Creating high-performance buildings and

Creating high-performance buildings and infrastructure with BIM Martin Fischer Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science Director, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) http://www.stanford.edu/~fischer [email protected] Additional Roles: • Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy • Lead, Building Energy Efficiency Research, Precourt Energy Efficiency Center (PEEC) • Affiliated Faculty, Woods Institute for the Environment • Affiliated Faculty, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER) • Advisory Professor, School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai • Visiting Professor, School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, UK

What does a BIM look like?

2

Slide Content Courtesy Optima

Why BIM? • BIM: Building Information Model • Pre 1900: Masterbuilder – The Designer is the builder – Design and construction are in his head – Immediate feedback on mistakes

• Post 1900: Specialization – – – –

Design and construction are separated Nobody has the whole building with details in their head Everyone sees a different and incomplete part of the building Divide and conquer project management

• 21st Century: BIM-enabled high performance project organizations – Number of project challenges increases dramatically – BIM combines the perspectives of the key parties – Enables visualization and information management

Can you achieve high-performing buildings quickly and reliably without BIM? If yes, can your competitor create such buildings faster and more cost-effectively with BIM? • Consider that – Computing is free – Data are abundant – Integration is critical – Little precedence for integration exists

What if … • Buildings performed as designed in all critical aspects? • You could develop and analyze a structural design option for a large project in 3 seconds? • You could do an energy and daylighting analysis for a city-block size building in 3 minutes? • You knew what the most effective management attention or intervention is for this week? • Everyone on the project used the same playbook? • You could adjust wind turbines “on the fly” to maximize power production?

The CIFE community (industry, academia) invents the next practice together

Practice

Research Education

Past  Present  Future • Yesterday’s practice: YCASWYG You can’t always see what you get • Today’s practice: WYSIWYG What you see is what you get

}

• Next practice: WYMIWYG What you model is what you get performance

Scofield 2002

(c) 2010

7

Engage all critical stakeholders in decision making when their input actually matters

In Collaboration with the GSA, Image Courtesy Walt Disney Imagineering

If you can’t build it virtually … What you see is what you get and it fits

Image courtesy of DPR

9

Slide Content Courtesy Optima

Fabrication from 3D models • DPR: – ~25-30% fewer crew hours in the field – No shop drawings – Safer, faster field assembly

• ConXtech:

Image Courtesy DPR Inc.

– Connection Tolerance: 0.006” – Beam welding: 5 min 35 sec (typical: 180 min); 0.2% rejects (typical 5-8% rejects), 97% time improvement – Lead time: days vs. months – Construction: 10,000 sf/day up to 9 stories (4,000 sf with stairs, railing, etc.), often 6 months overall savings

Image Courtesy ConXtech, Hayward, CA

BIM combines data and visualization Social Interface with Stakeholders Visualization

Conceptual project planning & design

Design

Procurement

Construction

Start-up

Operations

Data Interface with Engineering and Project Management Systems 12

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) Client/Business Objectives Project Objectives Process Design

Current State Process, T5 Rebar Detailing for Construction

NOTE: Design changes during detailing (from: architecture, baggage, systems, etc.) are upsetting RC drawing development.

Design input/ changes

Draft spec

Engineering

Preliminary design

Preliminary RC detailing

GA drawings

Refine RC details and concept for buildability/ detailing

Prepare RC detail drawings (drafting)

Update spec

Release spec

CAD check (1d/dwg)

Check against engineering calcs (.5d /dwg)

Independent final check & sign off (2 weeks)

Detailed engineering design information

Building control check & sign off (BAA, time?)

Release paper P4 dwgs & bar bending schedules

Consists of: engineering calculations, sketches, etc.

NOTE: Drawings are batched into sectionsthen subdivided into building components. Each component is an assembly package, e.g. rail box floor, wall, etc. The number of drawing sheets per building component vary depending on the work. On ART for example, each component may consist of 8-15 GA drawings and 8-15 RC detail drawings.

Iterative process

Most of the checking process is done concurrently with RC detail development.

BAA building control accepts the opinion of the independent design check - and does not perform a check of its own

Document control delay (1 week)

Release CAD dwg, rebar schedule (*.CSF) in Documentum

All of the GA drawings are complete pending changes from other design disciplines

Manufacture

ICE

Rebar factory starts bending

Use model to develop and communicate methods

Assembly

BIM+

Comment on spec

Pre-assembly

Model rebar component (Use digital Prototyping tool)

Back drafting 1 week

Preliminary drafting 2 weeks

Timeline:

Technology:

Check and coordinate detail drawings

AutoCAD

CAD RC

IDEAS

Arma +

Other / None/ Unknown

Ship to site

Checking 2 weeks

Issue and resolve TQ’s (Technical Queries)

Document control 1 week

Existing Process - 6 weeks

13

Site assembly

CIFE carries out three types of research • Automation / Optimization • Managing with VDC • Case studies of best practice

CIFE teaches two types of courses • Stanford students: all students in our undergraduate and graduate programs learn BIM-based method (2D-based methods are no longer taught) • Professional: VDC certificate program

REDUCING

STEEL STRUCTURES USING C O M P U TAT I O N A L D E S I G N O P T I M I Z AT I O N THE

COST

OF

FOREST FLAGER / MARTIN FISCHER

DESIGN PROBLEM

CASE STUDY RESULTS

Objective: Minimize steel weight

COLLABORATION WITH ARUP

conventional design method

Constraints: Safety and serviceability Variables: 1955 size and shape variables Possible design alternatives: ~ 102435

FCD (128 cpu) design method

PROCESS

BiOPT METHOD

Design cycle time Alternatives evaluated Total design time

GEOMETRIC MODEL GEOMETRIC MODEL 1 ANALYTIC MODEL

3 sec

39

12,800

216 hrs

151 hrs

2,728 met t

2,292 met t

-

$4 M (-19%)

PRODUCT

2

OPTIMIZE SIZING

Total steel weight Est. cost saving (USD)

3

OPTIMIZE SHAPE FCD Sizing Algorithm = (Flager, et al. 2011)

4 hrs

SEQOPT Algorithm = (Booker, et al. 1999)

4

• Orders of magnitude reduction in design cycle time • Evaluation of a greater number of design alternatives • Improved product quality

70 70

0 30 30 30 30 9.02E4

East Façade Glazing %

West Façade Glazing %

Annual Energy Cost (USD)

North Façade Glazing %

180

South Façade Glazing %

Building Orientation (deg)

See which variables are driving building performance

= Baseline Design Configuration

70 70 1.09E5

16

PhD Research, Tony Dong

Automated Look-ahead Schedule (LAS) Generation and Optimization for the Finishing Phase (Research collaboration between CCC and CIFE)

05/05/08

05/19/08

07/10/08

07/17/08

07/31/08

08/14/08

08/21/08

Work Calendar

When

Where

Room ID

Who

What 17


Research Motivation – lots of data, so little time  50+ Crews  Hundreds of activities  200+ rooms Who will do what when where?

18


Research Results – Time-cost trade-off study

The schedule with the shortest duration is not always the schedule with the lowest cost.

19


Research Results – Resource Utilization Study

Working in as many rooms as possible does not lead to a schedule with minimum cost.

Making crews as busy as possible leads to the schedule with minimum cost.

20


Research Results – the # of Crews on Site

Project cost

Project duration

Project cost increase when too many crews are on site. 21

IVL Method for measuring effectiveness of MEP coordination (Atul Khanzode, DPR & CIFE) 1. Develop Strategic Goals and Objectives for MEP Coordination 2. Organize a multi-disciplinary team for coordination 3. Co-develop performance and outcome objectives 4. Co-Develop Technical Logistics to manage coordination 5. Develop Pull Schedule to structure the work based on construction sequence 6. Manage against the performance objectives 22

The IVL method seems to lead to better performance Outcome Metrics Mechanical Prefabrication % Plumbing Prefabrication % Electrical Prefabrication % RFIs due to Conflicts during Construction Number of Change Orders due to conflicts during Construction Minutes per day Superintendent spent resolving issues between MEP trades Average Planned Percent Complete % Rework Hours compared to Total Hours 23

Case Study 1: 90% 90% 40%

Case Study 2: 30% 0% 25%

2 of 677

30 of 200

0 of 311

30 of 230

20 - 30 80%

180 Did not track

Less than 1%

20%

8/13/2014

ENERGY STAR Score Trending Up for All Adobe HQ Towers

100

95

90

85 Almaden

80

East West

75

70

65

60 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Data center calculation different

Ideally life cycle performance would be considered for design, construction, and operations decisions $ energy, CO2, human costs, etc. Value from Facility

DesignConstruction Costs

Facility Maintenance Cost Building Operations Cost Business Operations Cost

t

I have made all my generals out of mud. Napoleon