mechanical systems. The first come
first serve basis may also be confusing due as each elements are modified to its extremities as the process progresses. Due
to the number of Links in each model, fixing clashes might be confusing and causes redundancy and repetition. The step is
most ideal if the individual has three different computers and a good eye to spot error.
TEAM PROCESS: THE ONE-BY-ONE PLEASE
ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
With each project team representing their own elements, the meeting can be kept at a more civilized manner rather than
sounding like a New York Stock Exchange. The civilized manner may also call for a slight bias and hierarchical viewpoint
from each individual representing each elements. Unlike the First Come First Serve Method, this method allows for different
individuals to be incharge of each element, hence increases the amount of dexterity and precision of each model. Each error
can be identified easier. On the other hand, due to the simultaneous changes that can be potential made by each individual,
the model has to be saved frequently (another reason why Revit always autosave). Although such process may be faster for
experienced individuals, but maybe catastrophic otherwise.
TEAM PROCESS: THE EXTREME IDEAL
ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
MECHANICAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS
STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE
ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
The extreme ideal process may be the best process that can be implemented to determine clashes from each element group
with the following element. The process may even be categorized into smaller groups (e.g. in MEP elements, elements can
be subcategorized into electrical conduits, water pipes, heating, and cooling ducts), but it requires an extremely powerful
and large cloud storage that can be withstand the amount of data. In addition, each computer need to be equipped with
an extremely fast RAM memory to enable fast update and changes by each individual element. This is by far the most
efficient clash detection process but requires the most advanced equipment and organization between and across each
team individuals.
How easy was it to identify hard clashes, soft clashes and the clashes that occurred due
to modeling errors (different levels of details, modeling assumptions made, etc.)?
Based on the requirements in the Term Project Description file, the tolerance for clash detection in Naviswork is set 0.05 m.
Our team has done the clash detection process individually. First, we linked and binded the architectural and structural part
1 model, which there are only few hard clashs identified. We decided to move the architectural walls to prevent affecting
the structural safety consideration of the original design. We also noticed that when linking the revit models, if we choose
“Auto - origin to origin“ for the positioning setting, we won’t need to manually move the linked model to match two models’
position, the models will appear in the position where it is orginally drawn.
Most of the clashes happened when combining the mechanical model. There are 48 clashes in total due to the mechanical
model. The table below is the clashes detected by Naviswork. We use three types of method to fix the clashes, moving
objects, changing object’s offset and drilling holes in architectural walls.
There are clashes between architectural model and mechanical model, and between structural model and mechanical
model. For the same reason mentioned above, we kept the structural model unchanged and modified both architectural
and mechanical model.
There are several features in Naviswork which enable us to detect and solve the clashes in a very efficient way. For example,
Naviswork can refresh the model imported from Revit and re-run the clash detection test, when we are adjusting the Revit
model. In other words, we can open both Revit and Naviswork model and adjust simultaneously. Naviswork also can set
rules which can ignore some of the clashes. This function enable user to focus on specific types of clashes, such as the
clashes between two files rather than the clashes occur in one of the file itself. We put the clash table created by Naviswork
in the next page and create categories and solutions details in the table.
In this report we only focus on the removing the
hard clashes. However, we noticed that Naviswork
has the ability to conduct several types of clash
detection, which the definitions are listed below:
“Hard Clash: A hard clash is where two physical

planes intersect with each other.” (Jason Dodds,
2013)
“Hard (Conservative): Additional clash option in
which the geomtry intersections are clashed in
more of a theoretical intersecting clash.” (Jason
Dodds, 2013)
“Clearance Clash: Gives the intersecting objects
a specified distance that they must remain apart
Portion of the drilling walls for the purpose of solving clashes from each other.” (Jason Dodds, 2013)
“Duplicate Clash: Helps you to find intersecting
objects of identical position and type“ (Jason
Dodds, 2013)
Clash Report
Tolerance Clashes New Active Reviewed Approved Resolved Type Status
Test 1
0.05m 48 48 0 0 0 0 Hard OK
Item 1 Item 2 Solution

Image Clash Name Status Distance Description Date Found Clash Point Item ID Layer Item Name Item Type Item ID Layer Item Name Item Type Solution Solution Description
2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Move the Location of

Clash1 New ‐0.23 Hard x:‐0.50, y:‐19.79, z:3.30 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 Masonry ‐ Brick Solid Move
20:38.02 560444 Connection 743994 the air diffuser.
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Reset Change the offset from

Clash2 New ‐0.21 Hard x:20.80, y:‐31.19, z:3.92 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing
20:38.02 572142 Mitered Elbows / Taps 744264 Offset 4.056 m to 3.4 m.
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐
Clash3 New ‐0.2 Hard x:18.04, y:‐26.09, z:2.80 Level 1 Round Duct Level 1 Basic Wall Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 579484 Short Radius 744029 Partition (92mm Stud)
walls
2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Supply duct
Clash4 New ‐0.2 Hard x:17.35, y:‐25.67, z:2.59 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 Basic Wall Move
20:38.02 559576 Connection 744177 Partition (92mm Stud) and diffusers
2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x Move the Supply duct

Clash5 New ‐0.2 Hard x:17.35, y:‐28.45, z:2.59 Level 1 Basic Wall Level 1 Air Terminals Move
20:38.02 744177 Partition (92mm Stud) 559588 300 Connection and diffusers
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps /
Clash6 New ‐0.19 Hard x:18.02, y:‐19.52, z:2.80 Level 1 Basic Wall Level 1 Round Duct Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 744018 Partition (92mm Stud) 579484 Short Radius
walls
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐
Clash7 New ‐0.18 Hard x:17.81, y:‐15.88, z:2.75 Level 1 400 mm Mechanical Equipment Level 1 Basic Wall Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 579423 744181 Partition (92mm Stud)
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x Move the Location of
Clash14 New ‐0.16 Hard x:14.43, y:‐28.18, z:3.87 Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Level 1 Air Terminals Move
20:38.02 744263 559587 300 Connection the air diffuser.
2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

Clash15 New ‐0.16 Hard x:17.20, y:‐28.18, z:4.06 Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Level 1 Rectangular Duct
20:38.02 744263 573163 Mitered Elbows / Taps Offset 4.056 m to 3.4 m
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Clash21 New ‐0.12 Hard x:5.96, y:‐12.09, z:2.00 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Move

Clash22 New ‐0.12 Hard x:12.18, y:‐25.09, z:3.88 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Move
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Reset Change the offset from

Clash23 New ‐0.12 Hard x:17.30, y:‐28.25, z:3.66 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing
20:38.02 573211 Mitered Elbows / Taps 744263 Offset 4.056 m to 3.4 m
Draw wholes to make
walls
Clash25 New ‐0.12 Hard x:20.80, y:‐18.00, z:2.50 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Move
2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

Clash26 New ‐0.12 Hard x:12.18, y:‐25.40, z:3.97 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Move
20:38.02 579816 Transition ‐ 45 Degree 744268 the air diffuser.

Clash27 New ‐0.11 Hard x:14.55, y:‐28.17, z:4.05 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Move
2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

Clash28 New ‐0.11 Hard x:18.54, y:‐28.18, z:4.07 Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Level 1 Rectangular Duct
20:38.02 744263 572910 Mitered Elbows / Taps Offset 4.056 m to 3.4 m

Clash29 New ‐0.11 Hard x:‐0.15, y:‐29.96, z:3.28 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 Plasterboard Solid Move
2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the mechanical

Clash30 New ‐0.1 Hard x:18.88, y:‐16.00, z:2.90 Level 1 Basic Wall Level 1 Round Duct Move
20:38.02 744181 Partition (92mm Stud) 581364 Short Radius duct

Clash31 New ‐0.09 Hard x:7.62, y:‐16.37, z:2.83 Level 1 Round Duct Level 1 Basic Wall
2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Location of

Clash32 New ‐0.09 Hard x:6.09, y:‐12.25, z:2.00 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 Basic Wall Move
20:38.02 560832 Connection 744189 Partition (92mm Stud) the air diffuser.
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the Supply duct

Clash33 New ‐0.09 Hard x:17.30, y:‐28.29, z:2.87 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 Round Duct Move
20:38.02 573211 Mitered Elbows / Taps 579513 Short Radius and diffusers
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the Supply duct

Clash34 New ‐0.09 Hard x:17.30, y:‐25.51, z:2.87 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 Round Duct Move
20:38.02 573198 Mitered Elbows / Taps 579531 Short Radius and diffusers

Clash35 New ‐0.09 Hard x:‐0.15, y:‐29.59, z:3.23 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 Plasterboard Solid Move

Clash36 New ‐0.09 Hard x:12.18, y:‐25.64, z:3.83 Level 1 Air Terminals Level 1 W460X60 Structural Framing Move

Clash37 New ‐0.08 Hard x:5.94, y:‐12.10, z:2.10 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Move

Clash38 New ‐0.08 Hard x:‐0.50, y:‐19.60, z:3.50 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 Masonry ‐ Brick Solid Move
2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

Clash39 New ‐0.08 Hard x:8.20, y:‐14.36, z:2.83 Level 1 Basic Wall Level 1 Rectangular Duct
20:38.02 744001 Partition (92mm Stud) 578941 Mitered Elbows / Taps Offset 4.056 m to 3.4 m.
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the mechanical
Clash40 New ‐0.08 Hard x:19.04, y:‐15.24, z:2.86 Level 1 Round Duct Level 1 Basic Wall Move
20:38.02 581364 Short Radius 744003 Partition (92mm Stud) duct
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular Elbow ‐ Element ID :
Clash41 New ‐0.07 Hard x:20.73, y:‐18.03, z:3.59 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 609726 Mitered 744218
walls
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular Transition ‐ Element ID :
Clash42 New ‐0.07 Hard x:20.74, y:‐18.03, z:3.37 Level 1 Duct Fittings Level 1 W250X67 Structural Columns Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 609727 45 Degree 744218
walls
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Flex Ducts: Flex Duct Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐
Clash43 New ‐0.07 Hard x:16.76, y:‐31.56, z:2.94 Level 1 Flex Duct Round Level 1 Basic Wall Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 582827 Round: Flex Duct ‐ Round 744022 Partition (92mm Stud)
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
walls
Draw wholes to make
2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐
Clash46 New ‐0.06 Hard x:19.04, y:‐15.24, z:3.00 Level 1 Round Elbow ‐ 1 D Duct Fittings Level 1 Basic Wall Hole the duct go through the
20:38.02 581381 744003 Partition (92mm Stud)
walls
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Supply duct
Clash47 New ‐0.05 Hard x:17.30, y:‐28.43, z:3.00 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 Basic Wall Move
20:38.02 573211 Mitered Elbows / Taps 744177 Partition (92mm Stud) and diffusers
2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Supply duct

Clash48 New ‐0.05 Hard x:17.35, y:‐25.36, z:2.60 Level 1 Rectangular Duct Level 1 Basic Wall Move
20:38.02 573198 Mitered Elbows / Taps 744177 Partition (92mm Stud) and diffusers
Before Model Modification
After Model Modification

The figure below shows the method we used to solve the clashes. The red area means we changed the object offset, the
green (diffusers) and yellow (ducts) area means we moved the object to a reasonable position, and the blue area indicate
that we drilled a hole on the architectural wall to let the ducts go through.
When we solved all the Hard Clashes, we noticed that when we change the clash type to Duplicated Clash, there are also
no clash detected. However, if we changed the clash type to Hard (Conservative), the amount of clashes will be the same,
but the status will all change from “Resolved” back to “New”. The Hard (Conservative) is not widely used for general clash
detection process, so this report will not conduct further study in this category. The Clearance Clash is usually used for
identifing the soft clash or the insulation of ducts and walls. We ran the Clearance Clash with tolerance 0.05 m throughout
the whole model, and we found 682 new clashes. We need more detailed information about the settings for tolerance in
soft clash detection, but we still learned that the straightforward user interface will make the soft detection process easy
and efficient.
What construction environments would benefit most from this tool? Complex? Simple?
Why?
Naviswork can benefit both in complex and simple construction. Clash detection is applicable to any scale project due to
its flexibility in detecting any clashes between varying components. In a smaller scale or simple project, clashes can be
identified easily and perhaps without the need of clash detection tool, but the risk of mistakes may be high. Due to the
flexibility of tolerance level in Naviswork, project in any scale can be calibrated to cater to the scale of projects. For instance,
smaller scale residential projects may utilized less tolerance level for detailed constructions, whereby large scale projects
would do otherwise for increase in efficiency and cost reduction. The tools are flexible enough to cater to any scale.
On the other hand, complex project has to be well-organized to allow for managable amount of clashes per test run. Clashes
between various components within a complex building can be detrimental if not organized properly, which may result in
further complications instead of repairment. There are also varying factors associated with complex models that requires
the designers decisions as the software lack automation (elaborated later). Nevertheless, Naviswork allows great efficiency
in identifying physical clashes between different components that may not be obvious to a human eye (especially with
mechanical system components).
Simple project can benefit from Naviswork fast results and quick indication of clashes. However, extremely simple
cosntructions such as a car park with a post and lintel construction may not benefit from clash detection due to its lack of
components.
LARGE SCALE SMALL SCALE FOOLPROOF SCALE

THE OWNER/DEVELOPER
“Clash detection is great to solve various errors. Construction
becomes much more efficient and the proposed deadline and
project completion was met. On the other hand, I was not
very pleased with the finished product. The holes through
the walls for the ducts was slightly too big and obstrusive.
A finer project would allow for less tolerance and greater
precision in handiing the sizes. But que sera sera, no money
was wasted and everything was on time, that matters most to
a businessman like me.”
THE ARCHITECT
“Undoubtedly clash detection was a great tool that is both
interoperable between the project members. The design
was least compromised although some spaces and programs
has to be made smaller I was most happy with the facade
treatment. Unfortunately, with the BIM process, I was still
restricted to the angular forms that is far from my taste, but I
hope for the best. The reviews went extremely smooth, within
a few iterations, my official stamps was on all the drawings.
Since I introduces this process, I have had great reviews from
the clients and less complaints on the buildings.”
THE STRUCTURAL CONTRACTOR

“At first I was a bit hessitant to use the clash detection process
as I am apprehensive about the accuracy of such software.
Clash detection I believe is most beneficial to the structural
contractor. Since structure is the basis and the foundation
of the building, clash detection between any other elements
can be illustrated clearly to the other project members. The
structural integrity remains in tact and was not changed in the
least. All that needed to be done was to identify the holes that
needed to be made for each ducts. The clashed elements was
very easily located since all of its location was identified.”
THE MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR

“The mechanical elements of a building is usual the most
complicated piece of a project. Although flexible, each ducts
has to be design according to all the other elements. On the
other hand with the clash detection, we were able to utilize it
so that the design can actually take place concurrently with
all the other elements. It turns out, although there are many
errors that were identified with this method, the errors can be
easily fixed. With the clash detection, all the components can
be designed in a much more organized manner and therefore
allowing the opportunity of an exposed ceiling system.”
How was your experience with the clash detection system? What are the features of the
system that you have liked? What are some limitations? Please create a wishlist of fea-
tures for an “ideal” clash detection environment.
QUICK RESULTS
Autodesk Naviswork is a fast tool to determine the clashes within all
the building. A complex building with more elements may have taken
a longer period, on the other hand, repeated elements in high-rise
buildings can be replicated in terms of clash detection. Fast results also
means that clashes can be run repeatedly. Multiple tests categories can
be run in a single file and re-run.
SELECTION A - SELECTION B
The clashes can be selected by each components based on two different
files (as long as the components allign with each other). Due to this
fact, each element can be assessed easily by the various components.
The clash detective selection tool allows better efficiency especially in
complex large-scale projects. Spaces within a building can be divided
into smaller categories and analyzed seperately, allowing a greater
depth of analysis and precision for each space and careful observation
between clashes.
TOLERANCE LEVEL
Tolerance level can be adjusted by the different components that are
tested based on the selections. Adjusting tolerance can help increase
construction precision especially when prefabricated components are
used. Tolerance level can also help avoid narrow and tight construction
STRENGTHS
that requires a lot of space. In a real project, construction tools (e.g.
crane, tractors, etc.) and “invisible space” may be included within each
space to ensure sufficient construction space for larger components.
TABULATED RESULTS
Clash detection can be tabulated easily. Tabulation imports clash
location based on the drawn grid on the model. Additionally, each
clash image is included with the decription of the clashed component
and nature of the clash. The tabulated data eases the project report and
increase efficiency in progress of any project. The tabulation can also
become a checklist and shows the date whereby the clashes happened
within the design progress. Clashes can be resolved and also recorded
which allow designers to trace back design progression and identify
resolutions that were unsuccessful.
EASY UPDATE
Unlike Solibri, which is not in sync with Autodesk Revit, Naviswork on
the other hand can refresh corrected model (perhaps due to the fact
that they are both Autodesk software). The model can be updated
as frequently with every correction and therefore everything can be
done digitally instead of having to print and review collectively on a
traditional drafting board. The refresh tool becomes an interoperable
tool that helps link the modelling and clash detection, hence increasing
workflow efficiency.
HIERARCHICAL NATURE
LIMITATIONS
The most noticable limitation happens due to the unseen hierarchical
nature of the components. Since the Naviswork does not indicate any
hierarchical components, each individuals responsible for the building
element would automatically prioritize their elements instead of the
others. The designer would be tempted to move some of the structural
elements that may be in the way of the space, but may not be aware
that the structural component is in fact structurally vital. Discussions
can become heated when no components are assigned a priority.
SELECTION C - SELECTION D?
Clashes may overlap between different elements and it can become
confusing when the clashed of one element is recorded three times.
Although repeated clashed elements can be opted out, the clash
detection tool does not inform designers on the recommended
solution (e.g. the clashed components can be resolved by affecting
one instead of two components). Adding multiple selections or adding
sub-selections may fix the problem and can be used as a determinant
for the fixing other components when it comes to clash detection.
HOWEVER SMALL THE REPAIR IS...

Model has to be repaired in Revit however small the repair is.
Although components can be moved in XYZ direction, repair is limited
and components cannot be deleted. This reduces the efficiency of
modeling, but simultaneously is done to increase precision of building
? modeling. Perhaps if there is a greater integration between modeling

and clash detection, construction process can be catalyzed without the
full dependency to a modeling tool.
PHYSICAL CLASH
The clash detection software only provides physical clashes between
components. Gradient differences in HVAC duct is not considered in
clash detection or components that may be detrimental to the change
due to initial clashes. Without such detection, the components still
have to be carefully planned to ensure its functionality. Autodesk
Naviswork can become an extremely dangerous tool when overused
by designers. The automation of the tool can be improved significantly
to allow much more efficient analysis.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
• Increase the level of intelligence of Naviswork to detect not just physical clash but
perhaps parametric or HVAC clashes.
• Introduce a hierarchical tool to indicate components that are vital to structure,
mechanical systems, or even a key design element.
• Increase efficiency in navigation and repair for Naviswork and reduce its dependency
on Autodesk Revit.
Contempoporary Topic:
BIM and Building Energy Modeling
INTRODUCTION: BIM in Architecture-Engineering-Construction Insustry
According to a report made by NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), the lack of interoperability
and unsatisfying data management costs construction industry $15,800,000,000 annually, which is 3-4% of the cost
for the total industry. [13] BIM (Building Information Modeling) is regarded as the key to solve this problem. However,
currently, BIM has not been very prevailing in the Architecture-Engineering-Construction Industry.
In a survey in which participants are from A-E-C industry, result shows that 55% people believes that BIM is a tool for
visualizing and coordinating AEC work to avoid errors omissions and 25% people believes that BIM is an open stan-
dards based information repository for the facility lifecycle. [14]
Another part of the survey focuses on how people think BIM improves KPI (Key Performance Indicators). Among
participant of this survey, 87.7% say BIM improves quality, 83.7% say BIM improves cost, 82.8% say BIM improves
schedule, 74.9% say BIM improves productivity, and only 53.7% say BIM improves safety. [14]
It can be concluded from the survey result that the importance of BIM is obviously realized by A-E-C industry. Most
people understand BIM in certain important aspects and there’s not a single, widely accepted definition of BIM.
DEFINITION: BIM, BPM and BEM
There’s not a single, widely accepted definition of Building Information Modeling (BIM). Various definitions focuses on
different aspects of it: what kinds of information are stored, whom does it serve, when is it used, and what’s the func-
tion of it.
National Building Information Model Standard Project Committee: Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a digital
representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for informa-
tion about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest concep-
tion to demolition.
ArchiCAD: A single repository including both graphical documents -drawings - and non-graphical documents -specifi-
cation, schedules, and other data.
Bentley: A modeling of both graphical and non-graphical aspect of the entire building life cycle in a federated database
management system.
AutoDesk: A building design and documentation methodology characterized by the creation and use of coordinated,
internally consistent, computable information about a building project in design and construction. [22]
A common misunderstanding by some companies in A-E-C industry i that BIM refers to BIM softwares. In fact, BIM in
neither a collection of software nor a single step in construction management, but a process that goes through the
whole lifecycle of buildings.
Building Performance Modeling (BPM) analysis is the creation of a digital definition, description, and simulation pro-
cess of a building behavior. In essence, it illustrates performance and operational components of a facility. [3] The two
terms, BPM and BEM, are often regarded as interchangeable. Building Energy Modeling (BEM) focuses on the simula-
tion of building energy. As a human body consists of circulatory system, the respiratory system, the nervous system,
etc, which correlate to each other and function together as a whole, a building consists of lighting system, HVAC sys-
tem, equipments, etc, which are like parts of a human body. [6] Building Energy Modeling is a way to put the systems of
the building together to foresee how the design will perform in energy aspect.
Important aspects of building energy modeling include air distribution, HVAC, lighting, daylighting performance, glaz-
ing and envelope. Building Energy Modeling inputs include location-- setpoint, orientation, etc; loads and occupan-
cy-- people, lighting, computer, occupancy hours, etc; construction information-- wall to window area, glazing, opaque
area, etc; mechanical system-- heating, cooling, dual duct variable air colume, water cooled chillers, heat recovery or
economizers, fan and pump inputs, and renewable energy, etc; domestic hot water-- storage size, etc; and speciality
equipment.
BEM/BPM works in the cycle of modeling, automating, monitoring, analyzing and improving.
Building Energy Modeling are conducted with modeling softwares. Some of the commonly used ones are illustrated in
the following parts of this study. However, the modeling results are close to actual energy consumption in some cases
and not as accurate in other cases.
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Autodesk Ecotect BENEFITS INPUT VARIABLES RESULTS AND OUTPUT

Allows the user to “play” Intuitive 3D CAD interface Metafiles, Bitmaps
with design ideas at allows validation of the animations, Tables of data
the conceptual stages, simplest sketch design to RADIANCE, POV Ray
providing essential analysis highly complex 3D models. VRML, AutoCAD DXF
feedback from even the Can also import 3DS and EnergyPlus, AIOLOSHTB2,
simplest sketch model. DXF files. CheNATH, ESP-r, ASCII Mod files,
ECOTECT progressively and XML.
guides the user as more
detailed design information
becomes available.
Autodesk Green Building Studio

- Enables hourly analyses gbXML-enabled BIM - Estimated energy;
much earlier in the design gbXML-enabled 3D-CAD - Cost summary
process - Renewable energy potential
- Reduces design and - Weather data summary and
analysis costs - User defined graphics
- Compression of early - gbXML file for import to Trane
design time, speeding TRACE 700 or
project time to completion - other gbXML-compliant tools
- Accelerates analysis for - VRML file
LEED compliance
eQUEST - DOE2
The unique strength of Inputs can be provided - Graphical summary reports

eQUEST is that it is an at three levels: schematic - Single-run results summary
energy performance design wizard, design - Comparative results summary
design tool that development wizard, and - Parametric tabular reports
evaluates whole-building detailed (DOE-2) interface.
performance throughout In the wizards, ALL inputs
the entire design process. have defaults (based on the
it supports detailed California Title 24 building
analysis throughout the energy code).
construction documents,
EnergyPlus
Accurate, detailed EnergyPlus uses a simple EnergyPlus has a number of
simulation capabilities ASCII input file. ASCII output files - readily
through complex modeling adapted into spreadsheet form
capabilities. Input is geared for further analysis.
to the ‘object’ model way
of thinking. Successful
interfacing using IFC
standard architectural
model available for
obtaining geometry from
Integrated Environmental Solutions

Comprehensive analysis Geometrical building data Tabular, graphical, video,
options offered across a may be imported from a photorealistic images,
wide range of metrics range of CAD/BIM systems colour contoured 3D
(e.g. Revit/SketchUp/ geometric visualisation
Simulation results are Trelligence/Vectorworks/ of analysis results, fully
linked between modules Graphisoft) or gbXML, IFC, populated reportage to
DXF files. match LEED / BREEAM /
Unrivalled interoperability daylighting / solar shading
with other CAD/BIM all included within the
platforms package.
SOFTWARE USER RECOMMENDATION
Figure.1
The Autodesk Green Building
Studio web-based service
enables whole building energy,
water, and carbon emission
analyses of a Revit –based
building design. It’s very simple
for entry-level user to learn by a
up-down website interface.
For general user, Green Building Studio and Ecotech are recommended:
A computable Revit design model is the simplest way for the gerneral users analyse for sustainable design—even
during schematic design. As soon as the layout of a building’s walls, windows, roofs, floors and interior partitions
are established, the information Revit model can be used to perform whole building analyses directly. In addition,
most analysis software is complex and requires special training—making it unsuitable for occasional users like entry-
architects or designers. And the output of most analysis programs is complicated, making it hard for entry-users to
understand. Using the Autodesk Green Building Studio web-based and Ecotech to analyze building designs within
the BIM workflow greatly simplifies this process.
For professional experts, Integrated Environmental Solutions are recommended:
The IES Virtual Environment (IESVE) is a very powerful, in-depth building performance analysis tools. Whether work-
ing on a new build or renovation project, the VE allows designers to test different and more professional options
VE-Pro offers a flexible choice of modules across: Energy, Carbon, Thermal, Solar, Daylight, Light, CFD, Bulk airflow,
HVAC, Climate, Egress, Ingress, Value, Cost, and Low Carbon/Renewable strategies
VE-Navigators are region specific tools which address Global Rating System and Regulation requirements.
VE-Gaia is IES’ architectural analysis tool. Its step-by-step workflow system demystifies simulation and allows users
to progress from earlier ballpark comparisons into detailed early-stage calculations
It is also a powerful central data has direct links to SketchUp, Revit, Trelligence, and gbXML, IFC files.
UTILIZING BEM IN CURRENT PROJECTS
In 2010, Shady Attia conducted two surveys focusing on the building performance modeling software. The participants
included AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE), USGBC, 2030 Challenge, 2007 Solar Decathlon entry teams, and also
schools and departments of architectural engineering, environmental design and architecture firm which received Top Ten
Green Architecture Awards from 2005 to 2008. The survey has a balanced amount of architects and engineers, the amount
is controled in order to compare the condition of adoption between architects and engineers industry. The survey also
asked about the participants’ affiliation. There are 15% of AIA certified architects, 25% of ASHRAE certified engineers, 36%
of LEED AP, and the “Other” includes construction management professionals and students.
PARTICIPANT ROLE PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATION
The survey also asked about which kind of BPM tools and geometric modeling tools the participants used. The purpose of
the question is to identify how the building industry link the geometric models and the thermal models. The results are the
architects mostly used AutoCAD and Sketchup with Ecotect, and engineers tend to use Revit with EnergyPlus. The result
shows an obvious inconsistency of tool use between designers (architects) and engineers or consultants.
BPM TOOLS USED BY PARTICIPANTS ARCHITECT

ENGINEER
GEOMETRIC MODELING TOOLS ARCHITECT

USED BY PARTICIPANTS ENGINEER
To analysis the different tools used in different phase of the projects, the survey designed a follow up questions for BPM
tools used. The results shows that ECOTECT, eQUEST and Energy 10 are more widely used in the early design phase (pre-
conceptual and schematic design), and DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus are mostly used in detailed design and design
optimization since they are able to conduct more detailed analysis.
Pre- Schematic Design Design

conceptual Design Development Optimization
HEED 38 7
Energy 10 56 6
GBS 34 18
Ecotect 86 107 13
eQUEST 56 110 67 9
DB 77 84 87
EP SU 4 23 27
EP 43 45
DOE-2 15 19
Priority and Ability of BPM tools

There are also questions about which features are the most important in the BPM tools, and the results shows a contradictory
priority for architects and engineers. For the architects, the ability to develop complex design strategies are the first priority,
and the following abilities are renewable energy system simulation, and ability to evaluate emissions related to building
energy use. The engineers, on the other hand, concern most about the ability to support HVAC system, life-cycle analysis
and then the complex design strategies.
BPM TOOLS PRIORITY ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
The below chart is the actual abilities comparing the ten BPM tools. The abilities of software has matched the current
adopt condition of architects and engineers. For instance, the software that engineers widely used such as EnergyPlus and
DesignBuilder support HVAC system, and the architects’ favorite ECOTECT has the ability to analysis the emissions due to
energy use.
Energy 10
Sketchup
ECOTECT
Energy+
eQUEST
DOE-2
IES VE
HEED
GBS
DB
Complex Design Strategies X X X X

Renewable Energy System Simulation X X X X X
Evaluation of emissions evaluation X X X X X X
Support HVAC system evaluation X X X X X X X
Life-cycle analysis X X X X X X X X
Support various building types X X X X X X X X X X
Overall ability (%) 85% 85% 85% 83% 78% 63% 61% 35% 35% 33%
LIMITATIONS ON THE SOFTWARE
Although the development of BIM has improved significantly since its conception, there are still discussions of discrepancies
between predicted and actual data. The few major causes of discrepancies are due to the unpredictable variables, different
assumptions, and impending errors in multiple data inputs and sensitivity. Many different studies have been done to
determine the solutions to increase accuracy and predictability, such as using evidence-based assumptions and using ‘top-
down’ or ‘bottom-up’ approaches, therefore Increasing accuracy of BIM simulation has been know to reduce project cost
and time (Nassar 2010).
The three-way interactions between people, climate, and building dictates the energy needed in building. BIM tools lack
considerations in terms of occupant’s behavior. According to a presentation by Dr. Rajat Gupta of UNEP, certain variables
such as the fit out, equipment added, and pattern of use by occupants are most unpredictable in BIM. Furthermore, building
quality and commissioning is also not taken into consideration of the energy performance analysis.
Building assumptions in BIM plays a big role in the discrepancy between predicted and actual data. In new building
constructions, most building energy performance standard (BEPS) tools typically evaluate its baseline in terms of ASHRAE
90.1. The assumptions though may suffice in terms of achieving the standard building code, yet limitations of the tools may
cause certain anomalies.
The graph illustrates the predicted vs measured EUI

(kBTU/sf) in BIM. Although there is an obvious pattern
in the relationship between the two, the data points
remain sparse and unpredictable (Turner et al 2008).
BEM CASE STUDY: A Successful BEM Case—BEM of DPR Construction Inc. Head-
quarters Building [15]
The building energy modeling of DPR Construction Inc. headquarter building was conducted in 2 phases.
Not as common cases in which energy modeling only happen in design phase, DPR Construction Inc. headquarter
building have done energy modeling both in design phase and and in operation phase.
The phase 1 modeling, which happened in design phase, was conducted in order to help the building obtain LEED
certification and comply with California’s Energy Efficiency Standard for Residential and Non-residential Buildings,
also known as Title 24. It happened in design phase, year 2002.[15]
Phase 1 modeling was made using a non-BIM software, EnergyPro, which was chosen because of its compliance with
Title 24.
EnergyPro, provides duplicates of the forms provided by the California Energy Commission. EnergyPro also in-
cludes external links to the Common Energy Standard (CES) file technology to allow the user to plug in new energy
standards, such as Standard 90, as they become available. Using the Standards software, government agencies can
deliver fully functional CES files that contain specific implementations of energy standards for code compliance
purposes. [19]
Phase 1 modeling result shows that DPR Construction Inc. headquarter building improves energy performance by
20% as compared to California’s Energy Efficiency Standard for Residential and Non-residential Buildings , which
equals to $25,000 annual energy cost savings [15]
In order to satisfy the clients’ desire to know how LEED certified building improves performance, phase 2 modeling
was conducted in year 2008, in the operating phase of the facility. To do this analysis, DPR Construction Inc. devel-
oped a building information model using software IES Virtual Environment. Input data include contextual data—
weather, location, time-period, ground reflection rating, terrain type and wind exposure rating; HVAC data--- fuel
type, generator seasonal efficiency, heating delivery efficiency, cooling mechanism type, and auxiliary equipment
information; building envelope performance--- materiality and thermal properties; and space usage data--- number
of building occupants, lighting types, equipment types and occupancy schedules. Output data include annual cool-
ing load, annual heating load, CO2 emissions, natural gas usage and electricity usage. [15]
IES Virtual Environment (VE), which is mentiond in the Software Comparison and Conclusion part of this study,
allows various types of input files including Revit, SketchUp, Trelligence, Vectorworks, Graphisoft, gbXML, IFC, DXF
files. Input of data relating to materials, occupancy, internal gains, climate, weather files, air movement and systems
is managed entirely through graphical interfaces and supported by extensive database. Uses can get a 3D meomet-
ric visualization output package. [20]
Phase 2 analysis shows that the facility energy usage is 27% percent less than Building Owners and Managers Asso-
ciation (BOMA), which equals to $2,800 annual energy savings, close to previous estimation of $25,000. [15]
This building energy modeling case is regarded as successful because of the accuracy of phase 1 prediction. A simu-
lation model is often considered accurate if it falls within a specific error margin (e.g., 5%). [16]
Reasons for the success of the energy modeling in this case may include:
• Accurate input measured information
• Comprehensive and complete data input
• Exact prediction of scheduling
BEM CASE STUDY: A Failed BEM Case— A Semi-Detached house
An energy modeling of a refurbished two-bedroom, 76.9 sqm, semi-detached dwelling in Oxford, England is consid-
ered a failed energy modeling case because of the extremely large difference between predicted energy consump-
tion and actual energy consumption.
The dwelling was built in nineteen century and refurbished in twentieth century, occupied by a couple. One occu-
pant stayed in the house most of the weekdays and weekends due to health reasons. The other occupant works part-
time during weekdays.
Pre-occupancy energy prediction in this case was conducted in compliance to SAP 2005. SAP (Standard Assessment
Procedure) is UK Government’s standard assessment procedure for energy rating of dwellings. The SAP rating/cal-
culation is based on the energy costs associated with space heating, water heating, ventilation and lighting, less
cost savings from energy generation technologies. It is adjusted for floor area so that it is essentially independent
of dwelling size for a given built form. [21] SAP software is used in SAP ratings/calculations. It is required that data
should be inputted in the form of worksheet into SAP software.
The SAP calculation is based on the energy balance taking into account a range of factors that contribute to energy
efficiency:
• Materials used for construction of the dwelling
• Thermal insulation of the building fabric
• Ventilation characteristics of the dwelling and ventilation equipment
• Efficiency and control of the heating system(s)
• Solar gains through openings of the dwelling
• The fuel used to provide space and water heating, ventilation and lighting
• Renewable energy technologies
The SAP calculation is independent of factors related to the individual characteristics of the household
occupying the dwelling when the rating is calculated, for example:
• Household size and composition;
• Ownership and efficiency of particular domestic electrical appliances;
• Individual heating patterns and temperatures.[22]
It is obvious that SAP energy calculation is different from the common energy modeling in US since the energy mod-
eling in US do consider factors that SAP calculation are independent of. And SAP in used especially on dwellings.
Pre-occupancy modeling results in predicted annual gas consumption of 26,800 kWh, annual electricity consump-
tion of 803 kWh and total annual energy consumption of 333 kWh/m2.
The actual fuel bills of 29 Jan. 2008 – 28 Jan. 2009 showed that actual annual gas consumption in the year was 965
kWh, actual annual electricity consumption was 2,481 kWh and actual total annual energy consumption was 155
kWh/m2. [16]
Predicted vs. Actual

30000
24800
25000
20000
15000
9465
10000
5000 2481
803 333 155
0
Gas(kWh/year) Electricity(kWh/year) Total Energy(kWh/sqm/year)
SAP 2005 (predicted) Fuel bills (actual) ( 29 January 2008 - 28 January 2009)
COST ANALYSIS: BUILDING INFORMATION ANALYSIS (BIM)
According to the U.S. Department of Energy 2009 statistics, architecture accounts for 48% of energy consumption. The
extensive amount of energy use in both residential and commercial sectors is an issue that needs to be addressed. Within
the sector itself, according to Construction Industry Institute 2004 data, 57% of money spent on construction is non value-
added. In 2008, U.S. Construction Market estimated US$ 1.288 trillion worth of energy is being spent solely on construction,
which accounts for a total of US$600 billion per year worth of waste (Eastman et al. 2009). With the recent economic crash in
2009, energy cost has inflated beyond the point of no return, and therefore adaptation of new design process needs to be
implemented in order to sustain the architectural industry.
OVERALL DISTRIBUTION CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING
Through the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), design process can be made more efficient. The products are
equally effective in terms of reducing energy and material consumptions. Today, BIM can be calibrated to accurately
predict the actual energy usage of specific buildings (Pan et al. 2007). Furthermore, the article added that these calibrated
models could be utilized to “simulate and calculate energy savings of possible energy conservation measures (ECM)”. The
advancement of BIM has indeed changed the perception of the traditional design process. Implementation of BIM modelling
in the early design stage supports the goals of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and potentially could reduce cost and
increase functional capabilities. According to AIA, “The principles of trust, transparent processes, effective collaboration,
open information sharing, shared risk and reward, value-based decision making, and utilization of full technological
capabilities and support [creates] the opportunity to design, build, and operate as efficiently as possible” (AIA 2007).
Further evidence shows that inefficiencies in the building industry are contributed by ineffective management practices,
the recollection/reentry of data, and the stalling of resources (human and material) throughout the project phases. BIM
modelling can mitigate these problems, which accounts for an average increase in construction cost of $6.35 per square
foot (Eastman et al. 2008), and reduce the total time of construction up to 50% (Becerik-Gerber et al. 2009).
INEFFICIENCIES IN BUILDING INDUSTRY

INEFFECTIVE RECOLLECTION/REENTRY STALLING
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF DATA OF RESOURCES
50%
TIME R
ED
FOR $6 UCTION
.35 PER
SF
Despite concerns of the training cost and initial loss in employees productivity due to the transition from traditional CAD
program to BIM, short-term productivity payback will help offset loss. According to Autodesk Revit® Building Information
Modeling, initial productivity loss of 25-50% is expected, but surveys also show that the same level of productivity can be
attained within the period of 3-4 months. Based on this statistic, the estimate of overall increase in productivity ranges from
10-100%. Upon further analysis, more than half of the respondents experience greater than a 50% increase in productivity
(Autodesk 2011). Additionally, a recent study on BIM’s return of investment (ROI) calculated that among three case studies
the range of productivity varies from 16% to 1654% (Giel et al. 2013). The vast range of results suggests that savings may
be realized regardless of the size of a construction project.
COST ANALYSIS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)

According to several sources, Building Energy Modeling (BEM) can potentially has a payback period of approximately 0.5 to
4 years depending on the baseline standards, energy savings goal, software application, and scale of project (BuildingGreen
2013). The current ROI is predicted to be approximately 65%. Nevertheless, payback period are predicted to continue to
reduce as BEM software continue to advance in terms of its efficiency, precision, and interoperability (Altan et al 2013).
With such promising statistics, it is imperative that BEM will become a prominent role in the building design process. BEM
will continue to flourish and affect the current rate of energy consumption. For instance, a 2014 report from the Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) has proven to create a 387% return of investment (ROI) from 2010-2013 -- a mere three
years period. The report calculated that the retrofit effort spurred $3.87 million in economic input and 17.28 new jobs for
every $1 million invested (CleanTechnica 2014).
ECONOMIC BENEFITS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)
According to several sources, Building Energy Modeling (BEM) can potentially has a payback period of approximately 0.5 to
4 years depending on the baseline standards, energy savings goal, software application, and scale of project (BuildingGreen
2013). The current ROI is predicted to be approximately 65%. Nevertheless, payback period are predicted to continue to
reduce as BEM software continue to advance in terms of its efficiency, precision, and interoperability (Altan et al 2013).
With such promising statistics, it is imperative that BEM will become a prominent role in the building design process. BEM
will continue to flourish and affect the current rate of energy consumption. For instance, a 2014 report from the Southeast
Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) has proven to create a 387% return of investment (ROI) from 2010-2013 -- a mere three
years period. The report calculated that the retrofit effort spurred $3.87 million in economic input and 17.28 new jobs for
every $1 million invested (CleanTechnica 2014).
ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS: BUILDING ENERGY MODELING (BEM)

Human behavior has a huge impact on the operation phase of the building life cycle. It includes operation and maintenance
(O&M), occupant behavior, and indoor environment condition. A study indicates that poor operation and maintenance
could increase the energy consumption predicted in the design phase up to 50 percent, and occupant behavior without
environmental awareness could also increase the consumption up to 80 percent. To accurately simulate the building
performance in the operation phase, human behavior would be a significant factor. Using a quantitative way to describe
and analysis enables human behavior to be simulated and become one of the parameters in building performance analysis.
According to a case study in Beijing, Occupant behavior in residential building can be categorized into three typical lifestyle
based on their environmental awareness and wealth distribution (Chen Peng, 2012).
The economic limitations lie in the precision and accuracy of the various software. Aside from the unpredictable occupant’s
behavior, an article on Green Building Advisor many software require incalculable inputs (e.g. window shading percentages,
wind exposure ratings, soil conditions etc.) Furthermore the article iterated that there are too many assumptions that may
affect the baseline result, hence boosting the percentage increase energy savings due to the proposed retrofit (Holladay
2012). According to a study of 300 houses by Earth Advantage Energy Performance Score Pilot, the percentage error
(simulated vs actual) for four different energy models are the following:
• Simple, 25.1%
• Home Energy Saver (full), 33.4%
• REM/Rate, 43.7%
• Home Energy Saver (mid), 96.6%
ECONOMIC TRUTH
With prior assessment of some limitation and bent results from various energy modeling, it is important that one questions
the truth on the economic benefits of implementing energy modelling. Due to the misconstrued data and ignorant
assumptions made by inexperienced consultants, many owner and clients become apprehensive to utilize BEM. As
mentioned repeatedly throughout the report, it is utmost important that BEM is done with a balance between assumptions
and actual measured data. In addition, tolerance or calculated marginal errors for results should be provided to indicate
that energy performance might vary according to variable inpredicted factors. Furthermore, occupants should be informed
of the various allowable plugloads and energy efficient appliances.
Not too far from the truth, although results of the economic benefits of BEM may not be entirely correct, but case studies have
proven whereby if the simulation is done properly there are incidences where actual energy load may even be lower than
the simulated load. In the long run, the economic truth of BEM is very much dependent on both the software development
for precise results and the conscience of many consultants to render a genuine output.
• Provide a benchmark to determine operation • Newer simulation engines has started to
and maintenance cost of building, hence introduce greater interoperable file format,
profitting client/owner in the long run. such as the development of IFC.
• Development of software has increased • Faster running engines and computer help
precision and accuracy of energy modeling render faster, while results can be tabulated
through various mandatory input. and represented clearly.
• Increase in incentives for certain standard • Educational program starts to introduce

compliancy or accreditation. an interdisciplinary approach to better
understand different aspects of building
• Increase in availability of energy modeler, design. The knowledge overlap is crucial to
professional auditor, and product increase communication efficiency.
manufacturer, which allow for faster and
inexpensive retrofit.
• Ensure occupant’s comfort and productivity.
• Greater environmental awareness.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
• Various baselines on different standards • Lack of interoperability between different
can be used to determine the differences softwares, especially with DOE-2 engines,
between the desired building benchmark. As such as missing feedback between modules.
a result, energy performance improvements Absence of common file format.
become unreliable.
• Older software does not have the capability
• Incomplete qualities or disadvantages of to adapt newer systems and adding more
programs are sometimes hidden or difficult functionality is cumbersome compared to
to evaluate. There may be lack of resources component-based engines.
to navigate through the software.
• Engines need to be frequently updated to
• May be unapplicable to large scale studies, adapt to the fast growing new technologies.
such as region or market wide, due to over
generalization and conflicting manufacturers • Lack of user-friendly graphical inteface,
and resources. which result in the dependency of other
modeling software.
• Driven by various incentives, mandatory
code compliances instead of environmentally • Ideal HVAC components (simple and compact
conscious educational choice. definition without detailed information
about components and topology).
CONCLUSION: FUTURE OF BEM in BIM
To Solve current market obstacles mentioned in the previous sections, the idea of Design-Built-Operation Energy
Information Modeling (DBO-EIM) is proposed as one of the solution. The idea of the DBO-EIM is to build an energy model
which can calculate throughout the whole building life cycle, and enables buildings to meet the high efficiency standards
proposed in the design phase. However, different from modeling in the design and construction phase, the operation phase
needs to take human behavior into consideration.
To realize the idea of DBO-EIM, the new building in Pittsburgh, the Phipps Conservatory Center for Sustainable Landscapes
(CSL) has become the test-bed of the idea. Using DesignBuilder and EnergyPlus programs, the energy simulation model of
the whole building life cycle was built and the building are expected to reach net-zero in energy consumption. During the
design stage, the design team build a baseline design with design alternatives (with different HVAC system, envelope design,
lighting control, etc.) to compare the energy efficiency and find the optimal solution. The annual energy consumption is
predicted to be 82.0 kWh/m2 and the annual energy generation is expected to be 101.3 kWh/m2, so the goal of net-zero
consumption can be made.
Source: Zhao, J. (2010). Design-Build-Operate Energy Information Modelling (DBO-EIM) for Green Buildings.
Five Selection Criteria (Major Challenges)
Shady Attia has identified 5 major challenges for the BPM tools future development, by summarizing literature findings.
The 5 criteria are shown below:
1. Usability and Information Management (UIM) of the interface

“The usability and information management of the interface refers to the human-computer interaction” (Shady
Attia, 2010). The challenge means that both tool users and presenters expects the tools have more simplified and
flexible control interface, and are able to generate a more straightforward results. This requires the software to
have better abilities to manage large information data and produce a concise graphs and results.
2. Integration of Intelligent design Knowledge-Base (IIKB)

The building performance simulation industry is still in the early stage of development. Hence, the BPM tools
should educate the users and designers in order to provide guidance and directions in the design process.
3. Accuracy and Ability to simulate Detailed and Complex building Components (AADCC)
This challenge is the most widely found in the literatures related to BPM tools. The challenge lies in not only have
the ability to simulate complex and detail building components but also achieve an accurate result of simulation.
4. Interoperability of Building Modeling

The development of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the applications of the IFC format have enable the
potential of integration project delivery in the building industry. However, the challenge is that only in the detailed
design phase of BIM can the project team deliver the information for conducting energy simulation. On the other
hand, if the project team adopt BIM in the early design phase, the complexity of the procedure will limit the potential
design options. (Eisenberg, Done et al. 2002; Donn, Selkowitz et al. 2009)
5. Integration of tools in Building Design Process (IBDP)

The final challenge lies in improving the way to utilize the BPM tools. The current BPM tools are contradicted to the
nature of the design process. (Morbitzer, Strachan et al. 2001; Yezioro 2008).
Source: Shady Attia (2010). Building Performance Simulation Tools: Selection Criteria and User Survey.
ReferenceS
1. Autodesk. Autodesk Building Information Modeling: Realizing the Benefits of BIM. 2011.
2. Autodesk. Revit Building Information Modeling: Transitioning to BIM. 2007.
3. Becerik-Gerber, B. and Rice, S. The Value of Building Information Modeling:  Can We Measure the ROI of BIM?.
University of Southern California AECbytes Issue 47. August 2009.
4. Eastman, Charles M., et al. BIM Handbook : A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2008.
5. Eastman, Charles M., et al. BIM Handbook : A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers,
Designers, Engineers, and Contractors. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2009.
6. Giel, B. and Issa, R. Return of Investment Analysis of Using Building Information Modeling in Construction. Journal
of Computing Civil Engineering Vol 27 Issue 5. September 2013.
7. Kendra Tupper, Ellen Franconi, Coreina Chan, Stephanie Hodgin, Aaron Buys and Merritt Jenkins. (2011). Building
Energy Modeling: Industry-Wide Issues And Potential Solutions. Hanover, NH.
8. Ibrahim, M. and Krawczyk, R. The Level of Knowledge of CAD Objects within the Building Information Model.
Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture. pg 173-
177. 2003.
9. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and AIA California Council. Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide Version
1. 2007.
10. Shady Attia (2010). Building Performance Simulation Tools: Selection Criteria and User Survey. Architecture et
climat, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium.
11. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Data Book. 2008.
12. Zhao, J., Lam, K.P., Karaguzel, O.T., Ahmadi, S. (2012). Design-Build-Operate Energy Information Modelling
(DBO-EIM) for Green Buildings: Case Study of a Net Zero Energy Building. Proceedings of the 1st Asia conference of
International Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA). Shanghai, China.
13. Gallaher, M., O’Connor, A., Dettbarn, J., and Gilday, L. (2004). “Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the
U.S. Capital Facilities Industry”
14. Patrick C. Suermann, Raja R.A. Issa. (2009). “Evaluating Industry Perceptions Of Building
15. Information Modeling (Bim) Impact On Construction”
16. Salman Azhar, Justin W. Brown, Anoop Sattineni. (2010).” A Case Study Of Building Performance Analyses Using
Building Information Modeling”
Maile. 2010. “Tobias A Method to Compare Measured and Simulated Data to Assess Building Energy Performance”
17. Gupta, R. and Chandiwala, S. (2010). “Understanding occupants: feedback techniques for large scale low-carbon
domestic refurbishments, Building Research & Information”
18. Kristopher Baker, Rob Bolin. Syska Hennessy Group. Energy Modeling Improves Building Performance
19. EnergySoft: http://www.energysoft.com/main/page_energypro_ep_information.html
20. U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Software Tools Directory http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
tools_directory/software.cfm/ID=615/pagename_submenu=hvac_systems/pagename_menu=materials_
components/pagename=subjects
21. The Government’s Standard Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. 2005 edition. Revision 3.
22. Carnegie Mellon University, BIM cours lecture

Building Information Modeling Clash Dete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Information Modeling Clash Dete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

48-764 BIM Final Report

Widjava, Aswin ( awidjava)

OPTION 2: PREFABRICATED PROCESS

OPTION 3: SMART LABOR PROCESS

Level of Detail of Steel Column:

The features that make the 4D model updating easy include:

Things that can be improved in the 4D system include:

Our wishlist for an ideal 4D system is as below:

Aside from increasing construction safety, 4D modelling benefits construction time,

INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE FIRST COME FIRST SERVE

ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

INDIVIDUAL PROCESS: THE HIERARCHICAL

ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE

TEAM PROCESS: THE EXTREME IDEAL

ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS ARCHITECTURE ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ARCHITECTURE MECHANICAL

MECHANICAL ELEMENTS MECHANICAL ELEMENTS

“Hard Clash: A hard clash is where two physical

Item 1 Item 2 Solution

2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Reset Change the offset from

2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x Move the Supply duct

2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Reset Change the offset from

2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the mechanical

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐

2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the Supply duct

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Ducts: Round Duct: Taps / Move the Supply duct

2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : 600 x 600 Face 300 x 300 Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Rectangular to Round Element ID : Move the Location of

2014/4/26 Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Reset Change the offset from

2014/4/26 Element ID : Ducts: Rectangular Duct: Element ID : Walls: Basic Wall: Interior ‐ Move the Supply duct

After Model Modification

LARGE SCALE SMALL SCALE FOOLPROOF SCALE

THE STRUCTURAL CONTRACTOR

THE MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR

HOWEVER SMALL THE REPAIR IS...

? modeling. Perhaps if there is a greater integration between modeling

Autodesk Ecotect BENEFITS INPUT VARIABLES RESULTS AND OUTPUT

Autodesk Green Building Studio

The unique strength of Inputs can be provided - Graphical summary reports

Integrated Environmental Solutions

For professional experts, Integrated Environmental Solutions are recommended:

PARTICIPANT ROLE PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATION

BPM TOOLS USED BY PARTICIPANTS ARCHITECT

GEOMETRIC MODELING TOOLS ARCHITECT

Pre- Schematic Design Design

Priority and Ability of BPM tools

Complex Design Strategies X X X X

The graph illustrates the predicted vs measured EUI

Predicted vs. Actual

INEFFICIENCIES IN BUILDING INDUSTRY