Author Topic: BIM Better or worse  (Read 451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MSTG007

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2074
  • I can't remeber what I already asked! I need help!
Re: BIM Better or worse
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2017, 09:22:45 am »
Can I ask... Where would "Facility Management" fit in with all this?
Autodesk Infrastructure Design Suite 2017

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14101
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: BIM Better or worse
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2017, 09:33:20 am »

BIM is a great idea and it initially creates more work for the drafty but the real payoff is in the richer data for processes further up the line such as asset management. At the moment, the BIM files being created are almost useless once the project is built.

To this point in regards Civil Data....yes the data is nearly useless because the data is embedded in the civil objects.....AND
the endstate of most civil projects is GIS of some sort, and MAP, nor ESRI either one can use the data from a civil model directly.
So without a great deal of data extraction, or otherwise the civil model does not feed into the downstream, or is it upstream purpose of BIM as it relates to civil projects.
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

dgorsman

  • Water Moccasin
  • Posts: 2242
Re: BIM Better or worse
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2017, 01:04:46 pm »
Can I ask... Where would "Facility Management" fit in with all this?

They can inspect the model e.g. when a motor is replaced with something from a different vendor, the model would be updated to indicate this.  There may also be information on when the work was done/under what contract, although it may just as well be a link to an external database.  Same with regular servicing.  Facilities with large numbers of certain components can use it to track down actual locations of those components for regular maintenance or product recalls.  Going back to that motor example, they would know to skip that one as it's not what they're looking for; with traditional drawings or data-less 3D models they'd still have to physically check that location, possibly arranging shut-downs in advance.  In really bad situations, the object may have been removed completely (although that's more bad as-building than a BIM failure).

There's also some non-traditional ways to use it.  For example, setting up remote monitoring using links from cameras and sensors in the model to actual data readouts.  Or virtual operations training.
If you are going to fly by the seat of your pants, expect friction burns.

try {GreatPower;}
   catch (notResponsible)
      {NextTime(PlanAhead);}
   finally
      {MasterBasics;}

MickD

  • Gator
  • Posts: 2948
  • I don't need a job, I need Money!!
Re: BIM Better or worse
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2017, 05:07:43 pm »
...
To this point in regards Civil Data....yes the data is nearly useless because the data is embedded in the civil objects.....AND
the endstate of most civil projects is GIS of some sort, and MAP, nor ESRI either one can use the data from a civil model directly.
So without a great deal of data extraction, or otherwise the civil model does not feed into the downstream, or is it upstream purpose of BIM as it relates to civil projects.

You're right Michael, and the CAD vendor isn't interested in adding the extra data fields required to create a valid export file that conforms to the BIM/IFC standard so it only exports the fields that it can/is interested in and hence you end up with rubbish/incomplete data. As you say, upstream/downstream wants the "GIS of some sort" and BIM is a way of achieving this but it won't work how it's implemented at this time.
Unless the government agencies enforce some kind of standard with an associated schema it won't happen. Without a schema, the data will most probably be junk. I wouldn't be holding my breath for all the CAD vendors to get their heads together and agree on one either.

I've written an app that works with CAD files to create XML and validate that data with a schema[1] and it works very well. The file I create can be passed to another CAD vendor that has implemented the schema and it just works. They can import my XML file and create a complete drawing with over 70 different asset types with all geometry and data attached, as can I with theirs.
That's how BIM is supposed to work! :)

[1] The schema was created by a consortium of councils who all wanted a standardised way of receiving a vendor-neutral file format of as designed - as-built asset data as part of their DA documents submission process, they were sick of receiving excel or word doc's or whatever export the CAD system used was exporting.
"A language that doesn’t have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do."

        — Dennis M. Ritchie