1. No category

Tietomallintamisen
kansainvälinen tulevaisuus
Prof. Arto Kiviniemi
School of Architecture
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Current BIM adoption and trend
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Fast growing BIM adoption
USA
28%
USA
49%
Europe
36%
USA
71%
* Germany,
France, UK
2007
2009
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
2010
2012
Sources: McGraw Hill: The Business Value of BIM in North America 2012
McGraw Hill: The Business Value of BIM in Europe 2010
Source: Building Information Modeling: A Platform For Global AEC Change
Robert
Middlebrooks,
AIA Autodesk
Strategic
Industry Relations
2012
School
of Architecture
© Prof
Arto Kiviniemi
2013
http://www.nist.gov/el/upload/120418-CIB-BIM-AdoptionMiddlebrooks-v2a.pdf
Source: Building Information Modeling: A Platform For Global AEC Change
Robert
Middlebrooks,
AIA Autodesk
Strategic
Industry Relations
2012
School
of Architecture
© Prof
Arto Kiviniemi
2013
http://www.nist.gov/el/upload/120418-CIB-BIM-AdoptionMiddlebrooks-v2a.pdf
Countries with the largest percentages of BIM publications in
international research sources
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: Carneiro, Lins & Neto: Spread of BIM - A Comparative Analysis of Scientific Production in Brazil and Abroad 2012
BIM publications in different countries
0.00
USA
Brazil
Sweden
Australia
Netherlands
Finland
UK
Germany
Norway
Denmark
Slovenia
New Zealand
France
China
Portugal
South Korea
Italy
Argentina
Israel
Chile
Switzerland
Canada
Egypt
Ireland
Turkey
Belgium
Spain
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
29.98
7.12
6.55
6.14
5.28
4.48
4.37
3.55
3.28
3.28
3.28
2.46
2.39
2.25
1.64
1.64
1.30
1.23
1.15
1.02
1.02
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.75
0.41
0.20
Percentage of papers
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
0.00
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
New Zealand
Netherlands
Australia
Ireland
Portugal
Israel
Switzerland
USA
UK
Chile
Germany
Belgium
France
Brazil
South Korea
Argentina
Canada
Italy
Turkey
Egypt
Spain
China
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
15.91
8.23
6.81
6.46
5.83
5.49
3.14
2.64
1.79
1.55
1.42
1.26
0.95
0.69
0.61
0.44
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.23
0.22
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.02
Index per 10,000 inhabitans
Data sources: World Population Index & Carneiro, Lins & Neto: Spread of BIM
– A Comparative Analysis of Scientific Production in Brazil and Abroad 2012
BIM in UK
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Francis Maude now in the web…
Government will require fully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset
information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016.
...adoption of BIM will put
us at the vanguard of the
new digital construction era
and position the UK to
become the world leaders
in BIM.
http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Current situation in the UK 1/3
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: NBS National BIM Report (UK) 2013
Current situation in the UK 2/3
47% of 39%
=
18% of the
industry
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: NBS National BIM Report (UK) 2013
Current situation in the UK 3/3
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: NBS National BIM Report (UK) 2013
BIM in USA?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
BIM use by region
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: McGraw Hill: SmartMarket Report 2012
BIM implementation levels
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: McGraw Hill: SmartMarket Report 2012
Sustainability
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Life-Cycle Cost vs. Carbon Footprint: 3 Designs
225
KEY
+
Life Cycle Cost (USD, Millions)
210
Baseline
Reduced Cost
Reduced Carbon
195
3 Buildings, 5 Stories
3 Buildings, 6 Stories
3 Buildings, 7 Stories
3 Buildings, 8 Stories
180
4 Buildings, 5 Stories
4 Buildings, 6 Stories
4 Buildings, 7 Stories
4 Buildings, 8 Stories
165
275k
280k
285k
290k
295k
Carbon Footprint (met tons CO2e)
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Courtesy Prof Martin Fischer – CIFE, Stanford University 20
MDO Case Study Results
Life-Cycle Cost (USD, Millions)
225
KEY
+
Baseline
X Selected Designs
210
Infeasible Solution
3 Buildings, 5 Stories
3 Buildings, 6 Stories
+
195
3 Buildings, 7 Stories
3 Buildings, 8 Stories
4 Buildings, 5 Stories
2
180
1
4 Buildings, 6 Stories
4 Buildings, 7 Stories
4 Buildings, 8 Stories
3
165
275
280
285
290
295
Carbon Footprint (kilotons CO2e)
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Courtesy Prof Martin Fischer – CIFE, Stanford University 20
Comparing Performance of Conventional Design
Process with MDO
Conventional
MDO
Set-up time
60 hrs
140 hrs
Design cycle time
34 hrs
11 sec
3
21,360
162 hrs
210 hrs
-
$27 M
-
10 kt
Alternatives evaluated
Total design time
Life-cycle cost savings over base
design (USD)
Carbon footprint reduction (CO2e)
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Courtesy Prof Martin Fischer – CIFE, Stanford University 20
Advanced use of BIM in production
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
DPR Construction, Nathan Wood & Josh Bronitsky,: "Not Your Average Spool: How Detailed Models Enable
Prefabrication
of ©
Interior
Wall
Framing
School
of Architecture
Prof Arto
Kiviniemi
2013 on Sutter Castro Valley Clinic" in Denver BIMForum October 2013
http://bimforum.org/denver-bimforum-schedule/from-the-contractor-perspective/
DPR Construction, from the presentation of Martin Fischer (CIFE, Stanford University) in Stockholm Open BIM Conference, 26th March
School
of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
2012 http://www.openbim.se/documents/openbim/konferens_26_mars_2012/Presentationer/120326_Martin_Fischer_presentation.pdf
DPR Construction, from the presentation of Martin Fischer (CIFE, Stanford University) in Stockholm Open BIM Conference, 26th March
School
of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
2012 http://www.openbim.se/documents/openbim/konferens_26_mars_2012/Presentationer/120326_Martin_Fischer_presentation.pdf
DPR Construction, Nathan Wood & Josh Bronitsky,: "Not Your Average Spool: How Detailed Models Enable
Prefabrication
of ©
Interior
Wall
Framing
School
of Architecture
Prof Arto
Kiviniemi
2013 on Sutter Castro Valley Clinic" in Denver BIMForum October 2013
http://bimforum.org/denver-bimforum-schedule/from-the-contractor-perspective/
DPR Construction, Nathan Wood & Josh Bronitsky,: "Not Your Average Spool: How Detailed Models Enable
Prefabrication
of ©
Interior
Wall
Framing
School
of Architecture
Prof Arto
Kiviniemi
2013 on Sutter Castro Valley Clinic" in Denver BIMForum October 2013
http://bimforum.org/denver-bimforum-schedule/from-the-contractor-perspective/
BIM in Facility Management
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Constant promise – little results
• “For facility managers BIM software can be a powerful new tool to
enhance a building’s performance and manage operations more
efficiently throughout a building’s life” (FacilitiesNet 2008)
• Although this claim has repeatedly been presented almost 20
years, real use of BIM in the industry has so far mainly focused on
the design and construction processes.
• Even those large public owners who have been early adopters of
BIM - such as GSA, USACE or Senate Properties - have used BIM
rather in managing their construction projects than implemented
it into their own O&M activities.
• Therefore most of the documented, quantifiable benefits are
related to the production of buildings and there is very little hard
evidence of BIM benefits in O&M activities (Becerik-Gerber et al. 2011)
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Top BIM benefits for owners – where is FM/OM?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Source: McGraw Hill: SmartMarket Report 2012
Case: Manchester Town Hall Complex
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Delay:
4 weeks  1 day = - 96%
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Man hours:
14  3
= - 79%
Delay:
12 weeks  1 day = - 99%
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Man hours:
23  10
= - 57%
Conclusions from the case study
• Significant reductions in the man hours (-57...-80%)
• Because of relatively small tasks individual savings per task quite
small (8...13 hours), but because of repetitive nature of
maintenance operations significant annual savings
• Main benefit is huge reduction in wating time to fix the problems
(-96...-99%)  Reduced disruption and inconvenience for the
users helping to avoid reputational damage
• BIM has significant, measurable value in operational FM
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Education?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Are we educating for the past or for the future?
How can we get talented people interested in working in the AEC industry?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Are we teaching issues in the right order?
Today’s children are very
competent in 3D, but we
force them first into 2D
and teach 3D only later.
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Are we teaching issues in the right order?
Shouldn’t we teach 3D
first and then how to
generate 2D views from
the models?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Future technologies?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Augmented reality & wearable computers…
Kopin
Golden-i
Google Glasses
use an automatic
connection to the
cloud to provide
access to enormous
amounts of
information, data and
applications…
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
http://enewsletters.constructionexec.com/techtrends/2013/04/google
-glass-a-new-pair-of-wearable-computing-glasses/
Robots in production…
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
We are starting to 3D print houses…
A couple of months ago, Dutch architect Janjaap Ruijssenaars
announced that he was building a curvy, loopy and for some reason,
largely see-through building, to be made with the help of Enrico Dini’s DShape 3D printer. The project would cost up to 5 million euros and be
completed in 2014. http://www.sciencegymnasium.com/2013/04/architectsare-starting-to-3d-print.html
Janjaap Ruijssenaars’s twisty, loopy 3D-printed building. Universe Architecture
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013
Conclusions
• BIM adoption is globally accelerating, not only in developed
countries, but also in developing countries like China, Brazil, India.
Finland is still very advanced, but how long?
• Advanced use of BIM for production is progressing fast.
• BIM focus is still very much in design and construction, use in
facility and operation management is very rare.
• Sustainability is one of the key drivers, but use is still often in
verification of the chosen solution rather than optioneering.
• Are we doing the right things and the things right?
• Should we try to minimise the design time and effort or maximise the added
value? How do we define the value - to whom?
• Are our working methods, business and contract models supporting our
goals and appropriate for co-working/co-creation?
• What are the incentives to change?
School of Architecture © Prof Arto Kiviniemi 2013