From CAD To BIM - Educational Strategies For The Coming Paradigm Shift

AEI 2008: Building Integration Solutions © 2008 ASCE
From CAD to BIM: Educational

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas A&M University on 09/23/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Strategies for the Coming Paradigm Shift

A.S. Denzer and K.E. Hedges
University of Wyoming
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
Dept. 3295, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82071-2000
PH (307) 766-2186; FAX (307) 766-2221
email: tdenzer@uwyo.edu, khedges@uwyo.edu
Abstract
The rapid movement from Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) to Building Information

Modeling (BIM) by professional architects and engineers creates several challenges and
opportunities for Architecture and Architectural Engineering programs. The BIM
methodology offers dramatic new benefits to students that university programs have just
begun to explore, but it also will likely trigger trade-off considerations for traditional
skills that might be lost. Some educators worry that new BIM activities pose a threat to
design thinking.
This paper surveys some of the major challenges and opportunities that BIM presents in
educational settings, with several suggestions for future directions for exploration. These
findings are discussed in the context of several key conclusions that have been developed
based on six semesters using BIM in junior- and senior-level architectural design studios
in an undergraduate program in Architectural Engineering. The paper remarks on
accreditation issues, and it seeks to develop potential ‘best practice’ hallmarks with the
goal of stimulating future discussion.
Keywords: Building Information Modeling, BIM, engineering education, architecture

education.
1 Introduction
By now it is widely accepted that Building Information Modeling (BIM) will radically
transform the discipline of Architectural Engineering and its allied fields [NBIMS, 2007].
The activity of parametric modeling is fundamentally different from drawing, because
the product is a database of information and relationships (new paradigm), rather than a
set of abstract representations to be interpreted (old paradigm). Thus the move from
Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

AEI 2008
Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) to BIM constitutes a new methodology, rather than

the simple introduction of a new tool.
BIM therefore threatens to disrupt traditional design education, both in terms of large
curricular issues and specific teaching methods. Is BIM “inherently answer-driven,”
threatening critical (design) thinking, or does it in fact promote more sophisticated
design via its ability to run simulations? How will the accrediting bodies address the
paradigm shift from 2D drawing to 3D modeling? How should Architecture and
Architectural Engineering programs begin to grapple with these questions?
2 Previously Published Conclusions
Following are some key conclusions we have developed based on six semesters using
BIM in junior- and senior-level architectural design studios in an undergraduate program
in Architectural Engineering.
2.1 Integrated Design

BIM prompts students to think about architecture, structure, and mechanical systems in
an integrated manner, and to consider issues of materiality and construction at an earlier
stage of the design (compared to traditional 2D design). Prior to BIM, we observed that
students had difficulty appreciating the architectural consequences of structural
decisions, and vice-versa. In the old paradigm, students would develop an architectural
plan and then overlay a structural framing plan where individual members were
represented by single lines, but relationships between systems were under-developed
three-dimensionally. In the new paradigm, students gain a clear appreciation for the
advantages of an integrated design process because they, in effect, build the building
rather than representing it abstractly, which requires them to consider how systems
interact in space [Denzer & Hedges, 2007].
2.2 Shifting the Curve

Students using BIM experience an accelerated design process compared to those using
CAD or other ‘traditional’ methods. BIM allows them to develop their projects to a
greater degree of resolution over the course of a semester. In professional practice, BIM
has transformed the proportions of time dedicated to the schematic design (SD), design
development (DD), and construction documents (CD) phases, giving more time to SD.
This is known as ‘shifting the curve to the left’. In the classroom, we have experienced a
different shift. Architectural design studios commonly work exclusively in SD. But for
students BIM actually shifts the curve to the right, by allowing them to address design
questions that are generally associated with the DD phase [Hedges & Denzer, 2007c].
2.3 Conceptual Complexity

Students using BIM often choose to pursue designs that are more complex compared to
designs composed exclusively with CAD, such as exploring eccentric geometries. One
representative team reported: “We were able to solve many problems by being able to
see our project in 3D right away. Drawing in 2D limits you on how well you are able to
visualize the project.” These students reflected that they needed 3D representation to

AEI 2008
develop their idea and would never have attempted such a challenging design without
BIM [Hedges & Denzer, 2007d].
2.4 ‘In-Process’ Visualizations

BIM allows for a more robust exploration of design alternatives ‘in process’, permitting
students to simulate the effects of design alternatives in order to make more intelligent
and persuasive decisions. The BIM environment is more conducive to identifying new
opportunities and remedying unintended effects. 97% of the students surveyed (n=30)
thought that BIM improved their understanding of form and space by working in one
3D model database. One student noted that “it allows you to constantly assess your
work” [Hedges & Denzer, 2007b].
While it is important to use freehand sketching for the earliest conceptual work, there is
little danger in introducing BIM very early in process. BIM’s ability to rapidly generate
photorealistic renderings naturally raises anxiety for instructors; will students be
‘seduced’ and overly attentive to the production of images at the expense of good
design? We concluded that, with proper guidance, BIM does not lead students to see a
preliminary design as ‘finished’. Instead they are comfortable producing variant massing
models and then studying and refining the alternatives [Denzer & Hedges, 2007].
2.5 New Models of Collaboration

The BIM methodology includes a powerful capacity to facilitate new models of
collaboration for student teamwork. We have found that, when students chose a
collaborative architecture approach using real-time simultaneous engagement, they
experienced a greater conceptual complexity and an advanced level of refinement.
Higher intellectual cognitive activity is essential in an open-ended design course where
problems require team collaboration. For Architectural Engineering programs,
accredited by ABET, BIM responds to the demands for multidisciplinary team activities
and continuous improvement by providing a platform for exploring new team structures
and realizing improved student outcomes [Hedges & Denzer, 2008].
3 Pedagogical Issues
3.1 Challenges
Because BIM introduces more sophisticated questions (particularly regarding
construction) earlier in the design process, students without an adequate grounding in
the fundamentals may be ill-served by the software’s parametric capabilities. As Cheng
[2006a] argued: “Never has a representation tool been so demanding of its user. The
competent BIM operator must have an understanding of the tool, knowledge of
materials and construction methods, and appreciation for professional practice.” In
surveys of our students, we found that only fifty percent responded that BIM improved
their understanding of how construction materials are assembled [Hedges & Denzer,
2007c]. In the worst-case, students may be tempted to make decisions rapidly from a
limited palette of default options.

AEI 2008
The positive notion that BIM introduces a greater degree of conceptual complexity (see
2.3 above) derived from the experience of upper-level undergraduates. At a lower level,
by contrast, increased complexity may hinder student learning rather than help. Scheer
[2006] noted that BIM software programs are significantly more complex than CAD
tools, and thus “BIM requires space in the curriculum that CAD does not. What do we
sacrifice to make room for teaching BIM?” The authors have also observed that novice
students tend to be overwhelmed by the software if it is not introduced gradually and
systematically. Therefore, the insertion of BIM in an educational sequence should be
carefully calibrated with prerequisite courses and student intellectual maturity.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for design instructors is that BIM demands new teaching
methods. “The transformation of the traditional linear architectural education process
into one more elliptical—by incorporating BIM as a process and not a tool—is the single
most difficult challenge (or exciting opportunity, depending upon how you look at it) at
hand for today's educators” [Seletsky, 2006]. Our experience at the University of
Wyoming has prompted two major findings in this area. First, BIM can ‘disguise’ an
underdeveloped design by giving it an appearance of resolution; instructors must probe
the students’ process in order to distinguish between purposeful decisions and default
selections. Second, BIM prompts students to ask advanced questions about structures,
material assemblies, and detailing (even if they have had prerequisite coursework in these
areas), requiring instructors to be relatively more agile in their ability to respond.
3.2 Barriers
Although this research presumes that Architecture and Architectural Engineering
programs should (and will) introduce BIM in order to be responsive to their constituents
(students and employers), there are barriers at the institutional level. Simple uncertainty is
the first hurdle. Will BIM endure, or is it another fleeting disruption? What happens to
subjects such as descriptive geometry and 2D construction documents? Is the new
paradigm implicitly critical of the old paradigm, raising territorial issues among faculty?
What time commitments are required of instructors to learn the software? We do not
suggest that these questions have prescriptive answers, nor that recalcitrant faculty will
simply submit to BIM after a proper indoctrination. Some of the uncertainty should be
eased as early adopters publish student work and reflect about their experiences.
A second barrier, which might be called ‘cultural’ resistance, will require more thought
and discussion at the level of institutional decision-making. One stance is based on the
precept that BIM constitutes a “threat” by crowding out critical thinking. Cheng [2006a]
argued: “There are two competing philosophies: BIM is inherently answer-driven, design
thinking is question-driven…. If BIM is introduced in the curriculum without respecting
its considerable liabilities, design thinking will not survive.” (Seletsky [2006] responded
that BIM promotes more sophisticated ‘design thinking’ because it allows students “to
then simulate their decisions in validating—and not just positing—what they're
proposing,” thus acting intuitively and analytically. This view is consistent with our
conclusions summarized above.) Structural engineering programs might justifiably worry,
for example, that automatic sizing of columns and beams will render a fundamental
disciplinary skill obsolete. Each academic program should consider these arguments vis-
à-vis their objectives, their student needs, and the reports by early adopters.

AEI 2008
Thirdly, institutional resistance to BIM arises because the software is expensive and may
have operability problems in some cases. “Current BIM technology lacks uniform
standards and is changing very rapidly,” according to Scheer [2006]. “The skills students
acquire today on a particular platform are useless on another, and in any case will be
obsolete in a few years. How can a curriculum prepare students in BIM so that their
knowledge continues to serve them in such an environment?” Furthermore, we have
noticed that students expect to have access to the newest applications and most current
platforms, which requires more work, more deliberation and, potentially, more resources.
3.3 Future Opportunities

BIM’s challenges and barriers for educators are dramatically offset by potential benefits
to students that university programs have just begun to explore. Following are some
educational topics that can be addressed in a new manner as a result of BIM:
Distance collaboration. In professional practice, members of the design team are

able to collaborate remotely in real-time by working on a single BIM file. A
similar methodology could be explored in academia by organizing cross-
institutional design teams. Collaboration between Architecture and Architectural
Engineering students would be especially fruitful. Any such activity should take
note of Cheng’s [2006b] observation for architecture education: “Collaboration
in its professional sense is hard to simulate in an academic setting. Professional
collaboration forms among participants who have clearly defined (and
complementary) roles, responsibilities and expertise. Collaborators come to the
table with experience and maturity gained over many years of practice.” (See
section 4.2 for how engineering accreditation already embraces collaboration.)
Code compliance detection. BIM programs include an automatic detection
feature where code-violations, such as insufficient clearance around a door
swing, are automatically highlighted. Instructors can use this feature as a teaching
tool, as well as for assessment.
Structural analysis. BIM programs can interface with third party structural
analysis software so that a design can be analyzed, given the appropriate
parameters (member sizes, loads, soil conditions, etc.). Ideally this capability will
allow structural designers to make more critical and creative decisions by rapidly
testing alternatives with interoperable software as opposed to the historical
recreation of an additional 3D computer model for design and analysis.
Advanced energy use simulations, including life-cycle performance. The BIM
methodology can improve the design process for MEP engineers by helping
them test equipment alternatives through simulation, leading to better solutions
(‘right-sizing’). It will help students develop longitudinal thinking from a
facilities-management point of view, prompting solutions that address the
expected life-cycle of the project.
Economics. Students may employ the software’s ability to compute material
quantities, and correlate them with suppliers’ pricing (possibly real-time via the

AEI 2008
web), which would provide opportunities for comparative economic studies

between various design alternatives. (The old paradigm certainly considered
economics, but BIM now allows greater specificity earlier in the process.)
Construction staging and scheduling. Many in industry believe that BIM’s true
power is to streamline construction by simulating building processes in advance,
thus anticipating conflicts and reducing errors. In the classroom, BIM certainly
has the power to help students explore alternative methods of building their
design, leading to a critical evaluation feedback loop that might not have been
possible in the old paradigm.

Digital fabrication. As academic programs pursue design-build studios, some will
surely explore how BIM can be used to interact directly with fabricators and
other subcontractors to remove the well-known inefficiencies of 2D
documentation and interpretation.
Programming. As Seletsky [2006] notes, students already have “the moxie and
creative proclivity to write their own scripts, to combine or ‘mash up’ their own
variety of pre-existing tools, to even go so far as to modify existing application
interfaces to suit their own particular needs.” Our students, for example, have
begun to explore ‘Excel-based model generation’. Some academic programs will
wish to formalize the presence of programming skills in their curricula.
In any given studio or curriculum, time is a finite resource, and so the pursuit of any of
these activities will trigger trade-off considerations for what might be lost. For an
architectural student, is energy modeling more important than figure drawing? For a
structural engineering student, is programming a BIM subroutine more important than
surveying? These are the debates that will occur quite soon. Whether new activities like
those listed above might crowd out ‘design thinking’ (as Cheng would argue) or enhance
it (Seletsky) is, again, a question of institutional philosophy ripe for discussion.
4 Accreditation Issues
Architecture programs are accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board

(NAAB), while Architectural Engineering programs are governed by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). We suggest that curricula evolve
independent of the accreditation criteria as to avoid the stifling of creative education, but
programs will be challenged to meet the upcoming criteria without acknowledging and
employing to some degree the concepts surrounding BIM.
4.1 A Mandate?
Historically, NAAB and ABET have never imposed prescriptive requirements with
regard to specific software platforms, nor have they set clear expectations about
computing skills. (CAD, for example, is used in a majority of architectural and
engineering firms but it is not required to be part of either curriculum, strictly speaking.)
The governing approach is that an accredited program should demonstrate
responsiveness to the feedback from its advisors in industry. Therefore if BIM is seen

AEI 2008
simply as a ‘new tool’, it can be expected that the accrediting bodies will have little
interest in mandating its use. There must be a higher purpose.
The industry term ‘Integrated Project Delivery’ (IPD) has recently received significant
attention. The AIA/AIACC [2007] defines IPD as “project delivery approach that
integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project
results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all
phases of design, fabrication, and construction.” The association between IPD and BIM
is very strong where BIM facilitates IPD. An argument exists in terms of what happened
first and what is more important, a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument. One may argue that
IPD evolved as a result to validate BIM as opposed to the greater significance of
enhanced collaboration. Regardless of any criticism, BIM has shifted into the IPD
domain where it currently has a covert influence in architectural accreditation.
4.2 Multidisciplinary Teams

For architecture programs, NAAB criterion 7 identifies the current requirement for
Collaborative Skills: “Ability to recognize the varied talent found in interdisciplinary
design project teams in professional practice and work in collaboration with other
students as members of a design team” [NAAB, 2004]. Scheer [2006] acknowledges this
as a weakness, “While architecture has always been collaborative, current architectural
education downplays this fact.” NAAB constituents are currently reviewing accreditation
standards. The American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) provided a
commentary to this criterion: “Collaborative Skills should evolve to address the ability of
students to both recognize the value of interdisciplinary collaboration and to work
collaboratively with students in multidisciplinary design teams” [ACSA, 2007]. The
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) similarly commented:
“Architectural design, at its very core, is a collaborative process…. Education
should…help students understand that collaboration as an intrinsic part of the design
process” [NCARB, 2007]. If NAAB follows suit and formulates a collaborative design
requirement, more architecture programs are likely to pursue BIM implementation.
The accreditation standards for Architectural Engineering already embrace collaboration

as opposed to the individual nature or architectural education through multidisciplinary
team learning. The third criterion of outcomes and assessments specifically identifies that
engineering programs must demonstrate that students attain an ability to function on
multidisciplinary teams [ABET, 2007b]. The ABET Commentary further provides a
more succinct example of the individual characteristics within this multidisciplinary
setting where, ‘(1) each team member serves in a well-defined role in the team; (2) each
team member brings a particular expertise to bear in solving the problem; and (3) the
scope of the problem is sufficiently broad that no one team member could successfully
solve the problem alone’ [ASCE CCA, 2007]. When students chose an interdisciplinary
collaborative approach using real-time simultaneous engagement, they experienced a
greater conceptual complexity and an advanced level of refinement [Hedges and Denzer,
2007d]. BIM’s strongest attributes are not addressed by the current accreditation
standards, suggesting that ABET requirements should be refined for Architectural

AEI 2008
Engineering students working on multidisciplinary teams in the new paradigm. This may
encourage architecture programs to explore interdisciplinary distance collaborations.
4.3 Sustainability
BIM can also help educators respond to a growing emphasis on issues of sustainability
by the accreditation bodies. ABET’s current requirement is relatively weak: that all
engineering graduates must demonstrate the “ability to design a system, component, or
process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,
environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and

sustainability” [ABET, 2007]. It seems reasonable to expect that ABET standards in this
area will become more explicit, and that programs will place a stronger emphasis on
issues of sustainability in the meantime in order to demonstrate continuous
improvement. For Architecture programs, ACSA recently recommended the following
(abridged) requirement to NAAB: “The program must demonstrate that it equips
students with an informed understanding of ecological and environmental problems in
the built environment and develops their capacity to address these problems with
environmentally-responsive architecture and urban design decisions” [ACSA, 2007].
Clearly BIM can enhance students’ understanding of the environmental consequences of

design decisions compared to the old paradigm. For example, BIM applications typically
support the ability to export building model data to an energy analysis application using
gbXML protocol. Our students have used third-party programs such as Green Building
Studio to simulate the performance of designs produced in BIM. The results showed
energy use in terms of kWh/sf/yr, which then were compared to ‘typical’ buildings of
the same type as well as case studies of high-performance buildings. Students then
modified their designs, ran the simulation again, and studied the consequences. They also
computed what ‘green power’ resources would be required to make the building carbon-
neutral. None of this was even remotely possible prior to BIM, and thus it constitutes an
advance that will be highlighted in the accrediting process.
5 Discussion: Moving towards Best Practices
Certainly the role of BIM in Architecture and Architectural Engineering education

beckons for a robust set of ‘best practices’ recommendations. Such a project will require
many more participants bringing their own conclusions from their own classroom
practices. We have developed hallmarks of a ‘best practices’ educational strategy for the
coming paradigm shift with the goal of stimulating discussion and working collectively in
the direction of proven practices that benefit students.
Based on our experiences and research, giving particular consideration to the challenges
and barriers discussed above, a few suggestions can be put forward modestly:
Develop an appropriate prerequisite sequence. Educators should carefully

consider what prerequisite courses should precede the introduction of BIM in an
educational sequence. We would suggest that subjects such as Design
Fundamentals (including orthographic drawing), Building Technology/Building
Science, and Professional Practice should be considered prerequisite to

AEI 2008
comprehensive building design with BIM. This sense of deliberation, however,

will be undermined by the use of BIM in secondary education (which is rapidly
advancing). Hedges [2007] discusses prerequisite requirements in more detail.
Continue to use other media. BIM is one media that may be used to develop and
communicate a design, but students should not rely on it exclusively. Hand
sketching, physical modeling, collage, photomontage, orthographic drawing, etc.,
all remain important parts of the design toolkit. It is essential to prompt students
to think critically about the appropriate media for expressing the design idea.
Manage the complexity. Some students may recoil from the daunting complexity
posed by the software itself. These types of students undoubtedly benefit from
an incremental introduction in a pressure-free environment. A good introductory
exercise is to model a simple existing building (say, a garage or house) so that
learning the software is decoupled from design.
Encourage invention. BIM programs currently have some limitations that may
constrain students’ creativity: the ‘default’ palette of materials or the capability to
handle NURBS surfaces, for example. There are solutions, but they require
students to be adventuresome. Instructors should foster an environment which
encourages such exploration.
Despite the challenges and barriers, we expect the paradigm shift from CAD to BIM will
trigger transformative changes for Architecture and Architectural Engineering programs
in the immediate term. Indeed, the potential exists for one of the most disruptive
(positive or negative) episodes in the history of architectural education. Faculty should be
prepared to reexamine curricular priorities and discuss new teaching methods. Early
adopters in academia should reduce uncertainty by sharing their experiences. Accrediting
bodies will play an unpredictable role. Institutional anxieties will remain high.
The conclusions presented here are limited by experience and the relatively small body of
literature describing others’ experiences. Many of our suggestions are tentative and
intended to promote discussion. As more Architecture and Architectural Engineering
programs begin to introduce BIM, a robust discourse about BIM’s challenges and
opportunities should be nurtured, eventually leading to formal ‘best practices’ models.
References
ABET, 2007. “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs,” Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology. http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-
UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2007-08%20EAC%20Criteria%2011-15-06.pdf, accessed
March 1, 2008.
ACSA, 2007. “Architectural Education & Accreditation,” ACSA Report for the Accreditation Review
Conference. American Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
http://www.naab.org/documents/streamfile.aspx?name=ACSA--ARC-Report-Feb-
2008.pdf&path=Public+Documents%5cAccreditation%5c, accessed March 1, 2008.
AIA/AIACC, 2007. “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide,” American Institute of Architects/American

Institute of Architects California Council. http://www.aia.org/ipdg#ipdguide, accessed March 1, 2008.

AEI 2008
ASCE CCA, 2007. “Commentary on the ABET Accreditation Criteria for Civil and Similarly Named
Programs in the Context of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge,” American Society of Civil
Engineers Committee on Curricula and Accreditation.
Cheng, R., 2006a. “Questioning the Role of BIM in Architectural Education,” AECbytes Viewpoint #26.
http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2006/issue_26.html, accessed March 1, 2008.
Cheng, R., 2006b. “Suggestions for an Integrative Education,” American Institute of Architects (AIA)
Report on Integrated Practice. http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/5_Cheng.pdf, accessed March 1,
2008.
Denzer, A. S. & Hedges, K. E., 2007. “In Process: Visualization and Sustainable Building Design in the
Architectural Engineering Studio.” DCA 20th Anniversary Conference Proceedings, M. A. Mounayar, G.
Cruz, & C. Bove (Eds.). Muncie, IN: Ball State University, 91-100.
Hedges, K. E. (2007). “How the impact of building information modeling (BIM) on the cognitive
paradigm may influence the future of architectural education.” Fresh Air: 2007 ACSA Annual Meeting, J.
Bing & C. Veikos (Eds.). Washington, DC: ACSA Press, 461-469.
Hedges, K. E. & Denzer, A. S., 2007a. “From Integrated Practice to Integrated Academics: BIM in the
Classroom.” DCA 20th Anniversary Conference Proceedings, M. A. Mounayar, G. Cruz, & C. Bove
(Eds.). Muncie, IN: Ball State University, 135-146.
Hedges, K. E. & Denzer, A. S., 2007b. "Visualizing Energy: How BIM Influences Design Choices,"
Proceedings of the 2007 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference.
Hedges, K. E. & Denzer, A. S., 2007c. “Shifting the Curve to the Left: Student Response to BIM in the
Classroom,” Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction, Y. M. Xie & I. Patnaikuni (Eds.).
London: Taylor & Francis Group, 1279-1284.
Hedges, K. E. & Denzer, A. S., 2007d. “Conceptual Complexity: How BIM Shapes the Introductory
Studio.” Shell and Spatial Structures: Structural Architecture – Towards the Future Looking to the Past
[CD]. Venice, Italy: IUAV.
Hedges, K. E. & Denzer, A. S., 2008. “How a Collaborative Architecture Influences Structural
Engineering Education.” Crossing Borders: 2008 Structures Congress [CD]. Reston, VA: ASCE.
NAAB, 2004. “Conditions for Accreditation for Professional Degree Programs in Architecture,” National
Architectural Accrediting Board.
http://www.naab.org/documents/streamfile.aspx?name=2004_CONDITIONS.pdf&path=Public+Docu
ments%5cAccreditation%5c, accessed March 1, 2008.
NBIMS Project Committee, 2007. “Frequently Asked Questions About the NBIMS,” National Institute
of Building Sciences. http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/faq.php, accessed December 9,
2007.
Seletsky, P., 2005. “Digital Design and the Age of Building Simulation,” AECbytes Viewpoint #19.
http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2005/issue_19.html, accessed March 1, 2008.
Seletsky, P., 2006. “Questioning the Role of BIM in Architectural Education: A Counter-Viewpoint,”
AECbytes Viewpoint #27. http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2006/issue_27.html, accessed March 1,
2008.

AEI 2008
Scheer, D. R., 2006. “From an Educational Perspective: BIM in the Architectural Curriculum,” Federal
Facilities Council white paper. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ffc/david_scheer_utah.pdf, accessed
March 1, 2008.

AEI 2008

From CAD To BIM - Educational Strategies For The Coming Paradigm Shift

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

From CAD To BIM - Educational Strategies For The Coming Paradigm Shift

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AEI 2008: Building Integration Solutions © 2008 ASCE

From CAD to BIM: Educational

Strategies for the Coming Paradigm Shift

The rapid movement from Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) to Building Information

Keywords: Building Information Modeling, BIM, engineering education, architecture

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) to BIM constitutes a new methodology, rather than

Architectural Engineering programs begin to grapple with these questions?

2 Previously Published Conclusions

2.1 Integrated Design

2.2 Shifting the Curve

2.3 Conceptual Complexity

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

2.4 ‘In-Process’ Visualizations

2.5 New Models of Collaboration

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

carefully calibrated with prerequisite courses and student intellectual maturity.

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

3.3 Future Opportunities

Distance collaboration. In professional practice, members of the design team are

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

web), which would provide opportunities for comparative economic studies

possible in the old paradigm.

Architecture programs are accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

4.2 Multidisciplinary Teams

The accreditation standards for Architectural Engineering already embrace collaboration

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and

Clearly BIM can enhance students’ understanding of the environmental consequences of

5 Discussion: Moving towards Best Practices

Certainly the role of BIM in Architecture and Architectural Engineering education

Develop an appropriate prerequisite sequence. Educators should carefully

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

comprehensive building design with BIM. This sense of deliberation, however,

AIA/AIACC, 2007. “Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide,” American Institute of Architects/American

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Copyright ASCE 2008 AEI 2008

Вам также может понравиться