Trigger’s Gutter

Hello BIMfans,
After the best part of a year using sites like Rated People (which found me a dodgy builder), and MyBuilder.com (which found me a good one), I have finally had some work done to Ty Crempog!!

Due to the terrible join between my square gutters and the neighbours OG gutters, the getter leaks whenever it rains (which as you can imagine, is quite a lot of the time in South Wales!).  This leak soaks our party garden wall, causing damp in both of our dining rooms.  In addition, there was a similar poor join out the front and insufficient ventilation to the attic space.  So to resolve these issues, I formed a plan to replace the fascias and guttering, introduce a ventilated fascias, and resolve these details.  With the work now complete, I have to complete a Trigger-related event to update my asset information.

According to the BRE BIM Terminology tool, a Trigger-related event is:

Response to a trigger and the reflection of the altered state of the asset in the AIM

In a previous post on GUIDs, I discussed Trigger-related events, detailed in PAS 1192-3, and what to do about them in my information model, creating what I called the ‘Sticker Rule‘.  This sticker rule dealt with my own version of the Trigger’s Broom paradox, where I wondered if when I replaced a part of Ty Crempog, should it get a new globally unique identifier or GUID.  I decided that new components need new GUIDs.

triggersgutter
If the reference is lost (especially if you aren’t British), watch this YouTube clip.

So then, by following the sticker rule and my Employer’s Information Requirements, I needed to update my graphical model by deleting the existing fascias and gutters and create new instances for their replacements.  But what were they replaced with?

This led to a practical BIM problem:

How do I get my builder (who has never even heard of BIM) to give me good quality information to input into my information model?

Simple, I just asked them.

Now it would have been much easier if South West Fascias had provided me with a Product Data Sheet for the products being used.  A product data sheet, such as those from goBIM by Cobuilder, would have provided me with all the information I needed in either an Excel or COBie format.  A key advantage of product data sheets is that instead of me searching for this information (and being liable for its accuracy), the information could have been provided by the supplier, saving time and reducing my risk.

gobim
Look at all those lovely fields of information I could have had access to

Anyway, as this was not something that could be provided, I asked South West Fascias for the product details for what was installed.  They then provided me with details of the merchants and products that were used (AAC Weston for the eaves protection system, fascias, gutters and downpipes, and Travis Perkins for the dry verge system). This information was enough for me to find the products, and extract from these websites the relevant product information I needed.

Principally four sets of products were used along with their associated fixing and accessories:

  • Eaves Protection System
  • Fascia Board
  • Dry Verge
  • Guttering & down pipes

Eaves Protection System

To resolve the lack of clear ventilation in my attic, I opted for an Eaves Protection System (EPS).  The EPS coupled with some boarding will allow me to preserve the attics ventilation strategy when I increase the insulation (to be seen in a future post!). Now the EPS is fairly cheap (£2.45 per unit) and small enough that I wouldn’t bother modelling it.  Partly because of its value, as well as the fact that it wouldn’t really be seen at 1:50.  So, to include information about the EPS without modelling it, I have added some simple product information to my roof’s ‘features’ property.

properties
Through a variation of the BS 8541-1 naming convention, I have included the supplier, type, product, and supplier’s reference in a single field.

 

Fascia Board

While I was having the work done I opted to have my timber fascia boards removed and replaced with new plastic fascias.  At roof level, these were 150mm Fascia Boards, and around my bay 175mm Fascia Boards.  I updated my fascia profiles in the graphical model to suit, and have included some basic information such as acquisition date, URL, and cost.

Note:  I would have liked to include more information, but due to the way that system families work in Revit, many of the properties that are applied to the families wouldn’t appear.  Luckily for me, these objects aren’t maintainable, so they don’t appear in COBie.

Dry Verge System

Part of the work was also to resolve an issue I was having with my verge, to resolve the poor detailing.  The solution we agreed was to install a dry verge system.  The system chosen was the Easyverge system, a series of interlocks pieces to create a watertight dry verge system as shown.

Dry Verge.jpg
My roof is so happy, you can see it has shed a tear.

Now you would expect a system like this to be difficult to model (and it would have been). However, as my Responsibility Matrix within my BIM Execution Plan only requires a Level of Detail of 3, I am able to represent the system with a fairly modest profile.

7001-bbh-zz-zz-m3-a-0001
See, so much easier when I cheat use appropriate levels of detail.

Guttering & Down pipes

Finally, I needed up remove my existing guttering and down pipes from the graphical model and create new instances for their replacements.  They were replaced with 68mm black round system to match other nearby houses.  As my down pipes are not system families I was able to include much more information including South West Fascias guarantee information, and contact details.

Gutters.jpg
Much better, and more importantly, full of information

And there we have it.  By having work done to my home, I have caused a trigger-related event to occur which has led me to update the asset information model that I maintain.  This means that as my home is modified to suit my needs, I continue to have accurate information at my disposal to be able to make the right decisions about what to do next; Excellent.

Note:  If you have any comments regarding how I represented these new products, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ 3.1 – Outstanding Openings

Hello BIMfans,
After completing my BIM Level 2 deliverables and publishing my Project Information Model it’s about time I put my model to work.  I have now entered the operational stage, which means I have some new Plain Language Questions to answer:

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

So without further ado, let’s tackle Plain Language Question 3.1 “What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?”

construction-architecture-fails-mistakes-7
This is what happens when you accidentally flip your door vertically instead of horizontally in the model…

Now lucky for me, I have (technically) already answered this question as my Architectural COBie file has all of this information I need already included.  However, I don’t feel that COBie is the best way to communicating this information as I haven’t imported it into a suitable asset management tool (yet) and the information needed is on several different sheets.

doorwindowcobie
Sizes are on the type worksheet, while assessment information the attribute worksheet.

So I have instead decided to answer this question with a schedule.  As I have all the information within my model, it is just a matter of deciding how I want to structure my schedule and what information would be useful to include within it.

To answer my Plain Language Question, I will need Size (Height and Width) as well as Assessment Condition as a minimum.  However, to relate these back I will also need a reference for each component (IfcName), and a type reference (TypeName).

In addition, to make the schedule useful it is worth providing the type description (IfcDescription) as well as indicating which space each component is in, as well as the other assessment details (AssessmentDate and AssessmentDescription) to provide sufficient content.  This leaves me with a schedule that looks like this:

DoorSchedule Header

This scheduling format provides me with enough information to assess each of my doors and windows, find their location within my home, and includes enough information to arrange for a replacement if required.  Luckily for me, I could put all of this information onto a single A3 sheet, which can be accessed here.

SheduleDrawing.JPG
*Dan’s perfectionism sense is tingling* Why couldn’t I have only 4 door types??

 

Note:  You’ll notice that I have named this deliverable: 7001-BBH-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-6001. While full of schedule information, it is a drawing.  If I had exported this information as a spreadsheet then it would have been a schedule, using the SH file type. However, as the schedule’s information cannot be referenced (can’t import this into Excel) and it is placed on a title block, it’s a drawing.

From this schedule, it is plain to see what my back door (DoorType04, Door05) and my bathroom window (WindowType08, Window09) require work.  There is visible rot on my back door and something that I had never noticed before about my bathroom window is that instead of a sill the installer used is actually a skirting board!

WindowSill.jpg
What kind of monster would do this??

And there we have it.  By using the information that I have already populated within my information model I was able to create a Door & Window Schedule with all of the information to answer this Plain Language Question and picked up which of these components need work. This means that PLQ3.1 is complete; Woohoo!

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that I have used by schedule to assess my doors and windows, it’s about time I look at what else needs doing around my home…

Update: Removed ‘OK’ for ‘Adequate’ under Assessment Condition to suit BS1192-4 permitted values as opposed to the IFC4 documentation example.  Thanks Nick!

Update: Turns out I had mislabelled by window openings showing them bottom hung as opposed to top hung (Ooops!); a quick check of BS8541-2 and it is all fixed.  Thanks Chris!

Update:  Changed ‘Mark’ to ‘IfcName to improve information consistency in all of my deliverables.  Tags, Schedules, and COBie now use IfcName consistently.

2016 – The Year of the House

Hello BIMfans,
Welcome to the final post of 2016.

This year has been huge for There’s No BIM Like Home.  The blog only started back in March, and has already got 42 blog posts, and has achieved the goal of delivering a full set of BIM Level 2 deliverables before Christmas this year.

What I am most proud of (apart from being able to check my light bulb fittings from my phone), is how small my IFC files are.  With many forums stating that IFC files can be 2-5 times larger than the native model file, mine have come out around 5MB less which ranging from a 50% decrease to just over 90%!  See for yourself below.  This is due to the fact, that I have used my Property Definition File to strip out all of the excess properties and only exchange what I need.

modelsizes
As Dewey Oxburger Said:  I’m a lean, mean, IFC Machine

There’s No BIM Like Home was started as a challenge I set to myself, as someone who writes, educates, advises, researches, and audits BIM Level 2; I wanted to show myself that I can practice what I preach.  As a Chartered Architectural Technologist, I have delivered a number of projects, but none were sufficiently BIM mature before I joined BRE. I feel that this blog has allowed me to do just that, and the support has been incredible.

2016map
This is either an image of all the countries that have viewed this blog, or a very boring game of Risk.  Anyone want to help me fill the gaps??

At the time of writing this post (23/12/2016), the blog has been viewed in over 101 different countries, my Google Drive has been accessed over 800 times, my posts have been seen by over 7300 unique visitors, and my posts and pages have been viewed over 15,000 times!!

8-bit-trophy-gaming-news-roundupThe prize for the most viewed blog post goes to:  The BIM Explainer with over 1500 views alone!

And the wooden spoon going to my least viewed page, Testimonials with 34 views (Well it is blank after all!).

Well not for long…

I have gotten lots of support through this year, so a big thank you to anyone that has supported by sharing, commenting, or contributing (You know who you are!).  However, one person in particular has been especially supportive.  Nick Nisbet Director of AEC3 and Vice-chair of buildingSMART UK & Ireland is not only an author of some of the standards I have discussed; but has also been an avid reader who has been keen to comment and pass on useful insights where possible.  So I wanted to give Nick a special thank you.

In return, Nick has kindly written me my first Testimonials, which is also very in-keeping with the tone of the blog.  Feel free to send your own testimonials in too; *wink cough*.

Nick Nisbet
nisbetDirector, AEC3
Vice-chair, buildingsmart UK & Ireland
Co-author of COBie, BS1192:2007 and BS1192-4
“Avoiding all stereotypes, Dan’s Welshness hasn’t stopped him to bring calm clarity and purposefulness to show that the standards not only make sense but work!”

🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟

So what will 2017 bring for There’s No BIM Like Home?  Well the first major change is that blog posts will no longer be weekly.

After much consideration, now that my information model is complete I cannot keep the same pace going without it affecting the quality of what is produced (or the happiness of my fiancee!).  As such the blog will aim to post less frequently (monthly-ish?) to complete my remaining operational Plain Language Questions, as well as following the installation of any new Smart Products, minor works that trigger an update to the information model as per my Employer’s Information Requirements, as well as a few planned revisions of previous posts.  I’m really enjoying blogging about my home, so I hope you continue to follow me on this journey.

And there we have it, with 2016 coming to a close, there is a whole world of adventures waiting for Ty Crempog in 2017.  Just remember that no matter where you are, There’s No BIM Like Home.

PLQ 2.5 – Information Model Complete!

Hello BIMfans,
As promised, after last week’s post about my Architectural model, I have resolved all the additional comments you have provided (Thank you).  This means that my information is ready to be formally shared, completing Plain Language Question 2.5.

Completed_stamp.png
Links to the project outputs can be found below and in the main menu.

Once again, a big thank you to everyone who took the time to review my project outputs.  All of your comments have been very constructive and have led to a better, and more compliant project; so thank you.  Right, let’s see that I have resolved this week:

Property Sets:

I was told that within my IFC files, I had not grouped my properties under the correct property sets.  To check this, I consulted the NBIMS COBie Responsibility Matrix, and the IFC 2×3 Schema.  When doing so, I found that I had indeed not grouped my properties correctly.  Luckily for me, this was a pretty quick fix as the property sets are controlled by the Property Set Definition Text File that I used when exportting.  I also had a few properties that didn’t fit into any property sets, such as the FensaCertID for my windows, so I created my own property set called ‘Addition_Pset_Custom’.  Note:  Revit can’t do property grouping, so this can only be seen within my IFC file.

propertiesresolved

Credit: Rob Jackson (@BondBryanBIM) of Bond Bryan Digital.

Default COBie Values:

I was told that some of the default values I had used in my COBie file were not correct.  Once again I referred to the NBIMS COBie Responsibility Matrix and found that some of my default values where indeed not compliant.  To be perfectly honest, I took the easy road any defaulted any values I didn’t know to ‘n/a‘, not applicable.  However, n/a isn’t always suitable, as it breaks the formatting of a number of fields.  For example, all elements should have an installation date and if the date isn’t known it should default to ‘1900-12-31T23:59:59‘. My house was built around then, so it’ll confuse matters for items I know were built later than that, but that’s the rule!

newinstallationdate
It might be correct, but now my boiler is as old as the house…

Credit:  Dan Mofakham of Cadan Design.

Drawing Annotations:

I was also noted that I hadn’t put any section or elevation annotations on my drawing sheets.  The reason for this is typically when using Revit , the BS 1192 file name is used as the sheet number, this helps locate the file when exporting, however, if do this your section head looks something like this…

section-before
Urgh…I think I’m going to be sick

Luckily for me, I have a solution; it relies on the fact that the file name isn’t the sheet number.  Those of you who read Drawing to Conclusions will have noticed that ISO 7200 requires a sheet number; however this sheet number isn’t the file name, it is a single number showing its place in the package being issued.

7200
In ISO 7200 the sheet number is 1 (of 5), not AB123 456-7

Now BS 8541-2 specifically states sheet number; not the file name.  So as I used both of these standards in tandem, I have a similar convention on my title block to get the following block and section head.

section-after
and just like that, order has been restored

Note: I know A LOT of you will dislike this; tough.

Credit:  Me!

And there we have it.  Thanks to the continued support of this wonderfully open community, I have been provided with a myriad of comments to improve the deliverables within my information model.  The Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical Native, IFC, and COBie files have all now been issued.  This means that PLQ2.5 is finally complete; Woohoo!

Model Generation:
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 finished my model generation Plain Language Questions, let’s reflect on this year…

Note:  If you have any comments regarding my information model or how I have resolved these issues, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ2.5 – Check, Review, Approve

Hello BIMfans,
After publishing my Architectural Model and my Mechanical and Electrical Models last week.  This week I am looking at some of the pedantic fantastic comments you have provided back and what I have done to resolve them; thank you for these.  Remember there is still another week to contribute so keep those comments coming!

So let’s see what comments I have had back.

commentsmeme

Volume Code

I was told that I have used the wrong volume code.  I had issued using the volume code XX-‘No associated Volume’, however, my Employer’s Information Requirements clearly states that I need to follow BS1192, which uses the default code ZZ-‘All Volumes’.  I agree, and have now renamed all of my outputs to use ZZ, and updated the appropriate sections of my BIM Execution Plan to suit.  Technically I complied with my BEP, but as Keith told me, I am a stickler for the standards!

Credit: Keith Wilkinson (@StudioBIM) of JM Architects.

COBie Contacts

I was told that my COBie contact sheet should include all of the suppliers, installers, and other contacts related to my home; not just the project design team.  I agree, and have now revised my COBie contact sheet to include all of the applicable contacts.  It’s hard to find guidance on the scope of this worksheet #excuse, but Dan knows his stuff!  I also really don’t like using the PM table in uniclass 2015 for this, but there isn’t a roles table.

contacts
I also have a spare at the bottom for any unknown contacts and to be DPA compliant I’ve only used email and contact details that are publicly available.

Credit:  Dan Mofakham of Cadan Design.

COBie Documents

I was told that my COBie documents sheet should be populated with my other outputs such as my drawings.  I agree, and as Revit cannot hold this information have used my COBie Post-process sheet to record all of the applicable outputs.  Nick, as usual, is technically correct (the best kind of correct).

Credit:  Nick Nisbet (@NickNisbet) of AEC3.

I was also told that my COBie documents sheet should include other documents such as my property condition survey and any designer risk assessments.  I agree, however, there are no designer risk assessments as I haven’t done any design on this project.  Similar to the above I have used my COBie Post-process sheet to record all of the applicable documents as well as my outputs.  Good thing I have no design, as I have no PI insurance!

Credit:  Chris Weston (@CWeston222) of Rio Architects.

documents
From my Prologue, you can see I have a lot of documents to manage.

COBie Jobs

I was told that my COBie jobs sheet is empty, therefore I must not maintain my home.  I agree with this, but as I have pointed out in a previous post, jobs are optional; so I am not going to use it.  However, on reflection it is worth considering, so It’ll feature in the new year when I am looking at my operational Plain Language Questions.  As I told Chris, despite what my COBie sheet says, I do vacuum my house!

Credit:  Chris Weston (@CWeston222) of Rio Architects.

IFC Co-ordinates

I was told that my IFC file contains some co-ordinates for my house; luckily for me those Co-ordinates are in London.  This is because of my data security requirements within my Employer’s Information Requirements stated each model had to have the co-ordinates of 0,0,0; and without changing the location in Revit, it has defaulted to London.  As a proud Welshman I’m disappointed of this default location, but happy my data security measures have worked!

projectbasepoint

Credit:  Nick Nisbet (@NickNisbet) of AEC3.

Splash Screen

Also, keeping with my BIM execution plan, I had also stated that all outputs should include my ISO7200 title block, but I had not included it in my native models.  To resolve this, I have added them as a splash screen when the models are opened.  Do I get points for spotting my own mistakes?

SplashScreen.JPG
This has had the added benefit of reducing my file size by 500KB as my model no longer has to store such a detailed thumbnail image

Credit: Me!

Note: I have also had one or two comments about the data format of some of my COBie fields. However, I’m aware of some other comments about this due next week, so I will deal with them all during next week’s post while I publish my documents.

And there we have it.  Thanks to the support of our wonderfully open community, I have been provided with a number of fantastic comments have have been used to improve the outputs from my information model.  This means that following another week of excellent input I should be ready to complete PLQ2.5!

Model Generation:
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 first set of comments resolved, lets see what you guys come up with next week…

PLQ2.5 – M&E Review

Hello BIMfans,
After releasing my Architectural model last week for review, this week it is time for me to release both my Mechanical model and Electrical model; completing the set of deliverables I aim to produce for my home from my Information model.  I have already had a few comments come in about my Architectural model, so please keep those comments coming in (be as pedantic as you like, honestly)!

7001-bbh-zz-zz-m3-m-0001
Why is my house now transparent (maybe because all the clubs have been closed down or too much fighting on the dance floor)?

Much like last week because in my BIM Execution Plan I am: Author, Checker, and Approver of all the project information, I am recruiting you to review this information on my behalf.  As with my Architectural model, there will be a fortnight given for any comments that come out of this review so that I can update 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.

uncledan
Yes it’s the same image from last, yes that seems a little lazy, yes I don’t care.

I will cover these in greater detail next week, but here are some of the comments I have already had back.

Volume Code:

I was correctly informed that I should be using ZZ instead of XX for my volume code, as specified in BS1192. so I have preemptively addressed this in my Mechanical and Electrical models, and revised my BIM Execution Plan.

Jobs:

I was asked why I don’t clean or maintain my house as my job sheet is blank.  As Revit cannot record these jobs, I’d need another database. I will create this schedule when I begin to look at my Operational Plain Language Questions in the new year.

roomba
Maybe I can use it as an excuse to get a Roomba

Documents:

I have also been asked why there are no designers risk assessments linked to my COBie documents tab.  Luckily for me, I have done no design on this project (and have no PI insurance to back it up!) so there are no risk assessments as a result.

In accordance with my Employer’s Information Requirements, and BIM Execution Plan I intend to issue the following information:

Graphical Models

Non-Graphical Data

Documentation

  • None

So please go forth, review, and report back.  As I mentioned last week, these models aren’t perfect, and my terrible spelling with have caused typo’s throughout; so there will be plenty to find (I won’t be crediting typos; there is only so much space I can give to a blog post).

As with last week, the purpose of the native models have been purely to create the other deliverables so it is OK if that is a little rough around the edges.  For context, from the Native Models I have produced the drawings listed above as well as my FM handover IFC model which was then used to generate my COBie deliverables. Note:  For transparency, I have marked all of the modified fields in my COBie as red. What is important is the quality of the deliverables.

Clash.png
Also now that I have multiple models, feel free to run some clash detection too.  No, not that clash…

And there we have it, subject to your scrutiny I have now completed the deliverables associated to my Mechanical model and Electrical model.  This means that once these items have been approved and authorized, I will have completed PLQ2.5 for my all of my information!

Model Generation:
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 Mechanical and Electrical information out for review, let’s release my Architectural information…

PLQ2.5 – Architectural Review

Hello BIMfans,
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.

7001-BBH-XX-ZZ-M3-A-0001.jpg
If only I could find out how to add colour…

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.

uncledan
…to review his deliverables

In accordance with my Employer’s Information Requirements, and BIM Execution Plan I intend to issue the following information:

Graphical Models

Non-Graphical Data

Documentation

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 fileNote:  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:

  1. I have been ill all week so I haven’t been able to give it the time (IfcViolin);
  2. There are still data export issues out of Revit I have yet to resolve; and
  3. 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!

Model Generation:
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…

Drawing to Conclusions

Hello BIMfans,
During the development of my information models, I have considered a lot of different aspects, including Mindful Modelling, Open data and Producing with Purpose.  However, these information models aren’t the only deliverable I should be concerned with.  I will also need to produce documentation, such as COBie and, more importantly, drawings.

architect-plans-hard-copy-print
Yes, drawings are still needed when following BIM processes!

To produce objects for my information models, there are standards such as the BS 8541 Series, to produce COBie there are standards such as NBIMS 4.2 and BS 1192-4, but what about for producing drawings?  In fact, there are a lot of supporting standards that cover the various elements of drawing production including:

Paper Sizes:

As I wanted to create several drawings including plans, elevations, and sections, I needed a readily available paper size (that didn’t require a large format plotter), so I chose A3. A3 is a standard size, 297x420mm, specified within ISO 216. The beauty of the A-series is that they are easily scalable; doubling in size as you go up the series.  This is because they are based on √2.  I’d love to explain this to you in detail, but Numberphile have kindly already done this for me!

Now that I’ve chosen my paper size.  I need to define my drawing border.

Drawing Border:

There is an international drawing border specified within ISO 5457. It states that the drawings space for an A3 sheet is 277x390mm; giving 20mm clearance on the left to allow for filing and 10mm of clearance on the remaining sides. It also states that drawing borders should have centre lines, a grid system and trim markings; which when combined, look like this:

iso5457drawingsheet
I like the specified ‘A3’ the corner to indicate the paper size, but to be honest, this feels a little over the top; no matter it’s in the ISO!

Now that I have a drawing border, I need to add a title block.

Title block:

There is an international set of title block fields within ISO 7200ISO 7200 covers all document headers and title blocks, meaning that it is applicable to anything from drawings and calculation sheets to splash screens and metadata.  It states that the following fields are mandatory:

  • Legal owner;
  • Identification number;
  • Date of issue;
  • Segment/sheet number;
  • Title;
  • Approval person;
  • Creator; and
  • Document Type.

In addition to these, I also want to include several of the optional fields including project name, document revision, document status, and technical reference from an expanded list within EN 82045-2 which specifies metadata for document management.  This will not only allow me to comply with ISO 7200, but also capture additional information that I wish to share.

Now how should I arrange these fields?  Originally, I had created a horizontal title block but ISO 9431 states that the title block space is also used for text notes. Wanting to keep this space to a minimum, I have =produced a vertical title block to the minimum specified width of 100mm.

TitleBlock

Note:  To better align with ISO 19650-2 I have changed Technical Reference to ‘Checked by’ and renamed Approval Person and Creator as ‘Approved by’ and ‘Created by’ respectively.

Note:  This is also my splash screen to ensure that I manage models using the same metadata have I use for drawings and other deliverables.

Now that I have a title block, I just need to add my text notes.

Space for Notes

The space for notes on drawings is specified within in ISO 9431ISO 9431 states that there should be a space, the length of the title block, for three kinds of notes:

  • Explanations (notes that help read the drawing);
  • Instructions (notes on how to use the drawing); and
  • References (notes on supplementary drawings and documents).

Under explanations, I’ve added a note on general tolerances as specified within ISO 2768, a note on dimension units as specified within ISO 129-1 and a note on symbols as specified within BS 8541-2.  Under instructions, I had added ‘do not scale’, however I am aware that many planning authorities do not accept drawings with this note.  Because of this I have instead used ‘Responsibility is not accepted for values obtained in scaling from this drawing’.  Under references, I’ve included a schedule of relevant drawings.

Font

There is an international font for CAD drawings specified within ISO 3098-5.  As you are no doubt aware, no annotation is complete without a good font, for CAD there is no font better than the ISOCP fonts (These fonts come preinstalled in most CAD software).  These fonts are Sans-Serif (without serifs), and looks like this:

quickbimfox

Putting all of these elements together, I get the following super-ISO title block:

TitleBlock_Complete
At A3 the notes section looks quite large, it looks much better on A1 drawings!

Now that I have put all of these standards together, I am able to complete my drawings; producing the following for Tŷ Digidol:

NOTE:  All of these international standards are also conveniently summed up in a single British Standard, BS 8888.  Thank you John Ford for letting me know!

And there we have it, by thinking about how to produce my drawings, I have been able to apply several international and national standards to produce an internationally consistent drawing border and title block.  This is a big help towards the completion of PLQ2.5!

Model Generation:
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 a system for producing each deliverable in place, It’s about time I shared them with you…

PLQ2.5 – To GUID or not GUID?

Hello BIMfans,
After last week’s post COBie Round 2 where I managed to solve many of my outstanding COBie issues, I was planning to provide an informative post about asset management as I was having my gutters replaced; sadly plans changed. *sigh*

Despite giving a very detailed explanation and approving an itemised quotation, my builders showed up with no clue of what work needed doing and once they were briefed and checked the stockists told me that they needed to pre-order the materials after they arrived on site to install (Don’t worry, they will be getting terrible review on Rated People!).

Two key points that resonate out of this omnishambles:

  1. The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.  Documents aside, how can I ensure that they can be turned into actions?
  2. I need a gutterer. If anyone knows someone who can come and fit new fascia, & gutter to my home; please let me know (Please!).

What is an Asset Identifier?

The work I was having done to my gutters got me thinking about Asset Identifiers and their use.  When I defined my Data Requirements I noted that I need to have a unique identifier for each of my assets so that each one has a unique reference to be registered, one of my Model Purposes.

assetmanagement
Good management (and good graphics) need good data.

According to the BRE BIM Terminology Tool, a Unique Identifier is:

Role of a character string when used for unambiguous reference to a concept or to an individual thing (e.g. a physical object or an aspect or a fact or a relation type) and that is unique within a particular common context, preferably in a universal context

By applying a Unique identifier to my components, I will have their Asset Identifiers.  To save on effort, I initially thought it would be a great idea to use each component’s Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) as the asset identifiers.  To do so, I had set my HandoverMapping file to populate the AssetIdentifier field with their respective GUIDs.

guid
Doing this is a stupid idea.

While it might seem logical at first as it does provide a unique identifier for each asset, I can’t control the GUID generated.  For example, shown below is the same door created in two difference instances of my house model.  Each was placed in the same location, when created each door and was given the same mark, but different GUIDs,

guidcompare
Not only are both GUIDs different, but I can’t change them.

Because I can’t change an object’s GUID it means that if I wanted to recreate my house model it would be impossible to match the same GUIDs, making them pointless as Asset Identifiers.  So I will instead be using numbers I can generate on Random.org‘s string generator.

stringmeme

What Triggers an Asset Identifier Change?

Now having an Asset Identifier is one thing, managing it is quite another.  If the builders had actually done what I expected, I would have new gutters; should these new gutters get a new Asset Identifiers?  To get an idea I asked Twitter:

twitterpoll

As you can see, the majority of voters opted for a new identifier (and I agree) but it depends on the situation, as it is not manageable to do this every time an asset is modified. Therefore, I need is to define what operational actions are considered to be ‘trigger-related events’.

According to the BRE BIM Terminology Tool, a Trigger Related-event is:

Response to a trigger and the reflection of the altered state of the asset in the AIM

Information around triggers and trigger-related events can be found within PAS1192-3.  In particular, Annex A.5 provides a schedule of triggers which includes asset replacement. So I have decided to instigate what I am calling the ‘Sticker rule’.

assettag

Imagine that every component in my home has an asset tag sticker.  Any trigger that involves replacing a component will need a new sticker, because the current one is stuck to the old component (on its way to the tip); a new sticker means a new asset identifier.

So to capture this I have modified my Employer’s Information Requirements to include the following clause:

When managing the information model during operation, asset information shall be updated following the schedules trigger-related events below:

  • Receipt of information following minor works;
  • Receipt of information following major works;
  • Performance evaluation of an asset;
  • Condition evaluation of an asset;
  • Maintenance work on an asset, whether planned or reactive;
  • Asset replacement; and
  • Change in maintainer of an asset.

Where a trigger-related event has resulted in the replacement of any assets, those assets shall be given new Asset Identifiers.

Who knows, maybe when I eventually find someone to do some work on my home, I might be able to put this into practice!

And there we have it, by thinking about how I am going to use my asset information I have started to establish a simple and pragmatic trigger event strategy to control how and when I update my Asset Information Model.  All good information to help complete PLQ2.5!

Model Generation:
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 a system in-place, I need to do some data entry into my model…

PLQ2.5 – COBie Round 2

Hello BIMfans,
After Revisiting my BIM Execution Plan, this week I am taking the final steps before I complete my Architectural Graphical Model and produce its associated BIM Level 2 deliverables.  Previously on this blog I have had a look at COBie during COBie Round 1 and found a number of issues which I discussed in further detail during Bridge the Attribute Gap.  This week I am come up with the solutions (by hook or by crook) to allow me to complete my COBie files.

manhappy
As you can tell from the image, things have gone much smoother this time.

When forming my Employer’s Information Requirements, I considered the Purposes I was going to use this information model for as well as the associated Data Requirements. To resolve the issues presented in Bridging the Attribute Gap. I have come up with a number of ‘fixes’…

custom
The majority of my ‘fixes’ have been through using a custom text file to map parameters.  If you want to have a look you can see it here.

I previously discussed issues with the ‘Contacts’ worksheet due to the fact that Revit hasn’t got the functionality to store multiple contacts for a project.  While this is resolved through the COBie Extension for Revit, the extension isn’t compatible with my IFC approach.  So to resolve this I have come up with a lazy pragmatic solution.

It states within BS1192-4 that:

In federated BIM (level 2) projects, information for COBie is likely to be
available from the models, structured specifications and other schedules.
(4.2.2 Note 1)

So as the model cannot hold this information effectively, I have created a project document to schedule this information; my Project Contract Sheet.  This sheet, has been set up to be used to capture the contact information of all project participants and has been aligned to the COBie structure so that the schedule can be easily used to populate Contact worksheet after being exported (Cough…Copy…Cough…Paste).

Some might call this cheating (I call it effective project management).  A project contact sheet should be formed for project anyway, so why not align it to COBie and use it as the schedule?

informationmodel
Remember there are three parts to an Information Model, all I am doing is storing the data in a Non-graphical form.

Also, since Bridging the Attribute Gap, I have also resolved a number of outstanding attribute issues.  I mentioned previously that my home has no ‘Zones’, that due to a lack of access I will not be modelling ‘Connections’, and that I do not hold any ‘Spares’ in my home.  Also as far as I’m aware, no items that I maintain have any product required ‘Jobs’ to maintain their operation or warranty (apart from my Mattress and SmartHome kit I’m 90% nothing else is in Warranty), meaning that I also don’t require any ‘Resources’ to complete these non-existent jobs. Therefore, only the following outstanding attributes remain unresolved:

Facility:  Currency Unit (Not supported in Revit)
Facility:  AreaUnitMeasure (I have no formal convention so I’ve not looked into it)
Facility:  Description (No IfcBuilding equivalent in Revit to attach a description to)
*RESOLVED:  BuildingLongName is needed as a shared parameter*
Type/Component: Description (I can make it work for one or the other, never both)
Attribute: Unit (Not Supported in Revit)
Attribute: Allowed Values (Not Supported in Revit)

To fix these items until they are supported, I have started to create a schedule of Post-export changes to be applied to my COBie sheets.

attributespost
Shown are the current fields that need to be altered post-export to my attributes worksheet.

Some might call this cheating (I say you are probably right!).  However, does it matter?

The spirit of the BIM process is to provide the right information, to the right people, at the right time.  If I have to do a little ‘post’ to achieve it, so what?  The important part is that the process is managed.  Because I have clearly outlined by process and kept this information in separate databases I see no problem with this approach.  If you are interested, you can have a look at how close my current COBie outputs are; anything modified in post has been marked in red.

Note:  It is worth noting at many fields have ‘n/a’ due to the lack of existing information as opposed to the lack of data input…

windowadditionalattributes
As a bonus, because I have exported my files via IFC, I can limit my attributes, for example these are the only additional attributes I am exporting about WindowType01.  This helps keep my COBie lean (and relevant).

And there we have it, aside from the properties I have identified above, I have demonstrated here and through previous posts that I am able to populate my information model and export out the data I need into COBie.  Hopefully in the next week or two (free time permitting) I will be able to finish formatting the objects within my Architectural model to be able to issue it as complete.  This means that I am very close to completing  PLQ2.5!

Model Generation:
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 proven the process works, let’s put it into practice…