BIM REFLECTIVE REPORT

josiah Johnson
CITY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
Introduction
The construction industry just like almost every aspect of reality is constantly evolving for the better.
Over the year new technologies are introduced that can have major benefits for employees within
the industry. The impact of some are much higher than other. One key determinant of how
beneficial a new technology can be, is the new possibilities and options it provides for workers. In
the construction industry a great new technology enables new capabilities such speeding up
processes, providing additional testing options and improving sustainability for all phases of the
construction process. These are all benefits of the 3Ds information repository known as BIM. Since
its introduction in formally as ArchiCAD in 1987, BIM has gained increased attention particularly in
higher education as a solution for addressing society’s need to improve sustainability. This is
achieved due to the fact that it allows users to simulate, identify and evaluate construction buildings
during the preliminary phase.

This reflective report is aimed at detailing my personal experience of using BIM within a three-
month period for a collaborative construction project. Included in this report are details of the
process such as the allocation of responsibilities as well as some of the challenges experienced using
the BIM platform.

Reflective Experience
Role Allocation
The first stage of the collaboration process was to determine the roles of each of the members.
Overall, there was a clear lack of experience using the BIM platform within the group apart from one
member who had several years of experience using BIM. Naturally, as a result, that member was
chosen to be the project manager. The specific role of task allocation then fell to the project
manager who chose the members responsible for each key task based on their confidence and
experience working in a specific area. The group of five were divided into three teams with the less
experienced members working in groups of two.

The key tasks were identified as follows

1. Who is responsible for writing up the BIM Execution Plan and Checking the BEP

The decision was the project manager would be responsible for

2. Which individual members are responsible for checking the Architectural Model, Structural
Model and Plumbing Model for completeness.
3. Who is responsible for performing a clash analysis the Architectural Model, Structural Model
and Plumbing Model

The final outcome of the task allocation is shown below. Enoch who was the project manager had
the role of writing up the BEP and checking and completing of the design of the structural elements
as well as performing a clash analysis of the structural element. The project manager allocated the
role of performing any task specific to Plumbing to Sahil and I while the responsibility of completing
all tasks specific to the Architectural fell to Craig and Jack.
Planning the Project
After allocating each member a role the next step was divide the project into 3 main stages. This
enabled each to develop an understanding of the process of the project. It also enabled each
member to gain an understanding of their responsibilities at each stage as well as the deadlines for
completing their tasks. The three stages defined were as follows:

- Stage 1 (30%): Complete and update existing 4th Floor Hospital Wing 3D BIM
Models design for the following design disciplines:
1. Architectural
2. Structural Engineering
3. Plumbing
- Stage 2 (60%): Check Design completeness for all three BIM models using 3D
Model Checking checklist
- Stage 3 (90%): Check all three BIM models for clash using either Solibri or
Navisworks.

The philosophy behind the deadlines was essentially for each team i.e. the Architectural, Plumbing
and Structural teams to complete both their design completeness check and clash detection in time
for a group review on the 19th March and in time for a discussion about the lessons challenges
experience during the execution process. This objective was achieved successfully as the project
manager was able to provide guidance to the other team members during the completeness check.
The clash detection proved to be a far more straightforward procedure where each team completed
the task with few issues.

The deadline for the draft BIM execution was set for the 12th of February, this allowed members to
become acquainted their roles and responsibilities and the other significant procedures such as the
file sharing procedure. The final deadline for the BIM execution plan was the 15th of March leaving
five days available for preparing for the presentation. Overall, we were able to meet both deadlines
with days to spare.

We also ensured we followed the four-step procedure BIM quality control procedure below. This
four step process essentially worked as an objective for completing the key project task.
Checks Definition

Visual Ensure there are no unintended model components

and the design intent has been followed.

Clash detection Detect problems in the model where two building

components are clashing; including soft and hard
clashes.

BIM Standards Refer to project BIM Execution Plan - Standard Method

& Procedures section.

Model integrity/validation That the model is fit for coordination across the team.

File sharing and editing

The project incorporated the use of a common data environment. A common data
environment(CDE) is essentially a digital storage facility with the capability of storing large amounts
of data and provide a foundation for facilitating and managing the project process. During the
project it was important to make data remotely available to all members of the group. This enabled
members to be able to carry out double checks on files worked on by other members. Without
having to be in the same location and thereby promoting a collaborative culture without
compromising comfort. This resource was particularly beneficial for the group as the members lived
extremely far from each other. It eliminated the inconveniency of needing to meet or transfer large
amounts of data. The two options which were considered to act as CDEs were dropbox or BIM 360.
We opted for dropbox initially but had struggles with the reliability of the program. Dropbox also
had other limitations such as the fact that REVIT had to be installed on a computer before a revit file
could be accessed. Midway through the process we opted to use Autodesk 360 instead of dropbox
for the collaborative process particularly because it made file sharing between team members much
easier since all team members could be invited to work on project level rather than just accessing
files. Autodesk 360 also provided a viewing platform. The files were categorised into four phases

Work in Progress (WIP): Non-verified design data used by discipline specific design teams.

Shared: Verified design data shared with the project team for collaboration purposes.

Published/Issued Documentation: Coordinated and validated design output for use by the project
team.

Archive: Project history maintained for knowledge and for regulatory and requirements
technical difficulties
Software’s and Programs
Four different software were used during the process. Navisworks, Solibri, BIM 360 and Revit. Revit
was used for checking the completeness of the design, BIM 360 was used for file sharing and
coordinate the collaborative process while Navisworks and Solibri were used for clash detection.
Although both Navisworks and Solibri were used for clash detection I preferred the use of
Navisworks and it provided a more user-friendly interface. Therefore, it was much easier to use to
perform clash detection than Solibri. However, although Solibri had a more rule-based interface
which resulted in a more rigorous input programming process it provided more checks than
Navisworks.

Recommendations and Conclusion

My experience using BIM reinforced my amazement with technology particularly due to the benefits
clash detection provide the user. Adoption of BIM in a project can great benefits from the
visualisation perspective, to an analytical analysis of the structural quality. Without clash detection
the risk of experiencing increased cost due to an incompatibility between the models e.g. the
mechanical and structural.

Although Revit performs a clash detection it does not provide report One recommendation to
combine the clash detection of facility of Navisworks into Revit and therefore speeding up the design
completion checks and clash analysis.
References