You are on page 1of 6

Building Information Flow (BIF)

Bring back the BIF


Poor and declining documentation for building projects is regularly blamed by downstream trades in the steel industry for inefficiencies, often unknowingly introducing unnecessary duplication and impeding technology improvements. A recent ASI seminar series on Implementing new technologies and processes with Bornhorst Ward, Jackson Roxborough and Farley Production Systems highlighted a more cost effective way of designing and constructing buildings that deserves full-scale uptake by the industry. This seminar is available for viewing on the ASI web site ;
http://elibrary.steel.org.au/asi/index.cfm?E28E9A45-CAA0-B0DB-AEEA-4B78E8C35B4E&

Australian design and fabrication has rapidly taken up new and exciting technologies. 3D modelling can produce walk-throughs of the finished building with intelligence on each component; CNC equipment can produce automatically off the detailers design model, label each part and arrange it to be packed and transported in correct order, so it can be crane lifted off the truck directly onto the building; and this at far quicker speeds, reduced cost and better quality than ever before. Why are we not utilising the new technologies fully? Some examples: The same design and fabrication/erection construction team doesnt stay together on subsequent projects to progress skills - as happens in the UK. The fabricator is expected make assumptions to quote on an unfinished design. The detailer is discouraged from asking questions directly of the architect or designer, where the architects detail is different from the engineers detail. The cut-off date for tender documents is the same for the structural engineer and architect. The number of RFIs is increasing even though much more information is available. There is seldom early engagement with detailers as happens in the Australian mining industry.

Illustration of one of the problems: a mismatch of a detailers drawing and an engineers uncovered by overlaying the two 3D models.

The problem is that the supply chain is not always set up for cooperation and information sharing. We dont seem to be able to relate speed and cost to efficient transfer of data both ways during the construction process because we DONT HAVE A MECHANISM TO BUILD ON THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS EFFICIENCY. In the UK it is common practice for the engineer, builder, detailer and fabricator to team up on many projects. The focus is on producing the building the most efficient way, rather than constraining the subcontractor on costs who then needs to recover them through RFIs. A process of continuous improvement is set in motion for the team and data flow is plotted out and improved on each succeeding project. A new approach is also being trialled by a fabricator builder developer in South Australia: design, detail, cost by the quantity surveyor, approach the banks for finance. Greater certainty has lessened the risk for the banks, providing better funding for projects. The fabricator has the complete design for tendering which equals better costing and fewer RFIs, helping to speed preliminaries. We all win.

What is required for better design collaboration?


1. Export data in a format compatible with the detailers. 2. Ensure the engineer can review the detailer model against the original design as a complete model. 3. Keep modifications against this model to provide for an as-built design down to detail level for later building maintenance. 4. The client/builder stipulates how and where the model is used as part of the contractual process. 5. Detailers directly access design contacts in architecture and engineering and there is regular communication between the three disciplines. 6. RFIs are only generated when cost changes are involved.

Example of a request by the detailer for an engineering change of splice position without RFI and without cost implication.

The advantages of this collaboration are:


Time saved in the construction process and ultimately the cost of preliminaries. Cost of the detailing and engineering RFI process reduced. Cost certainty is introduced. Creation of a cohesive design, detailing and fabrication team utilising their team experience for more projects.

How can fabricators get involved?


In the steel contractor model, fabricators provide design advice, particularly regarding what type of connection design suits their production efficiencies and how best to design for cost efficient erection and shop fabrication. Mostly fabricators can introduce these efficiencies and improve quality by taking the DSTV files directly from the detailers model straight to CNC equipment. How this works: 1. Each part can be scribed to ensure that the weldment placements are foolproof. 2. Each assembly is identified to a production sequence.

The prescriptive vs collaborative approach


In writing this paper, a review was undertaken of work by the Australian Institute of Steel Detailers, British Constructional Steelwork Association, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and a host of relevant publications were consulted. These publications mostly approached the problem of poor documentation by prescribing checklists of data to be supplied by project service providers. They are primarily designed to ensure that drawings on a structural steel project have sufficient information to allow effective detailing or to place mill orders. These checklists havent stemmed the declining quality in documentation often due to pressure to do the design work quicker or the lack of the spirit of collaboration that results in the project team not getting together to answer questions early to eliminate RFIs later on. The most telling comment was possibly from Tabitha Stine, the AISCs Director of Technical Marketing. She says: Only if engineers, fabricators and detailers work in a collaborative fashion and discuss issues relevant to design, construction sequencing, best connection types and practices, material procurement and efficiencies, will the issue of document quality be improved. This is definitely not how all projects go but as we see successes around the country we actively promote these to the other project teams.

Initiating the new approach:


1. Foster collaboration - the engineer, detailer and possibly the architect start to develop communication protocols through trial information exchanges.

2. Hone efficiency - the engineer, detailer or fabricator with detailing facility, practise file transfer and coordination of the models. 3. Market the new approach - the engineer, detailer and possibly the fabricator market their abilities as a team to the client, builder and architectural fraternity.

The role of the ASI


The role of the ASI is to make the business case to the building community. Through consultation, the ASI can assist to define Best Practice and provide examples through workshops, seminars, direct mail and media articles. Partnerships will be encouraged to first sharpen skills in a non-project situation, and when a team has developed a degree of expertise in this area, the ASI can help promote it. The ASI can also facilitate structural steel interest groups who can share experiences about coordinating between disciplines. The ASI can offer facilities for documents to be posted on the website and members comments listed. Web seminars can also be held to facilitate communication and coordination over distance. Your interest in participating in this activity can be registered by contacting David Ryan, National Manager Marketing on davidr@steel.org.au.
References Presentations available on the ASI web ref, Brett Taylor - Bornhorst Ward Clayton Roxborough- Jackson Roxborough Peter Farley - Farley Production Systems

Documents 1. New Zealand Construction Industry Council, Design documentation guidelines Structural. In: NZCIC Design documentation guidelines , New Zealand Construction Industry Council, August 2008 2. Churcher, David, A design framework for building services, 2nd edition, Building Services Research and Information Association,2009 3. Royal Institute of British Architects, Outline Plan of Work, Royal Institute of British Architects, 2007, amended 2008 4. Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Welding guidelines for design engineers, Australian Institute of Steel Construction, 2000 5. National Institute of Steel Detailing Inc., n.d. Guidelines for successful presentation of steel design documents. Retrieved August, 2010 from http://www.aisd.org 6. Australian Institute of Steel Detailers Inc., 2004. Contract documents completion checklist. Retrieved August, 2010 from http://www.aisd.com.au/forms/AISD_checklist_2004.pdf 7. Construction Industry Council (Great Britain), CIC services: Handbook, RIBA Publishing, 2007

8. British Constructional Steelwork Association/Steel Construction Institute, The national structural steelwork specification for building construction,5th Edition, British Constructional Steelwork Association, 2007 9. Tilley, P.A., Design and documentation deficiency and its impact on steel construction. In: Steel Construction, Vol. 32 Number 1, March 1998, pp. 2-12. 10. Engineering documentation standards: Invest in design to reduce project costs. Steel Construction, Vol. 34, Number 4, December 2000 11. British Constructional Steelwork Association, Allocation of design responsibilities in constructional steelwork, British Constructional Steelwork Association, 2007 12. Engineers Australia Queensland Division Task Force, Getting it right the first time, Engineers Australia, October 2005

You might also like