The adoption of computer-aided design and construction, built on technological advancements in interoperability and Building Information Modeling (BIM), isn’t just another information technology (IT) issue for A/E/C industry companies, it is a matter of sheer survival. “You will not practice architecture in 10 years if you do not get up to speed on this,” Thom Mayne, FAIA, the Pritzker-prize winning architect of the innovative Los Angeles-based architecture firm, Morphosis, said during the AIA convention in Las Vegas in June.
The line between the design and construction disciplines is blurring, Mayne said, urging the audience of architects to prepare themselves for a profession that he says no one will recognize a decade from now. A rapidly growing number of A/E/C professionals share Mayne’s thinking. “BIM is going to become standard practice within 10 years,” says Paul Devereux, project manager for Minneapolis-based general contractor M.A. Mortenson.
Throughout the industry, proponents are beginning to push their companies to embrace BIM and utilize digital 3D modeling capabilities not only for visual graphic representation, but also as a tool to design, construct, operate, and maintain buildings. This is made possible through advancements in interoperability — the ability to manage and communicate electronic product and project data between collaborating firms through the use of a neutral format system. Such a system enables different software systems to merge with each other, eliminating the need for manual re-entry of data.
Using BIM, advocates say, will enable A/E/C professionals and building trades to draw together a fragmented design and construction industry, making it a more efficient and streamlined process. Sharing modeling technology will foster greater collaboration between members of the building team, from the owner and architect down through to building trade subcontractors. Earlier involvement by contractors, consultants, materials manufacturers, and building trades — all working with interoperable software systems — will result in reduced project schedules, significant cost savings, improved quality control, and greater productivity.
This transition is well overdue. While it is debatable whether construction industry productivity has increased or declined in recent years, industry productivity lags well behind the auto, aerospace, petrochemical, and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries, which years ago began adopting these technologies and methodologies. In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a report titled “Cost of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry.” The study found that a lack of interoperability cost the construction industry $6.73 billion on 1.1 billion square feet of new construction in 2002. Contributing to these costs were manual re-entry of data, requests for information management, and labor for idled employees.
The old adage that time is money is true, especially in the construction industry, and owners are beginning to demand more accountability. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) — the world’s largest landlord — encourages the use of BIM and related information technologies on its projects in its 2004 CAD standard. GSA is requesting BIMs with conceptual submissions on select projects and is providing funding to enable BIM implementation in 2007 on a project-by-project basis.
Structural Steel Industry Takes the Lead
Most architects, contractors, and building trades are only beginning to realize the power of 3D modeling and interoperability to integrate the design and construction process. But one segment of the construction industry — structural steel — has been implementing these measures with great success for years. “By following the steel industry’s lead, the A/E/C industry can move the entire building industry forward,” Joseph Burns, P.E., S.E., FAIA, managing principal in the Chicago office of New York structural engineer, Thornton-Tomasetti Group, explained to the same AIA audience as Mayne.
The structural steel community — structural engineers, detailers, fabricators, and erectors — is an early adopter of interoperability, or what was known as electronic data interchange, to speed steel delivery on projects. It has also been a leader in improving the interoperability of software utilized by its members. The industry has adopted CIMSteel Integration Standards/Version 2 (CIS/2) as the standard to achieve interoperability between structural engineering analysis and design, detailing, and fabrication software systems. Currently the global standard for data exchange, CIS/2 has bridged the use of previously incompatible systems by translating a program’s native format into a neutral file format that allows data interchange across multiple software programs.
Looking toward the future, the Chicago-based American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) is working with International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) in Washington, DC, to harmonize the CIS/2 protocol with IAI’s Industry Foundation Class, a neutral file format to be used by the broader A/E/C community in the utilization of BIM.
Interoperability enables the steel team to reduce the time required to convert structural engineers’ designs to fabricated components, minimize conflicts and errors, and reduce overall project costs. Lead times are reduced by the ability to review and approve shop drawings as they are being developed, thereby eliminating both the lengthy “revise and resubmit process” as well as reducing paper generation. In addition, drawings are more complete and the engineer can be assured that the structural design will be properly executed at the fabrication level.
This change in the construction process also calls for change in the way in which contracts are written, to mitigate risk and compensate steel team and other building team members for additional services rendered. Steel teams and project managers are developing partnership agreements and design-build contracts that enable steel teams to share the risk. But owners, general contractors, and construction managers are finding that the overall savings to the project far outweighs the additional fees charged for these services. Here again, AISC has taken the lead by adding “Appendix A: Digital Building Product Models” to its latest Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges.
Who is driving the change toward the integration of structural steel design and delivery? It began with structural engineers, detailers, and fabricators realizing they could speed the steel delivery process and win bids by saving projects time and money through sharing 3D models and producing complete documents up front before the start of erection. Now contractors such as M.A. Mortenson, which saw the value demonstrated on the complex Disney Concert Hall project in Los Angeles, are beginning to advocate sharing models and promoting interoperability throughout the entire building team. Owners, having seen the benefits to be gained, are starting to demand that building teams implement interoperability and BIM. To drive the use of this technology throughout the building team, “there needs to be strong leadership from the ownership side,” says Burns.
Interoperability and BIM Take to the Field
Automotive giant GM is utilizing interoperability and BIM to speed delivery and improve the quality of its automotive facilities. Laird Landis, GM’s senior technological engineer, says that incorporating BIM and 3D modeling has resulted in zero change orders and minimal requests for information on the company’s soon-to-be-completed $300 million, 450,000 s.f. expansion of its Global V6 Engine plant in Flint, MI. (In previous benchmarking projects, GM estimated that utilizing BIM would have saved three to five percent of total construction costs.)
Emphasis on preplanning by the design-build team and sharing BIM models, which started with the structural steel and filtered down to the M/E/P subcontractors, is propelling the project from early design, which began in November 2004, to completion in 11 months, five weeks ahead of its already aggressive schedule.
GM used design-build guaranteed-maximum-price project delivery with prequalified subcontractors for construction of the plant. The building team included a joint venture of Ideal Contracting, Detroit, and Barton Malow Design, Southfield, MI. GHAFARI Associates, Dearborn, MI, provided engineering services and 3D integration and AISC certified member Douglas Steel Fabricating Corp., Lansing, MI, provided detailing, fabrication, and erection. According to Samir Emdanat, manager for advanced technologies for GHAFARI, the project has benefited from a more efficiently coordinated design from the outset of the project through to M/E/P coordination.
The team committed to completing an “as built” model before construction, which detected and eliminated mechanical and structural interferences, avoiding the delays and extra costs often associated with field changes. The 3D modeling allowed component fabrication to be performed off-site, which required less lay-down area and made for a safer worksite, says Landis.
Selected because of its experience with 3D modeling, Douglas Steel worked under a negotiated contract with Ideal Contracting and GM to issue the steel mill order within three weeks, compared to a typical 11- to 12-week delivery time. Douglas Steel received sketches the second week in November 2004 and submitted its first shop drawings to GHAFARI by November 30. The fabricator “had no contract drawings, but already had shop drawings submitted and an in-progress 3D model submitted to GHAFARI,” says Lawrence F. Kruth, P.E., Douglas Steel’s engineering and safety manager. The firm “didn’t receive design drawings from GHAFARI until December 10.” By the end of January 2005, all detail drawings were complete and steel erection was able to begin February 20, eight days ahead of schedule. “The 3D model made the difference,” says Kruth.
Using the CIS/2 standard protocol, GHAFARI was able to exchange its BIM data from RAM Steel analysis software by RAM International and MicroStation TriForma design software by Bentley with Douglas Steel, which imported the data and information into its SDS/2 steel detailing software by Design Data.
As models were integrated, they were checked against each other to identify and correct mismatches and avoid project delays in the field. A comparison of the models during a value-engineering session early in the project resulted in changes to the electrical systems on the roof, which impacted the support steel. “The 3D model highlighted the issue right away,” says Emdanat. On another occasion, Emdanat discovered that the fabricator had modeled some sway frames backward. Merging the models revealed that “the ductwork was colliding with the members because they were backward,” says Douglas Steel’s Kruth. “[GHAFARI] found the interferences and informed us. That’s how it’s supposed to work.”
The steel fabrication model was then used as the framework for the M/E/P coordination and layout, which eliminated interferences in the field, where most errors are discovered when using only 2D drawings. Sharing of the model extended all the way down to the HVAC contractor, which fabricated the ductwork via direct data transfer from the M/E/P 3D model. “With 3D, the models are bridged and complete,” says Emdanat. “There’s no guesswork. All the unknowns that used to be built into the traditional workflow are no longer there. That’s a fundamental difference; it changes everything.”
BIM “Connects” with Denver Art Museum
When general contractor M.A. Mortenson learned that Denver architecture firm Davis Partnership was using 3D modeling to visualize the complex geometry of Polish architect Daniel Libeskind’s design of the 147,000 s.f. addition to the Denver Art Museum, the Minneapolis-based company lobbied to expand the BIM system’s capabilities from a visual model to a construction model.
The use of 3D modeling on the Denver Art Museum addition, scheduled to open in the fall of 2006, came out of basic necessity: “the need to understand, document, and coordinate the project,” says Maria Cole, AIA, an architect with Davis Partnership. Cole, who at first was skeptical about using BIM on the project, now finds it “difficult to believe the project could have been done without it.”
Davis Partnership developed a shared 3D file using CIS/2-compliant form-Z software by auto-des-sys Inc. and transferred the model to the structural engineer, ARUP, Los Angeles, which used the model as the basis for its frame analysis and subsequent wire frame model using SAP2000 analysis and design software by CSi. Project geometry was established using 3D detailing files supplemented by the 2D construction documents for minor elements. The structural wire frame model became the platform on which all the building’s shapes were hung.
The geometry of the design — which in some places had 12 different connections coming together at one nodal point — placed critical importance on the design of the structural steel connections. But even though design of the structural steel and connections started two months behind schedule, it ended an incredible two months ahead of schedule.
To facilitate the fabrication and erection of the steel superstructure, ARUP placed the steel connection design and detailing under the responsibility of the general contractor. Mortenson formed a special design-build steel team which included a local connection design engineer, Structural Consultants Inc.; two steel detailers, Dowco Consultants, Burnaby, BC, and Mile-High Detailers, Lakewood, CO; local steel fabricator, AISC certified member Zimmerman Metals; and erector, LPR Construction CO, Loveland, CO.
Interoperability was essential to the success of the steel design, fabrication, and erection, says Structural Consultant’s J.R. Barker, P.E., S.E. “The number of detailing and fabrication issues that came up could have made the project uncon-structable,” says Barker. “It was impossible to draw the structure up to a point where it could be analyzed.
To move the project forward most efficiently, the steel team tailored the project’s 20 different design phases to meet guidelines established by the steel erector, LPR Construction. “By the time we got through half of the design, we were already a quarter of the way through detailing,” Barker says. “And by the time we were 60 percent through design, we were already seeing steel in the air.”
Interactive Internet meetings were conducted between team members located in different cities and different parts of Denver to enable real-time conflict resolution. Using this model, the building team was able to visualize and reproduce all of the connections and resolve conflicts.
The team solved problems “virtually” before encountering them in the field, says Mortenson project manager Paul Devereux. “Solving problems at your desk is a lot more economical than when five or six iron workers are standing around in the field.” Interoperability is a dynamic quality control tool, Devereux says. Building teams are “still making the same errors,” he says, “but the thing is, we’re finding them earlier.”
Steel Teams Unite
Realizing the benefits that inter-operability can provide for structural steel delivery, structural engineers, detailers, fabricators, erectors, and even steel mills are forming design-build partnerships to share the risk and maximize their effectiveness on projects.
In the 14-year existence of eSteel Design-Build Group, the company has completed projects as a design-build group in more than a dozen states. eSteel is a partnership of Albuquerque, NM-based companies: steel fabricator, AISC certified member AmFab Inc., detailer, dtl’s Inc., and structural engineer, Chavez-Grieves Consulting Engineers Inc. The group’s organization is unique in that the fabricator and detailer share the same managing partner, Mark Mosher, the architect of the group’s business model. But to maximize communication, the detailer’s office is located in the same building as the structural engineer. According to Chris Youngblood, P.E., president of Chavez-Grieves, the team’s process provides clients with faster schedules, lower cost, fewer problems, and lower risk.
A classic example is the Casino of the Sun in Tucson, AZ, in 2001. The design and analysis of the project was completed using RAM Steel V7 software with erection beginning only 15 days later. Information from the RAM model was imported to SDS/2 V6.2 detailing software via the CIS/2 protocol, enabling half of fabrication to be detailed and finished in just 19 days. Paper drawings were generated only for column drawings.
Incorporating the steel mill in its design-build steel team enables Team Puma — comprised of structural engineer, Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers, Lakewood, CO; detailer/fabricator, AISC certified member Puma Steel, Cheyenne, WY; erector, LPR Construction Co., Loveland, CO; and steel manufacturer, AISC active member Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., Blytheville, AR — to lock in a steel price early in the process, says Martin/Martin associate, Rodd W. Merchant, P.E. This process “takes it another step farther and allows us to leverage that information early,” according to Merchant. Interoperability streamlines the process in way comparable to precast concrete; it “just happens to be a steel frame,” says Merchant. Most recently, M.A. Mortenson hired Team Puma to provide the design-build steel delivery for a 87,000 g.s.f. medical office building in Summit County, CO. Martin/Martin is also the engineer of record for the project as a whole, which is scheduled to open by Labor Day 2006.
Interoperability Spells O-P-P-O-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y
Interoperability is creating a myriad of ways for engineers and structural steel companies to expand their services and offer more value to owners and their A/E/C clients. GHAFARI’s Samir Emdanat says that the consultant is receiving a lot of interest from owners in regard to the firm’s BIM services, such as 3D integration. According to Luke Faulkner, AISC’s director of technology initiatives, legal concerns associated with ownership of the models may result in the creation of a new segment of the building team called the model manager, who would be responsible for maintaining the model during and after the project is completed.
The need for early design and delivery of the structural steel package for the 279,000 s.f. Mt. Tahoma High School in Tacoma, WA, a fast-track construction project that is key to the Tacoma Public School District’s $450 million capital program, prompted local structural engineer, Putnam, Collins, Scott Associates, to implement what the firm calls an “integrated steel design.” The delivery of the steel was moved upstream to the design side of the construction process, shortening the construction schedule by three months. The process also resulted in only 13 requests for information, an astoundingly low number, given that 400 RFIs is more typical for such projects, says PCSA principal, Lanny Flynn, P.E., S.E.
In addition to performing typical structural engineering duties, PCSA brought the shop-drawing preparation and approvals in-house and placed the steel mill order. Steel was preordered on October 22, 2002, fabrication began on February 3, 2003, erection started March 1, and the steel was topped out in June. Substantial completion was June 11. The $77.7 million project incorporated aspects of design-build into the project because of the delivery method’s ability “to hold bid better than conventional projects,” Flynn says.
The firm utilized a neutral format translation system to foster interoperability between its software: RAM Structural System analysis, design, and drafting software and Tekla Xsteel detailing program. PCSA then transferred the model to the fabricator, AISC certified member Allied Steel, Lewistown, MT, to incorporate it into the software system of its CNC automated fabrication equipment. Simple in theory, but complex in execution, the process requires the structural engineer to have an understanding of shop drawing preparation and the fabrication and erection process, says Flynn.
He reports that of the 2,908 anchor bolts on the project, which includes a 3,200-seat stadium, only four from one base plate required modification. No field changes were required for connections, which contained 15,256 bolts. And each of the 3,045 assemblies in the building was installed without problem.
Seeing the progress that interoperability was making in speeding the steel-delivery process, structural engineer Thornton-Tomasetti opened a detailing office in Kansas City, MO, a year and a half ago. For a separate fee, the services of the detailing office, which now has a staff of 25, can be “bolted onto our design process,” says the firm’s Joseph Burns. The Kansas City office is teaming with their New York office to provide structural design and detailing services for the steel package on the $3.5 billion Brooklyn Arena mixed-use development designed by Gehry Partners. The arena portion of the project is ex-pected to be completed in 2008-09.
Burns says Thornton-Tomasetti is conducting more discussions with architects; however “many are still on the sidelines.” But the most important sector of the building team to integrate into the flow of inter-operability is the M/E/P consultants, according to Burns. The design-build industry is “poised to pick up the ball and run with it,” he says. “There are a lot of consultants and steel subcontractors ready to go.”
Larry Flynn is Industry Marketing Manager for the American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago. He has 14 years experience as an editor with building industry trade magazines, including Building Design & Construction and Roads & Bridges. He can be reached at flynn@aisc.org.