C+S September 2020 Vol. 6 Issue 9 (web)

Over the past decade, the understanding of Building Information Modeling (BIM) has been expanded from a 3D update of traditional CAD drafting to a lifecycle concept that encompasses the process of creating and managing digital models of built assets. The AECO in - dustry has responded with increased expectations for the advantages the BIM workflow will provide. Project owners and BIM users are well-prepared for its utilization during the delivery phase and now anticipate similar results from its performance during the operational phase, which runs through the remaining lifecycle of a project. The requests for collaborative approaches of information to be collected, created, managed, and shared have intensified. This article is the second part of the series that deciphers the journey of building information from the delivery phase to the operational phase. The first article provided an overview of the impact of ISO 19650 Series on Asset Management and concluded its adoption could establish it as the new standard of measurement of true BIM lifecycle implementation. This article supports the previous outlook by review- ing existing widely-adopted classifications in current BIM applications and their practices in BIM to FM (Facility Management) transition. It then takes a deep dive into the current practices of applying those classifications along with discussions of their applicability during the handoff process and their drawbacks. This article also unveils the ne- cessity of an FM-oriented Data Dictionary for BIM to FM (BIM2FM) Lifecycle Project Delivery. Introduction Inadequate interoperability in U.S. facilities costs around 15.8 billion dollars annually. Two-thirds of that amount is incurred during the oper- ation and maintenance phases when more than 80 percent of the time is spent locating pertinent information. The utilization of Building Infor- mation Modeling (BIM) coupled with a standardized exchange format has been recognized as the key to enabling seamless data exchange from the Project Information Model (PIM) to the Asset Information Model (AIM). While the advancement of BIM technologies enables a data-rich environment that facilitates various activities throughout the design and construction phases, the information exchange persists as a significant issue during the handover at the end of the construction phase. Several industry standards, classifications, and specifications were developed to facilitate data interoperability from the initial planning to construction phases, and later on, to the operational phase. For example, Industry Foundation Class (IFC), is one of the most commonly used data models in AECO, maintained and developed by buildingSMART. It is registered as an official international standard - ISO 16739 - for data sharing in the construction and facility management industries. It is a schema developed to define an extensible set of consistent data Part 2: Reviewing the Adoption of Existing Standards from PIM to AIM By Dr. Xifan (Jeff) Chen, Dr. Eve Lin, and George Broadbent New Era of BIM Lifecycle Implementation

representation of building information for exchange between AECO software platforms. It has been designed to address building informa- tion across the entire building lifecycle from feasibility planning to occupancy and operation. IFC is only one piece of a massive puzzle regarding data conventions and standards in the AECO industry. While IFC addresses the data structures dealing with geometry, relations, and attributes; interoperability is a much broader issue and not covered by IFC, especially during the handover process from delivery to the op - erational phase. Therefore, coupling IFC with other specifications (i.e., COBie), is often used to address the data exchange needs. This article reviews four taxonomies that are mostly adopted during the project handover stage, including three classification systems, Mas - terFormat®, UniFormatâ„¢, and OmniClass®, as well as Construction Operation Building information exchange (COBie). Based on industry examples experiences, the article depicts the bitter and sweet stories behind the scenes when applying these standards, from strategic plan- ning to CMMS implementation. It also provides sample use cases of these standards to illustrate their pros and cons and concludes with future directions for improvement. Quick Review of Current Coding Standards The Origin Point MasterFormat® is one of the earliest successful attempts for a com - mon data environment (CDE). It was designed by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) to address building construction specifications via a 16-division numbering system developed in the 1960s and later expanded to 50 divisions in 2004. Classified hierarchically by work results, Master - Format® organizes information related to construction work results, requirements, products, and activities. Its primary uses are for orga- nizing bidding and contract requirements, specifications, and product information. From its debut, MasterFormat® was developed to support cost estimating and quantity taking off, and therefore is not directly applicable for use during the transition from BIM to FM. Later on, it became a nice addition to UniFormat 2010 as the optional 5th level, which provides a more granular classification to distinguish individual asset types. That gives facility data managers decision making assis- tance for asset types that could be involved in selected UniFormatâ„¢ Levels. As Figure 1 shows below, MF (MasterFormat®) numbers can be referred to under UniFormatâ„¢ 2010 Level 4: D2010.20 Domestic Water Equipment.

Figure 1: Portion of UniFormat 2010, D Category.



september 2020

Made with FlippingBook Annual report