Since the MEP (M&E)
industry worldwide is constantly on the turn to parametric three dimensional model-based
building services style and coordination processes, the question of who what
between contractors as well as consultants has re-emerged. Among the challenges
in the contemporary building services industry issues the effective control
associated with BIM models between MEP Experts and MEP Contractors.
BIM has benefits
including: greater collaboration in between stakeholders, improved design
overall performance, less constructability issues on-site as well as cost
efficiency. However, implementing BIM requires effectively managing scope
definition and delivery along with the information flow between the actual MEP
(M&E) consultant, the actual MEP (M&E) contractor, a number of
sub-contractors and shop fabricators. Nevertheless, BIM can create range
overlap (and therefore costs and delays for that project) between MEP (M&E)
experts, contractors and other downstream individuals.
In the traditional
program, where 2D design information is received, the MEP contractor would
result in services coordination and conflict detection. He/she would overlay
the actual 2D drawings of each one of the services (HVAC, electrical, and
plumbing) and execute a detailed coordination exercise - usually by utilizing
3D tools or by utilizing BIM tools. The end result will be a model that is
spatially coordinated that may then be used with regard to installation drawing
creation as well as subsequent fitting/installation.
The traditional
approach (2D drawing deliverables) didn't require design consultants to
consider constructability and spatial coordination. Nevertheless, the BIM
process requires MEP (M&E) BIM consultants to produce clash-free 3D MEP
versions before creating 2D style drawings for contractors to make use of. As
the consultant can also be handing over their BIM design (which is increasingly
conflict free and coordinated with a extent) he/she is essentially carrying out
a few of the scope traditionally taken upon by contractors. However and much
more importantly, the MEP model in the consultant is not always coordinated in
the manner that the services will be installed or be economical for an MEP
service provider.
Though the consultants'
BIM MEP Engineered
Drawings
might be clash-free and spatially coordinated using the architectural and
structural techniques, the 3D model provided towards the contractor by the
advisor may fall short as a result of number of reasons for example: I)
procurement-led changes with regard to materials and equipment; ii) it might
not represent the real installation process or design; iii) the layouts might
not be efficient i. e. permitting too many bends as well as connections; iv)
there might not be adequate allowance for lagging; v) there might not be
adequate allowance for installation/hanging; and vi) there might not be
allowance for access with regard to maintenance purposes. In brief, the
consultant's 3D model might be spatially coordinated but not really adequate
for installation.
Without updating the
BIM model to their own fitting and installation requirements/standards, the
contractor won't experience constructability issues until within the field. At
that stage it's almost too late to create too many changes and also the
installation will be compromised as overview of the model and modified drawings
at that late stage will likely create additional costs as well as fees.
This additional work
through the contractor is in impact repeating the modelling exercise (as well
since the drawing exercise) and may be the key area of scope overlap and for
that reason additional time and cost that will impact project profitability as
well as schedules.
To many observers, such
an overlap defeats the objective of employing MEP (M&E) BIM techniques.
With more time in the beginning of the process in order to define the
deliverables of every party the scope could be reduced.
There are three
alternatives open to the project team to prevent scope overlap in this way.
Firstly, the consultant may produce a BIM model but might not focus on creating
the coordinated or clash free of charge model. He/she would make use of the
model to then produce design drawings. This would provide the actual contractor
with a model that isn't coordinated but with effective routes and outlets for
services that may then be fine-tuned. This method would reduce BIM modelling
time for that consultant as it eliminates the coordination 'headache'.
Next, he may create a
2D mep cad drawings as with the
traditional non-BIM period. This will still permit BIM model creation through
the contractor and therefore project's need for BIM it's still served. This
method allows the contractor to produce a coordinated BIM model utilizing
specialist MEP coordination companies if needed.
The third approach is
perfect for the design consultants to use specialist a MEP coordination
organization that understands and offers 'coordination for installation'
abilities. By employing these skills in the design stage the output is prone to
be more useful for that contractor whose role will then be to fine tune the
model after which create drawings.
By managing mep
coordination drawings projects using one of these simple
methods scope overlap is going to be reduced and projects could be more
effectively managed and delivered throughout the pre-construction and BIM
phases. The end result would have been a gain for clients along with a more
positive and effective utilization of BIM technology to provide MEP BIM
projects.
No comments:
Post a Comment