Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Conclusions

The automated rule-based constructability review process is expected to produce significant potential benefits, in terms of automational, informational, transformational, and visual effects (based on Fox and Hietanen, 2007):

Informational: Integrated with 3D graphic representations, the information embedded in BIM models can be extracted and shared among different project parties. The informational effects of BIM implementation allows designers to be aware of design-related construction concerns at corresponding design stages, resulting in “proactive,” instead of “reactive,” design feedback, and better decision-making.

design feedback, and better decision - making. People  Transformational: As the “proactive”

People

Transformational: As the “proactive” feedback is enabled in the design process, the transformational effects will be through the change in process. The proposed process is expected to pull the constructability knowledge into the design process and encourages designers to produce a more constructible design.

Process
Process
designers to produce a more constructible design. Process  Visual: Unlike most of previous constructability
designers to produce a more constructible design. Process  Visual: Unlike most of previous constructability

Visual: Unlike most of previous constructability tools, BIM owns strong capabilities of visualization. With 3D graphic representations, potential constructability issues can be easily presented, understood, and communicated among project participants.

Technology

Automational: Instead of a manual check of printed plans with a checklist, an automatic review process can be systematic and comprehensive, reducing the required time and resources for simpler concerns and allowing the construction team to focus on future impacts and planning.

Future Research

Future work can focus on three directions:

Further investigation of constructability knowledge. Based on limited case studies, the current research merely investigates the relationship between BIM contents and structural design-related constructability issues. A com- prehensive acquisition of constructability knowledge can be achieved by looking at more case studies or different design disciplines.

Further development of design-related constructability rule-sets. Considering the existing technical difficulties regarding the rule checking platform, the rule-sets

developed and tested in the research are merely about form- work selection. Further investigation is needed to develop a comprehensive set of reasoning rules of design-related con- structability issues.

Further exploration of the proposed process. As existing technical issues may be solved and the rule-sets become complete, the process needs to be detailed mapped out and documented for better practices and collaboration among different project participants.

and collaboration among different project participants. Acknowledgements Bob Grottenthaler Barton Malow Company

Acknowledgements

Bob Grottenthaler Barton Malow Company

Acknowledgements Bob Grottenthaler Barton Malow Company Kurt Maldovan Balfour Beatty Construction For additional

Kurt Maldovan Balfour Beatty Construction

Malow Company Kurt Maldovan Balfour Beatty Construction For additional information or questions regarding this

For additional information or questions regarding this research, contact:

Li Jiang, PhD Candidate

luj122@psu.edu

Dr. Robert M. Leicht, Director of PACE, Assistant Professor rmleicht@engr.psu.edu

Director of PACE, Assistant Professor rmleicht@engr.psu.edu L E A N A N D G R E
Director of PACE, Assistant Professor rmleicht@engr.psu.edu L E A N A N D G R E
Director of PACE, Assistant Professor rmleicht@engr.psu.edu L E A N A N D G R E

L E A N

A N D

G R E E N:

R E S E A R C H

I N I T I A T I V E

Virtual Prototyping for Automated, Rule-based Constructability Review

Li Jiang, PhD Candidate; Dr. Robert M. Leicht

Background

Constructability is defined as “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operation to achieve overall project objectives,” (CII, 1986). Frequently, a review of constructability concepts is adopted by using a checklist and a lessons-learned system after the design reaches a certain design stage, 30%, 60%, or 95% design (Hancher and Goodrum, 2007).

However, the large amount of required resources, time and manpower, largely impedes constructability implementation (Hancher and Goodrum, 2007); the rework in design caused by the inefficient process (Arditi et al., 2002; Pulaski and Horman, 2005) cannot be ignored either.

As the idea of implementing integrated design methods to

enhance productivity and value in the industry, this research

examines

the

existing

constructability

review

process

and

addresses

the

research

question:

What process changes with the help from integrated design methods and tools can help to improve the current constructability review process?

Research Goal & Objectives

To improve consistency, efficiency, and value of existing constructability review process, by proposing an automated rule- based constructability review with the implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM).

To investigate the feasibility of using available BIM contents to represent constructability knowledge required for a constructability review.

To define and validate the method of rule-based checking to automate constructability review process.

To demonstrate the benefits of the proposed constructability review process with the implementation of BIM, in terms of automational, visual, informational, and transformational effects.

Schematic Design Construction Database of Constructability Design Development Documents Rulesets BIM Contents
Schematic
Design
Construction
Database of
Constructability
Design
Development
Documents
Rulesets
BIM Contents
Structural System
Superstructure
CIP Concrete
Seismic Applications
Non-Seismic Applications
Gravity Systems
Normal Reinforcing
2 Way Flat with Drop Panel
Location
Dimension (e.g. height, thickness, etc.)
Reinforcing
Others
Lateral Systems
Misc. Members and Items
Sub-structure
Architecture System
Technical Systems (i.e. mechnical, electrical, plumbing systems)

Figure 1: Implementing BIM for Automated Constructability Review

Capturing Constructability Knowledge for Reinforced Concrete Structure

The elicitation of constructability knowledge from construction experts is the first and important step for the research to analyze the feasibility of using available BIM contents to interpret the constructability knowledge required for a constructability review. Multiple case studies are being to collect and analyze the knowledge.

Focusing on reinforced concrete structure, one case study, shown in Figure 1, is the Turkish-American Community Center at Lanham, Maryland. This project has 5 buildings interconnected via an underground parking facility, including a mosque. The complex has a gross floor area of approximately 316,000 square feet, more than 95% of which is constructed with cast-in-place concrete. One of the 5 buildings has a one-story steel structure, and thus is not considered in this study. Given cultural concerns, the project design has incorporated traditional mosque features such as domes and minarets, resulting in a range of different formwork systems used in the project.

As shown in Figure 1, the knowledge regarding formwork decisions captured from project team are compared with available BIM contents accordingly, demonstrating the ability of using BIM to provide upfront feedback and facilitate early planning and decision- making.

Knowledge Representation

The representation of knowledge involves analysis of how to reason accurately and effectively and how to “write” and encode the knowledge into a form that is understandable by humans and behave like humans (Brachman and Levesque 2004).

The method of rule checking is applied in this research to represent the constructability knowledge and to model the ways of thinking as construction experts in a constructability review.

Figure 2 shows the formwork used in the case study project of Turkish-American Community Center. In the form of decision tree, Figure 3 represents the acquired knowledge for horizontal formwork selection through an interview of project team. In addition to design parameters such as slab slope and slab depth, resource constraints such as crane, labor, and the layout density have been considered in the decision-making of formwork use.

Based on the obtained knowledge, a set of design-related constructability reasoning rules can be developed to represent the knowledge and thereby to achieve an automated constructability checking.

an automated constructability c h e c k i n g . Figure 2: Formwork used

Figure 2: Formwork used in Turkish-American Community Center

2: Formwork used in Turkish - American Community Center Figure 3: Case study interview: horizontal formwork

Figure 3: Case study interview: horizontal formwork selection

Application: Formwork selection rule testing

An example of reasoning rule is written as (Hanna and Sanvido, 1989):

IF: Building size is small or medium (i.e. gross area is no more than 25,000 sq. ft)

AND: Building height is between 10 to 13 floors

THEN: Use conventional aluminum forming system.”

The reasoning of conventional aluminum forming system selection at Washington D.C. urban area requires two different attributes- building size and building height. As a results, the reasoning process can be divided into 2 parts: reasoning about building gross area, and building height. As long as both of them meet the target value, the formwork selection can be achieved.

Solibri Model Checker, as a world-leading model review software based on rule-based checking, has been applied as the platform to develop and run the constructability reasoning rules. More detailed information about Solibri can be found on http:// www.solibri.com/.

Figure 4, 5 and 6 are snapshots from Solibri, showing the constitution of the rule-set, parameters of the two separated reasoning rules, and corresponding target value of each parameter respectively.

corresponding target value of each parameter respectively. Figure 4: Formwork selection rule example Figure 5: Rule
corresponding target value of each parameter respectively. Figure 4: Formwork selection rule example Figure 5: Rule

Figure 4: Formwork selection rule example

respectively. Figure 4: Formwork selection rule example Figure 5: Rule parameters of “Building Gross Area”

Figure 5: Rule parameters of “Building Gross Area”

Figure 5: Rule parameters of “Building Gross Area” Figure 6: Rule parameters of “Building Height” Rule

Figure 6: Rule parameters of “Building Height”

Rule Execution

As the reasoning rule-sets are defined by writing the acquired constructability knowledge into machine-readable language, those rules need to be executed in an appropriate rule checking platform, in order to prove the validity of the innovative approach.

This part of research will use a case study to test the rule-sets of formwork selection, as a test case with validated logic to support means and methods rules. Solibri Model Checker will be used as the platform for rule execution.

As an example, one case study project, which is the Copping State University Science & Technology Center at Baltimore, MD, is used here to test the rule-set of “Horizontal Formwork Selection.” Figure 7 shows the architectural rendering and REVIT model of the project. The rule execution interface of “Slab Formwork Selection” in Solibri is displayed in Figure 8.

Formwork Selection” in Solibri is displayed in Figure 8. Figure 7: Case Study Project: Coppin State
Formwork Selection” in Solibri is displayed in Figure 8. Figure 7: Case Study Project: Coppin State

Figure 7: Case Study Project: Coppin State Sci. & Tech. Center

7: Case Study Project: Coppin State Sci. & Tech. Center Figure 8: Rule execution for “Horizontal

Figure 8: Rule execution for “Horizontal Formwork Selection”

Process Modeling

Last, though far from least, a process protocol of an automated constructability review with the implementation of BIM will be developed. Based on Eastman et. al (2009), a typical rule-based reasoning process has 4 stages (Figure 9):

Rule interpretation, which aims to translate the construction knowledge acquired from industry experts into computer- readable language, and to form logical structure of rules for their application as human reasoning. Depending on different project phase (i.e. SD, DD, CD, and Pre-Construction), different level of detail of constructability knowledge are interpreted into related rules and stored in the appropriate rule checking platform.

Building model preparation, where necessary information required for the automated rule-based reasoning is prepared. As design develops (e.g. from SD to DD and then to CD), appropriate level of detail of BIM contents should be embedded into the design model at each phase.

Rule execution, which brings together the prepared building model with the rules that apply to it. At different project phase, the BIM contents captured by the reasoning rules will be at different level of detail.

Reporting the reasoning results (i.e. constructability feedback) to designers. Depending on the timing of the feedback, two types of constructability feedback are expected to be obtained from the proposed process: reactive and proactive feedback. Reactive feedback is provided

by reacting a situation; whereas proactive feedback is provided in advance of a situation. For example, the feedback regarding the design changes for fully developed concepts is “reactive;” the feedback that is provided at the same phase but mentions constructability

concerns for future design steps is considered as “proactive.” The automated rule-based reasoning process enables consistent proactive feedback in the review process, adding more value to the process.

SD

DD

CD

Pre-Con

Construction

Construction

Construction

Construction

Knowledge

Knowledge

Knowledge

Knowledge

Rule

Database Rule-sets of Database Rule-sets of Database Rule-sets of Database Rule-sets of
Database Rule-sets of
Database Rule-sets of
Database Rule-sets of
Database Rule-sets of

Rule Execution

Model
Model

Notes:

SD: Schematic Design

DD: Design Development

CD: Construction Document

Pre-Con: Pre-Construction/

Shop Drawing

Reactive feedback

Reactive feedback

Reactive feedback Potential Proactive feedback
Reactive feedback Potential Proactive feedback
Potential Proactive feedback

Potential Proactive feedback

EXPERT
EXPERT
Reactive feedback Potential Proactive feedback EXPERT Interpretation ❹Constructability Feedback USER ❷ BIM

Interpretation

❹Constructability Feedback
❹Constructability
Feedback
feedback EXPERT Interpretation ❹Constructability Feedback USER ❷ BIM Preparation Figure 9: Overall process of

USER

BIM

Preparation

Figure 9: Overall process of automated rule-based constructability reasoning (based on Eastman et. al, 2009)