Skip to content

building information modeling bim in current and future practice pdf

No one denies that architecture directly addresses crucially important realms, as we are reminded in
discussions of sustainability, various forms of public health, and safety. It has a direct role in dealing with human comfort and well-being. It has huge impacts on energy, water and resource needs, and later with refuse. Yet here in the United States, only tertiary attention to the science and systematic development of knowledge in these domains is undertaken by schools of architecture.

They rather tend to focus on the composition of form and space as the assemblers and composers of products and technologies. The technologies dealing with resources, energy, and most aspects of well-being generally have been picked up, developed, and applied by other professions, usually within engineering including structural, energy, acoustical, and other types of phenomena. As a result architecture has the primary responsibility for a declining range of issues and decisions within the construction industry. Explanation for this observable trend is liability and risk. Another may be the traditional size of firms offering architectural services. They do not have the scale needed to support this range of services, although consulting firms, often manned with architects, do offer these services.

Is this a premonition for the development and use of
BIM in architecture? Will it be outsourced to consultants, like CAD services have been, to satisfy contractual requirements? Is it a tool mainly for contractors?

University schools of architecture are the training ground for future architects. How is BIM being
accepted in the universities? It was my hope and I think the hopes of other early developers of parametric modeling of buildings—the earlier, more general name of systems before the acronym BIM was conceived—that parametric modeling of buildings would provide the leverage to re-capture the issues dwindling from the profession’s grasp. BIM was thought to facilitate and integrate assessment of functionality, performance, and increasing complexity to give architects better technology to integrate these new aspects into design with those already integrated regarding the more subjective social well-being and aesthetics. It was hoped that future architects would consider all these central issues within the field.

This book serves as an early milestone for examining the status of the BIM endeavor in the universities. From this viewpoint, it can also be used to assess other perspectives dealing with the interaction of social values and technology in design. It offers an implicit review of the relation of architecture to the new technological environment of modern society. With twenty-six chapters by a diverse set of mostly North American authors, the volume offers a good sense of current thinking in universities.

To date, the potential uses and impacts of BIM have only been partially explored. What will be the external impacts of new technologies, —for example, having close to infinite computing power available everywhere, with integrated sensors increasingly leading toward smart buildings, and new smart materials, and tablet-based access? How is architecture likely to evolve technology-wise as we move through the twentyfirst century?

There are several repeating themes in these chapters. One deals with BIM’s ability to accelerate current design processes, through faster iteration cycles regarding structure, cost, lighting, air flows, costs, schedules, and other assessments, to realize close to real-time feedback. Faster design is not the end goal. By making such feedback quickly, the experiential and systematic development leading to better alternatives and integrating multiple evaluations leads to better design.

Tracking the results, the client can see the value added through design, generating better value for the client. Multiple chapters discuss the expected richer set of services the BIM potentially offers building project clients/owner (Bernstein and Jezyk; Kalay, Schaumann, Hong, and Simeone; Trubiano; Goldman and Zarzycki).

Bernstein and Jezyk lay out the evolution path for BIM, based on these analysis/simulation cycles
posed by other authors. They point out the changes in design process enabled by tightly coupled design and simulation/analysis, and the potential values and added benefits that can be offered by architecture when increasing dimensions of design are directly viewable and measurable. The question is posed whether the architecture schools will rise to incorporate these ranges of intellectual contribution.