It has been a long time coming, but after thinking about my GUIDs last week this week I have a special treat for you. I have completed all of the deliverables associated with my Architectural Model, so I thought I would share them with you.
Now you may have noticed that in my BIM Execution Plan, I am Author, Checker, and Approver of all the project information; this isn’t exactly a good way to managing the exchange of information. Therefore, I am recruiting you (yes you, no not the other people who read this blog, specifically YOU!) to review this information on my behalf. There will be a fortnight given for any comments that come out of this review of the information before it is formally released. The first person who suggests each amendment will be credited on here when the information is authorized and considered complete. Think of yourselves as the Task Information Managers for my project.
In accordance with my Employer’s Information Requirements, and BIM Execution Plan I intend to issue the following information:
- 7001-BBH-XX-XX-M3-A-0001, Architectural Native Model; and
- 7001-BBH-XX-XX-M3-A-0002, FM Handover IFC Model
- 7001-BBH-ZZ-XX-IE-A-0001, COBie.
- 7001-BBH-XX-XX-DR-A-1001, Existing Ground and First Floor Plans;
- 7001-BBH-XX-ZZ-DR-A-2001, Existing Elevations; and
- 7001-BBH-XX-ZZ-DR-A-3001, Existing Section.
The purpose of the Architectural model has been purely to create the other deliverables so it is OK if that is a little rough around the edges. There are limitations on renaming system families and other little quirks I can’t seem to get past using the software in it’s default form. From the Native Model I have produced the drawings listed above as well as my FM handover IFC model which was then used to generate my COBie file. Note: For transparency I have marked all of the modified files in my COBie as red. What is important is the quality of the deliverables.
Now I am going to be 100% honest here. These files are not perfect.
There are three main reasons for this:
- I have been ill all week so I haven’t been able to give it the time (IfcViolin);
- There are still data export issues out of Revit I have yet to resolve; and
- I’m bound to made mistakes due to human error (and the fact I can’t spell).
But what’s important to remember is that this isn’t an exercise to show off a perfect model (it is far from perfect) it is an exercise to locate and fix anything that I have missed that will adversely affect how the deliverables impact on how I undertaken my Model Purposes.
If I have avoided causing these issues then these items will be authorized and I will have produced a native model, COBie, and a number of PDF deliverables to BIM Level 2 that satisfy both my Employer’s Information Requirements, and BIM Execution Plan. Fantastic.
And there we have it, subject to your scrutiny I have now completed the deliverables associated to my Architectural Model. This means that once these items have been approved and authorized, I will have completed PLQ2.5 for my Architectural information!
2.1 What existing information is available?
2.2 Is there sufficient information to produce a BEP?
2.3 What is the layout of the house?
2.4 What assets are contained within?
2.5 What asset information can be linked to the graphical model?
Now that I have the Architectural information out for review, I need to publish my Mechanical and Electrical models…
4 thoughts on “PLQ2.5 – Architectural Review”
Dan, on your file naming, should your Volume field not by ZZ for ‘All Volumes’? I understand the logic you have used and it may be mildly pedantic (I know you’re a stickler for your Standards though!) but even if you haven’t defined any Volumes or Systems by default it would be either All Volumes or 01 (assuming a single volume), no?
I’ll have a look over the files themselves later today hopefully.
Hi Keith, yes you are right.
I was adamant that there used to be a ‘XX’ no associated volumes. However, as you point out I am a stickler for the standards, and my BEP does say the current version of BS1192 which only includes ‘ZZ’. As a quick fix I have updated my BEP, and will be renaming my deliverables when I incorporate any other changes others identify. Thank you, keep them coming!
[…] PLQ2.5 – Architectural Review […]
[…] PLQ2.5 – Architectural Review […]