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
fischer@stanford.edu
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
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Motivation – lots of data, so little time
 50+ Crews
 Hundreds of activities
 200+ rooms
Who will do what when where?
18
PhD Research, Tony Dong
Research Results – Time-cost trade-off study
The schedule with the shortest duration is not always the
schedule with the lowest cost.
19
PhD Research, Tony Dong
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
PhD Research, Tony Dong
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