Guide to BIM Object Data

9 Comments

1. 

   Craig Sewell July 08th, 2015

   There is little information available on what data manufacturers should embed in BIM objects. I have put this guide together as a starting point.

   It is important we as manufacturers are not providing information for the sake of it. But, we do need some guidance from the industry (and clients) to get this right.

   Please share your experiences on manufacturer data in the box below.

   Reply
2. 

   Jonny Morgan August 24th, 2015

   Hi Craig,

   As an architect and specifier in a BIM environment, a few observations and queries come to mind, that you may be able to develop on:

   We are starting to see more and more suppliers information being made available in the industry, (which is great and aids us as specifiers, as well as assists us in meeting deliverables we are now seeing from clients), however subject to how and who this has been created by, impacts on the integrity and level of data available. Do you know about any further developments regarding common data standards for supplier components? The tables above clearly highlight the data fields that the industry are using, which are being made available by the leading component creators as well as the intended level 2 industry deliverables (COBie), however the amount of duplication of information that would need to be present in components if manufacturers were to add all of these seems over kill to me.

   We have recently completed a project where we had a Final Handover BIModel deliverable, together with asset information fields made available for ongoing maintenance. We swapped out generic components for product specific components (following contractor appointment), if they were available, however there were very specific non graphical data requirements for ongoing FM that were required by the client that would not typically be available in components and are not noted above (client specific). Do you think it is ok for us as architects to make these fields available in a supplier specific component?
   What do you feel is the best way to make these asset data fields available within a suppliers component?

   Whilst we have developed and streamlined our own internal processes aligned to industry standards in existence and continue to develop these as new standards come out and existing ones are revised, one of the most important factors for us is to talk to like minded people in the industry and share experiences. BIM means different things to different people, however only through communication of our experiences, both positive and negative can we learn and move forward as a collaborative industry.

   Reply
3. 

   Teejay Gundu September 01st, 2015

   This is a very very helpful piece of article. I am currently working within my company developing BIM models and I am seeing how ridiculous it is to try and incorporate all specs as Jonny has mentioned. If one model was to be hosted on three different sites, it seems I would have to create 3 separate model, in terms of data.

   I have not yet had experience/encounters with any architects but I’ll be sure to let you know.

   Reply
• 

  Craig Sewell September 01st, 2015

  Thanks Teejay. I look forward to you sharing your feedback as you progress with BIM at Warrior Doors.

  Reply
4. 

   Chris Crookes February 12th, 2016

   Great article – this certainly helps round up the current set of requirements. We broadly agree with what you have listed however we would recommend the addition of Uniclass2015. The IFC parameters would vary depending upon the component to be modelled. Keep up the good work!

   Reply
• 

  Craig Sewell May 06th, 2016

  Thanks Chris, you are correct regarding IFC parameters. Product manufacturers wanting to learn more can visit the link provided under the IFC section above.

  Reply
5. 

   Jose Vargas May 06th, 2016

   Great reflections on BIM Craig! I’m working in Brazil with BIM, and your articles have been helpful for my discussions in many cases! Thank you so much!

   Reply
• 

  Craig Sewell May 06th, 2016

  That’s great to hear Jose – wishing you continued success over in Brazil!

  Reply
6. 

   Tim Aikin September 22nd, 2016

   Jonny Morgan makes a really important point about the workflow, quality and availability of BIM Objects. Should the design team be required to swap out generic components for manufacturers ones? It requires common data structures without this then it’s just a big overhead and that means there is no efficiency at this part of the process.

   On a project I am working on, the Contractor is obtaining the Asset Information from the supply chain using spread sheets. We did try to get them to use a PDT format but they were set up for their own method. We are then processing their data in to our Product Library (imports/exports COBie) and completing the data set (photos, associated documents etc.). Then this is being imported/transferred into an Asset Information Model (imports/exports COBie) which is built up from the different 3D BIM models. Asset Types are updated to the actual products in this environment. The Product Library in addition to imports has a direct link for the AIM app to the product library app. It’s our common data environment.

   This workflow is not uncommon and examples are Solibri, 4Projects, Conject not to mention some CAD vendors.

   To speed up the process of getting information into the Product Library we have developed different tools one being an exporter for Revit Families. This exports from a Revit Family a COBie data set (xml, json and xlsx). It parses the parameters data, mapping to the Cobie.Type table and anything else is put in Cobie.Attribute. This process shows up an incredible lack of consistency between object libraries but at least we get the core Asset Information which for clients is Product Name, description, ModelNumber, ModelReference. We already have the Supplier Address which invariably is missing from the objects because supplier information will vary between countries.

   Obviously we have developed our own technology, which we can develop as standalone and connected rather then buried in functionality of one single system. As we are in the FM domain we have to have a product library with depth of quality information. Ultimately for validity and authority this will be synchronised directly with product manufacturers via data services and not through 3rd party objects. (in my opinion)

   Reply