2006 2nd Annual BIM Awards, Part 1

Last month, I captured the highlights of the three AIA events held in Los Angeles in June: the AIA TAP (Technology in Architectural Practice) conference, the AIA Integrated Practice conference, and the AIA National Convention. In my article on the TAP conference, I described the two breakout sessions I was able to attend as well as some of the key issues that were discussed during the opening and closing sessions. However, I did not get the opportunity in that article to discuss the second annual BIM Awards that were presented at the conclusion of the conference. These awards for projects using integrated and interoperable building information models are the focus of this and the next issue of the AECbytes "Building the Future" series.

About the BIM Awards

The BIM Awards are hosted by the AIA Technology in Architectural Practice Knowledge Community and were inaugurated last year, where they drew 22 entries of which three were selected as the winners and three received honorable mentions (see AECbytes Newsletter #21). In contrast, the BIM Awards this year received 41 submissions of which six won awards and one received an honorable mention. The fact that the number of entries has almost doubled from last year is a heartening testament to the growing BIM implementation in the building industry, and as I mentioned in my article on the TAP conference last year, this annual competition will be a great way to track the progress of BIM adoption.

This year, there were six different submission categories for the BIM Awards:

• Creating Stellar Architecture Using BIM
  
• Design/Delivery Process Innovation Using BIM
  
• Inspirational Pilot Projects Demonstrating New Ways Forward
  
• Academic Program or Curriculum
  
• Analysis or Simulation
  
• Jury's Choice

The general criteria on which all the submissions were judged included quantifiable benefits in cost, schedule, or quality; interoperability between software applications; effective team collaboration; process change that "moves the ball forward"; cultural change; and return on value (value achieved for the project divided by value expended in the effort). Each of the categories also had additional criteria specific to that category. In general, emphasis was given to real-world projects as opposed to technology demonstrations, and projects demonstrating the work of teams rather than individuals. The jury for this year's BIM awards included Peter Beck of The Beck Group; Chuck Eastman of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Stephen Kieran of Kieran/Timberlake Architects; William Mitchell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Martha Thorne, who is the executive director of the Pritzker Architecture Prize.

This article presents an overview of the winning projects in the first three categories. The award winners in the remaining three categories will be discussed in the August issue of the AECbytes "Building the Future" series.

Category: Creating Stellar Architecture Using BIM

M. A. Mortenson Company, more commonly known as Mortenson Construction, won the BIM award in this category for its work as the lead contractor on the Fredric C. Hamilton Building, a titanium clad sculptural form designed by Daniel Libeskind with Davis Partnership that adds 146,000 square feet of new exhibit space to the Denver Art Museum (see Figure 1). A brief overview of Mortenson's BIM work on this project has already appeared in my recent article, "BIM Symposium at the University of Minnesota," where Jim Yowan, Vice President of Mortenson Construction, described how the firm had started using 3D/4D technology in geometrically complex and challenging projects such as the Walt Disney Concert Hall (designed by Frank Gehry) and subsequently, the Denver Art Museum Expansion. Mortenson's submission materials for the BIM Awards provided a lot of additional information about its use of BIM on this project. Because of its complexity, Mortenson was brought on early in the design phase so that it could play an active role in the design and cost estimates for the construction of the proposed building.

The building's rigorous geometry and sculptural form and the need to coordinate and communicate the geometry to multiple disciples quickly and accurately were a driving force for adopting BIM technologies. The design team developed detailed 3D models to visualize and analyze different alternatives for the gallery spaces, structure, enclosure, and MEP systems (see Figure 2). The design model was shared with the construction team, and Mortenson took on the role of model manager, linking the design models to the manufacturing (shop drawing) models used to build the project. This was provided to pre-qualified subcontractors who used it as the basis for design and built system-specific BIM models of each system. These were then used for 3D coordination and collaboration, allowing the building to be constructed virtually prior to work in the field and checked for aspects such as maximize ceiling heights for gallery spaces, equipment access for serviceability, MEP and structural system conflicts, and so on. 4D models combining geometry and time were created for simulating and visualizing the project schedule. BIM was extensively used for construction and fabrication as well, in placing components accurately using coordinates from the models, as well as to plan and build non-permanent structures such as scaffold systems, access equipment, and hoisting equipment. The 3D models were also used to generate the 2D construction drawings required for regulatory building plan review and estimating.

Larger image

With regard to software, many different 3D applications were used in this project to create system-specific models, and not all of them were BIM applications. For instance, Daniel Libeskind's office worked primarily with form.Z. The BIM models for the structural steel, however, were developed using a BIM application: Tekla Structures. So while 3D did form the basis for all communication and collaboration between the project stakeholders in this project, this is not technically an "all-BIM" project. But it received the BIM award for creating stellar architecture since it used a virtual modeling process whose benefits were realized during all the phases of the project—design, procurement, detailing, fabrication, erection, and geometric control. Many of these benefits were tangible, such as the discovery of over 1,200 collisions prior to steel arrival, the completion of steel erection three months early which allowed the contractor to return nearly $400,000 to the City and County of Denver, the virtual elimination of field concrete core drilling and field steel sleeve installation, and the maintaining of the project schedule by using the model to ensure coordinate points and avoid the cycle of waiting for "field verified" dimensions. The models became the nucleus of communication and changed how the team interacted and collaborated, allowing conflicts to be resolved on the basis of the best "global" solution for the project. BIM is also starting to be used post-construction, with the 3D models and "fly-throughs" engaging the museum curators in special qualities of the galleries.

All of the major project stakeholders have used their experience on the Denver Art Museum project to further BIM and collaboration on subsequent projects. It has become a catalyst for innovation in the Denver design and construction market as well, with a wave of BIM utilization as a result of the intense adoption of BIM on this project.

Category: Design/Delivery Process Innovation Using BIM

The award winner in this category was GHAFARI Associates for its work on the Flint Global V6 Engine Plant Expansion for General Motors in Flint, Michigan. GHAFARI is a multi-disciplinary firm providing full-service architecture, design, and engineering services to a global client base that includes the aviation, automotive, corporate, industrial, healthcare, education and government sectors. It is one of the leading firms at the forefront of multi-disciplinary BIM implementation, which was described in detail in the AECbytes Feature article "Multi-Disciplinary BIM at Work at GHAFARI Associates" published last November. Let's take a closer look at its work on the Flint project which won it the BIM Award for "Design/Delivery Process Innovation Using BIM."

The Flint project is a 442,000 sq. ft. addition to a Global V6 engine plant for General Motors. GHAFARI was the A/E of record and the BIM integrator for the design/build team, working in collaboration with the lead contractor, The Ideal Contracting Inc. They were presented with the challenge to design and deliver this manufacturing facility under an extremely fast-tracked schedule of less than 40 weeks, while keeping the costs under control and maintaining the highest standards of quality and safety during construction. A comparable fast track design/bid/build could have required approximately 60 weeks from design to project closeout, while a fast track conventional design/build approach would have required approximately 50 weeks. To meet the schedule and cost requirements, one of the most critical requirements was that of ordering the 4500 tons of steel from the mill in less than 3 weeks from the start of design, as opposed to the normal time frame of 8-14 weeks. If the steel mill order could not be issued within the required 3 weeks, the mill rolling cycle would have been missed and the team would have been forced to order steel from the warehouses, significantly increasing cost.

The owner and the design/build team agreed from the start of the project to use 3D BIM during design and construction, as they knew that it could not be delivered on schedule and within budget if the team was to use conventional delivery systems and methodologies. The design team created 3D BIM models for all disciplines including architectural, structural, HVAC, plumbing, fire protection, and electrical systems using different Bentley BIM solutions (see Figure 3). The entire design was fully coordinated using the 3D models, after which the 2D documentation was extracted from them. Both the fully coordinated 3D models and the associated 2D documents were then released to the sub-contractors, who used the 3D models to produce installation drawings and, in some cases, to also drive their fabrication equipment. Even after the ownership of the models was transitioned to the sub-contractors and detailers, the design team continued to review the install level models with the sub-contractors until all issues were resolved prior to construction. Because of this process and the commitment from the installing contractors to build-to-the-model, there were zero changes due to design conflicts during the construction of the project.

Larger image

Important as 3D BIM was to the success of this project, also critical were factors such as advanced planning, supply chain project management, and team commitment to apply lean principles. GHAFARI created a dedicated advanced technologies group for the project that took the lead in applying lean construction principles and 3D enabled delivery for eliminating wasteful practices especially at handoffs between design, detailing, fabrication, and installation phases. A lean concept called "Kaizen Bursts" was used at various stages of the project to streamline workflow. Kaizen Bursts are short and focused sessions that include value stream mapping, analysis, and workflow re-engineering aimed at eliminating non-value adding activities. Collaboration was also greatly enhanced by key members of the design/build team including the A/E, sub-contractors, and the owner's engineering team co-locating at the offices of the General Contractor for approximately 3 months. At this co-location center, the design/build team worked closely to clarify project objectives, define scope, and fully coordinate the design prior to construction. As design decisions were being made, they were incorporated in the BIM models and reviewed for cost and constructability. Subsequently, all coordination and collaboration activities proceeded with weekly on-board reviews of the 3D model instead of the traditional 30/60/90 paper-based review.

An example of the use of a Kaizen Burst was in meeting the 3-week mill order date by eliminating wasteful activities inherent in 2D paper-based delivery at handoffs between the A/E and the fabricator. The A/E and the fabricator agreed to utilize intelligent 3D model exchange. The A/E's 3D analysis model was transmitted directly to the steel fabricator, who imported it into the detailing software and extracted steel quantities directly from the 3D model (see Figure 4). This allowed the key mill order date of 3 weeks to be met and the fabricator was able to start the detailing process early. The fabricator continued to submit weekly up-to-date steel 3D models to the A/E, which were distributed to the design/build team for coordination.

Larger image

Not only did the use of 3D BIM allow thousands of interferences to be detected and resolved prior to construction, the final 3D models were fully detailed to the installation level, which allowed the sub-contractors to maximize the benefits of off-site fabrication and pre-assembly. They were able to produce detailed quantity takeoffs and order material exactly as required. By delivering Just In Time (JIT) to the construction site, the time spent at the construction site was significantly reduced. It also allowed components to be installed to very tight tolerances, reducing waste. The construction site was well organized—construction crews rarely overlapped and dumpsters remained empty during construction due to the increased use of offsite fabrication, pre-assembly, and JIT delivery. Structural steel erection was completed 35 days early, with no changes during installation. MEP systems were also installed without any field rework. Installation of piping and HVAC systems was completed during the first few months of construction. The elimination of field changes, as well as reduction in the movement of people and material, improved site safety. The elimination of field changes also improved morale—workers took pride in their work by knowing they were installing it right the first time. The project was finally delivered to General Motors almost 5 weeks ahead of schedule (15% accelerated) with virtually no field overtime.

Category: Inspirational Pilot Projects Demonstrating New Ways Forward

The award winning project in this category was the Satterfield & Pontikes Corporate Headquarters in Houston, Texas (see Figure 5), for which the lead architect was Kirksey, a 100 person design firm that has designed over 40 million square feet and won 49 design awards. The owner of the project, Satterfield & Pontikes Construction Ltd., is a construction firm specializing in the construction of commercial, educational, and institutional facilities in Texas and across the Southeastern United States; it also acted as the lead contractor for the project. The requirement was to design an architecturally compelling, highly-leasable building that was operationally efficient and high-performing, with better control of factors that could impact construction cost and schedule. Of the target 65,000 sq. ft. of space in this three-story office building, 20,000 sq. ft. would function as the owner's headquarters, while the remainder would be available for lease. The project also aimed to adhere to the requirements of the United States Green Building Commission's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification to ensure that the building would be both sustainable and energy efficient.

This project was structured with a design-build team consisting of the owner/general contractor, architect, structural engineer, and MEP and selected subcontractors, with the common goal of using 3D tools to better coordinate, communicate, document and construct the building. The owner/contractor, Satterfield & Pontikes Construction Ltd., is a noted user of state-of-the-art technology in its projects and among other technological advancements, has developed its own proprietary software for web-based project management and cost accounting systems. It has also been involved in pioneering the use of integrated 3D modeling on publicly-funded projects. As the owner of this project, it wanted to validate the virtual/BIM process as being of greater value, an interest that came from years of looking for and demanding ever-better facilities.

The entire design-build team was assembled based on modeling capabilities, and each of the discipline-specific models were created with BIM applications. This includes ArchiCAD for the architectural model, Autodesk Revit Structure for the structural model, and TSI's CAD-Duct and QuickPen's PipeDesigner for the mechanical/plumbing models. In addition, many "supporting technologies" (see my recent article on the AIA National Convention for more on supporting technologies for BIM) were used, including DOE-2 for energy analysis, ETabs for structural analysis, and NavisWorks Jetstream for clash detection and collaboration. The use of an architectural BIM solution that was DOE-2 compatible allowed for early stage energy calculations and helped the architect to explore different options for aspects such as glazing and shading to make more educated decisions and provide valuable cost/payback calculations for the owner (see Figure 6). Using Navisworks, team members using different software platforms were able to integrate the architectural, structural and MEP models into one collective model. This was vital for coordination as it provided collision detection for model accuracy, multi-disciplinary documentation coordination requiring fewer RFIs, and complete project visualization for the entire team (see Figure 7).

The Satterfield & Pontikes project was also unique in its use of BIM solutions for construction, namely Graphisoft Estimator and Graphisoft Constructor, both of which are interoperable with ArchiCAD that was used to create the architectural model (for more on these construction solutions, see AECbytes Newsletter #15). Graphisoft Estimator was used for the customization of cost and scheduling data, while Graphisoft Constructor was used to generate a fully-coordinated construction schedule by directly referencing portions of the architectural model and linking them to construction activities. The ability to visualize and simulate the construction schedule helped to resolve constructability issues during the design process. The design model was also augmented by the contractor with the content for jobsite operations, formwork, and shoring for the self-performed concrete structure as well as safety—all essential to the execution of the project. Other uses of the model were for the efficient creation of construction documentation and for providing the salient information needed for speedier fabrication.

Because the team in this pilot project was assembled based on modeling capabilities, each member of the team had an invested buy-in to the project. All the members participated in defining the objectives, constraints and process changes necessary to establish a replicable manufacturing process across the various stages of project programming, design and construction. It is this close collaboration and commitment to common goals that should allow the project to clear traditional construction barriers and realize the benefit of currently available technologies. With the design and engineering phase of the project nearing completion, the team has realized many of its goals, both in establishing a superior design process and in the building design produced. The use of BIM has yielded higher quality decision-making, greater velocity and has not increased expense. There is a strong confidence that the goals associated with constructability, quality and schedule will also be realized during construction.

This concludes the first part of the BIM Awards that were presented at the AIA TAP conference in June. Stay tuned for a discussion of the award winning projects in the remaining three categories in the August issue of the AECbytes "Building the Future" series.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the winning firms cited here who allowed me to use the material they had submitted for the BIM Awards for the purpose of writing this article.

About the Author

Lachmi Khemlani is founder and editor of AECbytes. She has a Ph.D. in Architecture from UC Berkeley, specializing in intelligent building modeling, and consults and writes on AEC technology. She can be reached at lachmi@aecbytes.com.