|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PROJECT DELIVERY By CHRISTOPHER M. HOSTETLER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 C hristopher M. Hostetler
3 This document is dedicated: To the e ntire a rchitecture, e ngineering, and c onstruction (AEC) community i n professional practice and in education, s uch that we will all continuously assess t he environmental benefits and consequences of the actions and decisions we make. and To Edward Mazria William McDonough and Michael Br aungart w ho helped open my eyes regarding the environmental impacts of the entire AEC i ndustry
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I must thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Svetlana Olbina, Dr. Robert Ries, and Dr. Charles Kibert This research could not have progressed as it did w ithout their advice, time, and effort The similarities among our sustainable and technological intere sts have been enormously inspirational I give great thanks to the anonymous respondents to the survey questionnaire, who provided a vital aspect to this research They graciously offered their time and expertise to play a critical role in accomplishing the objectives of this research. I also give thanks to the Director of the School of Building Construction (BCN) here at the University of Florida, Dr. Abdol Chini as well as my Course C oordinator, Dr. Olbina, both of whom placed great confidence in me during t he three semesters which I was the Course I nstructor for UF BCN1251: Construction Drawing After a year and a half of i mproving the course content, meanwhile receiving extraordinary student feedback, I am still not quite sure who benefitted the most from this experience: my students ..? the school of BCN..? or me..? Last, but definitely not least, and in retrospect most i mportantly I must also thank my family as well as my friends and colleagues throughout the years Your support has fortified my confidence and my ability to persist and excel in all of my endeavors. Individual e xtensive gratitude to each of you could be a dissertation in itself : you know who you are and thank you all for being so amazing. However I must individually acknowledge my brother Daniel Baknik. Y ou ARE the man and you will live forever in our memories
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS P age ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................11 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................14 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................14 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................14 Research Methodology ...........................................................................................................15 Summary .................................................................................................................................17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................18 Necessity for Sustainability in the AEC Industry ...................................................................19 Sustainability Ratin g Systems ................................................................................................21 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) .............................................24 LEED v3 and Sustainability Legislation .........................................................................26 Building Information Modeling (BIM) ..................................................................................28 Traditional Design Methodologies and BIM ..........................................................................31 Benefits of BIM to Owners .............................................................................................33 Benefits of BIM to Architects and Engineers ..................................................................35 Benefits of BIM to Contractors .......................................................................................36 Summary of BIM Processes ............................................................................................37 Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected BIM Software Applications ..............................38 Revit Architecture, Structure, and MEP (Autodesk Inc.) ................................................39 ArchiCAD 12 (Graphisoft) ..............................................................................................42 Bentley Architecture, St ructural, Electrical, and Mechanical (Bentley Systems) ...........43 NavisWorks 2009 (Autodesk Inc) ...................................................................................45 Innovaya (Innovaya LLC) ...............................................................................................46 IES
6 The Future of BIM for AEC Sustainability ............................................................................60 Summary .................................................................................................................................61 3 RESEARCH ME THODOLOGY ............................................................................................63 Category 1: Company Information .........................................................................................64 Category 2: Personal Information ...........................................................................................65 Category 3: Sustainability .......................................................................................................66 Category 4: Building Information Modeling (BIM) ...............................................................67 Category 5: S ustainability and BIM .......................................................................................69 Category 6: Optional ...............................................................................................................70 Summary .................................................................................................................................71 4 RESULTS AN D ANALYSIS .................................................................................................72 Survey Analysis ......................................................................................................................73 Company Name: Q1.1 .....................................................................................................73 Company Type: Q1.2 ......................................................................................................73 Number of Employees: Q1.3 ...........................................................................................75 Number of LEED Accredited Employees: Q1.4 .............................................................76 Duration of Company Operations: Q1.5 .........................................................................77 Personal Information: Q2.X ............................................................................................78 Sustainability: Q3.X ........................................................................................................78 Utilization of Specific BIM Software: Q4.1 ....................................................................78 Duration of BIM Utilization: Q4.2 ..................................................................................82 Reasons for not Utilizing BIM: Q4.3 ..............................................................................84 Perceived Advantages of Utilizing BIM: Q4.4 ...............................................................84 Perceived Disadvantages or Obstacles to Utilizing BIM: Q4.5 ......................................88 Realized Benefits of Rating Systems to Improve Project Sustainab ility: Q5.1 ..............91 Realized Benefits o f BIM to Improve Project Sustainability: Q5.2 ................................92 Improvements to Traditional Methods of Sustainable Project Delivery Resulting from BIM: Q5.3 ...........................................................................................................94 Recommended Improvements to BIM for Increased Sustainability Analysis: Q5.4 ......96 Survey Respondents Requests for Copies of this Document: Q6.1 ...............................98 Summary .................................................................................................................................98 Characteristics of Companies Using BIM .......................................................................99 Perceived Advantages of BIM .......................................................................................100 Perceived Disadvantages of BIM and Obstacles to BIM ..............................................101 The Use of LEED or Other Certification Rating Systems for Sustainability ................102 Benefits of BIM Actually Realized by Companies to Deliver Sustainable Projects .....103 Perceptions of BIM for Improving the Delivery of Projects with Greater Degrees of Sustainability ..............................................................................................................103 Recommended Improvements to BIM to Facilitate the Delivery of Sustainable Projects .......................................................................................................................104
7 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................106 Research Conclusions ...........................................................................................................106 Assessment of the Research Objectives ...............................................................................108 Research Objective 1 .....................................................................................................108 Research Objective 2 .....................................................................................................109 Research Objective 3 .....................................................................................................109 Research Objective 4 .....................................................................................................109 Research Objective 5 .....................................................................................................110 Retrospe ctive Improvements to this Research ......................................................................110 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................112 Recommendations for the AEC Community ........................................................................113 Recommendations for BIM Software Manufacturers ...........................................................114 APPENDIX A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ...................................................................................................116 B IRB SURVEY PROPOSAL SUBMISSION .......................................................................118 C IRB SURVEY APPROVAL ................................................................................................120 D SURVEY REQUEST LETTER ...........................................................................................121 E SURVEY INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION .................................................122 F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................124 G SURVEY RESPONSES ......................................................................................................126 H THE EFFECTS OF SUSTAINABILITY LEGISLATION ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONS .................................................................................161 Abstract .................................................................................................................................163 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................163 State Legislation Mandating Sustainable Design and Construction .....................................164 Arkansas ........................................................................................................................164 Connecticut ....................................................................................................................165 Maryland ........................................................................................................................165 Nevada ...........................................................................................................................166 Washington ....................................................................................................................166 State Executive Orders Mandating Sustainable Design and Constructi on ...........................167 Arizona ..........................................................................................................................167 California .......................................................................................................................168 Colorado ........................................................................................................................168 Florida ............................................................................................................................169
8 Maine .............................................................................................................................169 Michigan ........................................................................................................................169 New Jersey .....................................................................................................................170 New Mexico ..................................................................................................................170 New York ......................................................................................................................171 Pen nsylvania ..................................................................................................................171 Rhode Island ..................................................................................................................172 Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................172 Municipal Case Stud ies ........................................................................................................173 Goodyear, AZ ................................................................................................................173 New York City, NY .......................................................................................................174 District of Colum bia ......................................................................................................176 Scottsdale, AZ ...............................................................................................................177 Portland, OR ..................................................................................................................177 Incentives for Sustainable Design and Construction ............................................................178 Summary ...............................................................................................................................179 List of References for Appendix H .......................................................................................180 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................184 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................188
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure P age 21 U.S. energy consumption by sector ...................................................................................18 22 Modified U.S. energy consumption by sector ...................................................................19 23 Total historic and projected U.S. energy consumption ......................................................19 24 LEED v3 compared with LEED NC 2.2 by credit ............................................................26 25 Potential of BIM for collaboration .....................................................................................34 26 Efficiencies resulting from the use of BIM ........................................................................38 27 Interoperability functional ity of Innovaya, as adapted from Innovaya LLC 2008 ............47 28 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in IES
10 413 General disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM: Q4.5 ......................................................89 414 General realized benefits of certification rating systems for sustainability: Q5.1 .............92 415 General realized benefits of BIM t o improve project sustainability: Q5.2 ........................93 416 Specific realized benefits of BIM to improve project sustainability: Q5.2 .......................93 417 General potential of BIM for improving the methods of delivering sustainable projects: Q5.3 .....................................................................................................................95 418 General recommendations to improve to BIM for sustainability analysis: Q5.4 ..............97 G 1 Types of company services by surveyed companies: Q1.2 .............................................126 G 2 Types of projects by surveyed companies: Q1.2 .............................................................127 G 3 Specific company sizes: Q1.3 ..........................................................................................128 G 4 Specific percentage of LEED APs employed by surveyed companies: Q1.4 ................129 G 5 Specific duration of surveyed company operations: Q1.5 ...............................................130 G 6 Specific utilization of particular BIM applications by surveyed companies: Q4.1 .........131 G 7 BIM and other company information ..............................................................................132 G 8 Specific advantages of utilizing BIM: Q4.4 ....................................................................138 G 9 Specific disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM: Q4.5 ...................................................143 G 10 Specific perceptions of utilizing certification rating systems such as LEED to achieve sustainabil ity: Q5.1 ..........................................................................................................147 G 11 Specific perceptions of utilizing BIM to achieve sustainability: Q5.2 ............................150 G 12 Specific potential of BIM fo r improving the methods of delivering sustainable projects: Q5.3 ...................................................................................................................153 G 13 Specific recommendations to improve BIM for sustainability: Q5.4 ..............................157 H 1 State legislation requiring sustainable design and construction ......................................164 H 2 Executive orders requiring sustainable design and construction .....................................164
11 LIST OF TABLES Table P age 21 Sustainability metric systems for buildings .......................................................................23 22 Sustainability metric systems for b uilding components ....................................................23 23 LEED v3 compared with LEED NC 2.2 by category ........................................................25 G 1 Verbatim responses regarding reasons for not ut ilizing BIM: Q4 .3 ................................137 G 2 Verbatim responses regarding advantages of utilizing BIM: Q4.4 ..................................140 G 3 Verbatim responses regarding disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM: Q4.5 .................144 G 4 Verbatim perceptions of utilizing certification rating systems such as LEED to achieve sustainability: Q5 .1 .............................................................................................148 G 5 Verbatim perceptions of utilizing BIM to achieve sustainability: Q5.2 ..........................151 G 6 Verbatim responses regarding the potential of BIM for improving the met hods of delivering sustainable projects: Q5.3 ...............................................................................154 G 7 Verbatim recommendations to improve BIM for sustainability: Q5.4 ............................158 H 1 Requirements of the NYC Green City Buildings Act ......................................................175
12 A bstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Building Constr uction BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT S ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PROJECT DELIVERY By C hristopher M. Hostetler August 2009 C hair: Sveltana Oblina Cochair: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction The primary purpose of this research is to explore the potential uses of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to achieve environmental sustainability for the a rchitectur e / e ngineering / c onstruction (A EC ) industry. T his research elaborat es on the environmentally detrimental impacts that occur as a result of the construction of the built environment, stressing the need for a reduction or elimination of such impacts. S everal third party rating systems are introduced, rating systems which attempt to measure varying degrees of sustainabi lity for specific building types T he technology referred to as BIM is defined and actual and perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with such software are described T he potential for utilizing BIM software to achieve sustainable design and construction is presented from the perspective of various literature on the subject, as well as from the perspective of surveyed AEC professionals As environmental awareness continues to increase, many building owners are asking for more sustainable buildings Increasing numbers of municipalities now require certain building types to achieve specified levels of sust ainable certification The inherent dilemma within the AEC industry is that most often, every project is unique in many way s, therefore there is never
13 one single answer to any given issue and/or problem. Many professionals agree that BIM could possibly have the potential to greatly affect the AEC communitys ability to design, engineer, and build more sustainable buildings. This research explore s B uilding Information Modeling as one of the potential solutions that the AEC industry can utilize to provide building owners with more sustainable buildings, while simultaneously assisting AEC professionals in making more sustainable decisions.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION As the world is entering a new era of environmental consciousness, the a rchitectural / e ngineering / c onstruction (AEC) professionals of today and tomorrow are obligated more now than ever, morally if not legally, to address the environmenta l implications of their actions. Buildings, and more broadly, the built environment are extremely resource dependent, consuming vast amounts of raw materials and energy while generating large volumes of waste throughout construction and operation. Since many resources are not rapidly renewable, c urrent trends cannot continue if humanity expects to anticipate a sustainable future. Problem Statement The AEC industry directly and indirectly has the potential to impact environmental disruption more so than an y other sector. Therefore, it is imperative that AEC professionals fully understand the environmental consequences of their line of work, and it is critical that they have the tools available to assess and minimize the ecological impacts resulting from the decisions they make. Among the tools currently available, BIM appears to possess extraordinary potential assessing and minimizing the environmental footprint of the AEC industry. There is a need to investigate the use of BIM as the potential technological solution to the sustainability issue by detailing advantages and disadvantages of using BIM, in particular those advantages and disadvantages of using BIM to realize improved sustainability. Research O bjective s The goal of this research is to explore the methods by which the AEC industry has the capability to mitigate negative environmental impacts of its actions. This research is intended to become a source of information for the AEC industry of today and tomorrow to assist individuals in identifying the benefits and shortcomings of various methods and technologies as
15 they strive to improve the sustainability of the buildings they design and build. This research explores BIM as a potential tool capable of assisting the AEC community in making more sustai nable decisions. The objectives of this research are as follows : 1. Determine the extent to which sustainability is affecting the AEC industry. 2. Determine the extent to which BIM is being utilized by the AEC community. 3. Determine the perceived and actual adva ntages and disadvantages to utilizing BIM. 4. Determine various AEC companys perceptions of BIM regarding utilizing BIM in order to achieve sustainability, and the reasoning behind such perceptions. 5. Determine whether or not BIM is changing the traditional me thods of project delivery with regard to sustainability, and if so, how and why. Research Methodology The scope of this research includes a variety of methods for addressing the research objectives previously introduced. The methods for exploring sustainability and BIM are as follows : Chapter 2 commences with a discussion of the environmentally detrimental impacts that occur as a result of the constr ucting the built environment including : excessive energy consumption, raw materials consumption, and construction and demolition waste (C&D waste), s tressing the need for a reduction or elimination of such impacts Following this is a brief introduction to a variety of third party rating systems such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design); these rating systems gauge t he extent of sustainability for specific building types. Next, the technology referred to as BIM is defined, describing advantages and disadvantages associated with various software applications Finally, the current and potential fu ture uses of BIM software to achieve sustainable design and construction are presented. Upon concluding the literature review on this topic, it is evident that advances in BIM related technology could potentially improve the ability of the AEC community to analyze design and
16 construction proposals with regard to improving sustainability A survey was distributed among 343 AEC companies in order to gain insight into if or how they have integrated sustainable ideologies and/or BIM technologies into their workflow processes The survey form is reprinted in Appendix F and the responses are reprinted in Appendix G. Chapter 3 introduces t he methodology for composing the survey and it presents the intentions behind each su rvey question. The decision to conduct suc h a survey was critical to this research as a method to compare BIM and sustainability literature with actual data collected from various AEC companies knowledge able in utilizing BIM for sustainability. T he survey was conducted to address the research obje ctives from a different perspective than that of the literature review Chapter 4 presents the analysis of the survey responses The survey used several open ended questions in which respondents typically replied in paragraph format. Such responses facili tated firsthand insight regarding the extent of BIM utilization and the benefits realized as a result of using BIM. The analysis result ed from categorizing the type of information included within each response. By s urveying individuals fr om companies with knowledge and expertise of BIM for sustainability, this resear ch provides a beneficial resourc e to those who wish explore the use of BIM to provide clients with sustainable buildings. A summarized analysis of the survey results concludes Chapter 4. Chapte r 5 presents the conclusions which link the literature review and the survey results. The conclusions recollect the research objectives and a ddress them within the context of the r esearch results Ultimately, recommendations to the AEC community are sugges ted, such that companies might achieve a greater understanding of the potential uses of BIM to realize sustainable projects. Additionally, recommendations to BIM software manufacturers are
17 suggested, such that they become aware of potential improvements to BIM which could facilitate its use on projects attempting to attain improvements to sustainability Recommendations for future research are also suggested. Summary The importance or significance of this research is multifaceted: on one hand, it consolidat es a wide variety of information into a single resource on BIM in general and BIM for sustainability; on the other hand, survey participants are recommended to provide contact information if they wish to receive a digital copy of this document. The intention of this research is to help increase the awareness of the capabilities of BIM software, such that this research might increase the understanding of the potential for BIM to improve sustainability throughout the AEC industry.
18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIE W In recent years, issues related to sustainability have begun to migrate from the sidelines into the mainstream. In general, we have begun to become more aware of the environmental consequences of our actions. Consciousness is rising regarding reducing en ergy consumption, greenhouse gas emission, and raw material consumption, just to name a few topics focused on reducing the ecological footprint resulting from the acti ons we take. When assessing energy consumption, the entire economy is typically broken down into four major sectors: industrial, commercial, transportation, and residential, with these sectors representing the primary consumers of energy. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), estimates that within the United States during 2007: the industrial sector consumed about 32% of total energy followed by transportation at 29%, residential at 2 2%, and commercial at 18% ( Figure 2 1) (EIA 2008) It should also be noted that energy consumption is t ypically correlated with greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. This is due to the current predominant use of fossil fuels as energy derivatives (Mazria 2003). Figure 2 1. U.S. e nergy c onsumption by s ector
19 Necess ity for Sustainability in the AEC Industry Mazria (2003) propose s that we should reconsider this model of energy consumption by traditional sector s in order to isolate the architecture and building construction professions estimating that the AEC industry account s for 48% of total U.S. energy consumption and 46% carbon dioxide emissions, stating that these are numbers are rounded down to provide conservative estimates (Figure 2 2) Mazria (2003) accentuates the severity of AEC energy consumption ( Figure 23 ) which depicts a future projection of anticipated energy usage in the United States through the year 2020. Mazria (2003) concludes that it is the responsibility of architects to address this growing problem, citing conservatively that architects design 77% of all nonresidential buildings, 70% of all multifamily buildings, and 25% of all single family homes The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change promised to restore atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to 1990 levels. However, U.S. energy consumption increased by Figure 2 2. Modified U.S. e nergy c onsumption by s ector Figure 2 3. Total historic and projected U.S. e nergy c onsumption
20 17% through the 1990s and is expected to increase an additional 37% by 2020 (Mazria 2003). Since energy production and greenhouse gas emissions are related topics, the goal of reduced emissions and the trend of increased energy consumption appear to conflict, and in order to achieve th e goal of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions changes to tradi tional methods of energy production and energy consumption are greatly necessary. In addition to energy related sustainability issues concerning the built environment, the AEC industry consumes an exorbitant amount of raw materials leading to greatly diminishing virgin materials stock on a global scale. F rom 1974 to 1994, the increased use of all raw materials for construction processes except crude steel far surp assed the growth in population. During this period, the global popul ation increased by 40% while also during this 20 year period, the global consumption of cement and plastics increased by 77% and 200% respectively (Rekacewicz 2004). B uildings consume 40% of the raw stone, gravel, sand, and energy, 25% of the raw timber, and 16% of the water us ed globally every year ( Lippiatt 1999) E ach year, buildings i n the U.S. consume 72% of total electricity, 39% o f total primary energy, 1 4% of total potable water (15 trillion gallons annually) and 40% of raw materials ( 3 billion tons annually) (USGBC 200 9). This extreme consumption results in the production of 38% of the total carbon dioxide emissions, and 136 million tons of co nstruction and demolition (C&D) waste every year in the United States alone Annually in the United States, 210 million tons of municipal solid waste is disposed of, in addition to the 136 million tons of annual C&D waste (USGBC 2009). In the U.S., 39% of landfilled material by weight is the result of the AEC industry. Globally, the environmental impact of the AEC industry is almos t unimaginable Such aforementioned energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, virgin materials consumption, and waste statistics for the AEC industry cannot be deemed acceptable.
21 Referencing the recent and rapid increase in the number of construction projects globally, Smith (2007) stresses that the need for integrating susta inability into the AEC professions is essential to the future goals of the entire global AEC community. B y 2030, approximately half of the total building stock in the U.S. will hav e been built after 2000 (Nelson 2004). This extraordinary increase in the U.S. building stock from 300 billion square feet in 2000 to an estimated 427 billion square feet b y 2030 is a clear indication that sustainable intentions must be inherent to future design and construction projects in order to ensure adequate energy and materials resources for future generations (Nelson 2004) From a global standpoint, the current and future growth in rapidly industrializing nations such as China will further increas e the rate of energy and materials consumption and the generation of waste (Ortiz, Castells and Sonnemann 2007) T herefore it is imperative that the AEC industry acknowledge s these trends by continuing to address potential design and construction alternat ives aimed at minimizing the environmental impact of th is profession. Sustainability Rating Systems Sustainability rating systems are beneficial for establishing a framework for measuring the overall environmental impact of a building These rating systems are referred to as third party rating systems, meaning that a given project is not self rated by any party involved in the project thereby eliminating any conflicts of interest. Such rating systems assist the AEC community by providing a multitude of opt ions helpful in rating projects based on a set of criteria. Utilizing these criteria, AEC professionals are better able to judge the environmental impacts of a particular project, establish a defined set of objectives and goals required for minimal accepta ble performance, plan methodologies and establish rewards for achieving those goals, predict and observed trends, or predict problems areas before they occur (Pitts 2004). Rating systems might be used on any given project for a variety of reasons, including request s by the owner,
22 requirement of local or regionally applicable legislation, or due to other reasons internal to the project team requirements for the project. There are currently many frameworks that can be used to measure the extent of sustainabil ity of building projects. Different rating systems use a variety of dif ferent performance indicators. T he AEC team should determine which rating system is most applicable to a specific project based upon a variety of factors often including : project specific details such as location program, size, scope, owner and legal requirements; familiarity with the rating system by all contractually bound parties; and the ability and willingness of all parties to participate (Pitts 2004) In the United States, the most common and universally accepted method for com plete building analysis is LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) (Werthan 2007). LEED is the only metric for sustainability thoroughly discussed here, but many such metrics exist, some of w hich measure the sustainable aspects of an entire building similar to LEED, while others focus more specifically on certain products and/or materials commonly used in buildings. Just as project owners might ask that LEED is used as a decision making framew ork without actually pursuing LEED certification, other nonLEED systems can and should be employed by the AEC team to help e nsure that sustainable intentions are realized Tables 21 and 22 illustrate the variety of many recognized sustainability framewo rks available to all parties of the project team including owners, designers, constructors, and engineers. It should be noted that these figures are not inclusive of every rating system currently available, but instead they help to illustrate the wide variety of possible metric systems for measuring sustainability intentions. Some frameworks analyze not only sustainable design and construction, but they also analyze building operations, maintenance, and l ife c ycle a ssessment (LCA). Benefits of LCA can be
23 Ta ble 2 1. Sustainability m etric s ystems for buildings Sustainability m etric s ystem Sustainability r elated t opics Official o nline r esource s (LEED) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Building c ertification and LCA in LEED v3 ( I nternational) http://usgcb.org/leed (BREEAM) Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method Building c ertification and LCA ( I nternational) http://www.breeam.org Green Globes Bui lding c ertification and LCA ( I nternational) http://www.thegbi.org (CIBSE) Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Building c ertification ( I nternational) http://www.c ibse.org Energy Star Building c ertification and e nergy performance ( U.S. ) http://www.energystar.gov Green Star Building c ertification (Australia) http://www.gbca.org.au (HERS) Home Energy Rating Systems Residential c ertification ( U.S. ) http://www.energy.ca.gov/H ERS/index.html (SAP) Standard Assessment Procedure Residential c ertification ( U.K. ) http://projects.bre.co.uk/sap 2005/index.html (NABERS) National Australian Building Environmental Rating System Existing building c ertification (Australia) http://www.na bers.com.au Table 22. Sustainability metric systems for building c omponents Sustainability metric system Sustainability related topics Official online resources Green Guide to Specification Building components and materials (International) http://www.thegreenguide.or g.uk (C2C) Cradle to Cradle Certification Building components and materials (International) http://www.c2ccertified.com (FSC) Forest Stewardshi p Council Sustainable certified lumber (International) http://www.fsc.org
24 significantly important to owners who are concerned with how a potential increase in upfront design and construction expenses can be validated by future benefits, economic as well as environmental. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED ) Established by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1999, the LEED R ating S ystem was originally developed for commerci al buildings ( Fedrizzi 2009). LEED has since seen additions and revisions to its sustainability measurement protocol. The version used today is LEED 2.2, which has a variety of metrics for sustainabilit y depending on project type. LEED is similar in many ways to BREEAM, CIBSE Green Globes, and NABERS The current LEED rating system, LEED 2.2, include s : LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED NC) LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (LEED EB) LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED CI) LEED for Core & Shell (LEED CS ) LEED for Schools (LEED S ) LEED for Healthcare (LEED HC ) LEED for Homes (LEED H ) and LEED for N eighborhood Development which has been undergoing preliminary pilot testing for some time recently (USGBC 2008a ) The categories w ithin each LEED 2.2 Rating System are: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation & Design Process. However, just as many nonLEED rating systems initiate periodic updates, the LEED 2.2 rating system will be soon be updated to L EED Version 3 (LEED v3), as the USGBC is currently in the process of updating its building certification criteria and methodology After June 26, 2009, projects seek ing LEED certification will be requi red to adhere to the LEED v3 protocol (USGBC 2008b) LEED v3 will improve upon LEED 2.2 by: expanding the thirdparty certification program, providing updates to LEED Online, and introducing LCA into the LEED certification process ( Fedrizzi 2009). Another significant change is that the wide array of LEED rating
25 Table 2 3. LEED v3 compared with LEED NC 2.2 by category systems such as LEED NC and LEED EB will all be incorporated into three broad rating systems: Green Building Des ign & Construction, Green Interior Design & Construction, and Green Building Operations & Maintenance; this will help to normalize the point structure for possible credits (USGBC 2008c). Other modifications to LEED will include the redistribution of credit s in order to place more emphasis on Energy & Atmosphere and Sustainable Sites, while reducing emphasis from Indoor Environmental Quality and Material & Resources ( Table 2 3 ). Additionally, LEED v3 will add a new category of credits relating to regionally specific sustainability efforts to help encourage localized environmental consciousness, since many sustainable decisions might not be applicable to every possible geographic location. The USGBC provides a thorough breakdown of the changes to each category ( Figure 2 4) (USGBC 2008d). LEED Category LEED v3 LEED NC 2.2 Percent Change Credits Available Percent of Total Credits Credits Available Percent of Total Credits Sustainable Sites 26 23.64% 14 20.29% 3.35% Water Efficiency 10 9.09% 5 7.25% 1.84% Energy & Atmosphere 35 31.82% 17 24.64% 7.18% Materials & Resources 14 12.73% 13 18.84% 6.11% Indoor Environmental Quality 15 13.64% 15 21.74% 8.10% Innovation & Design Process 6 5.45% 5 7.25% 1.79% Regional Bonus Credits 4 3.64% 0 0.00% 3.64% Total Credits 110 69
26 LEED v3 and Sustainability Legislation Many municipalities currently have legislation, executive orders, and/or mandates which prescribe that certain building types must achieve a set level of sustainability in design and cons truction. Such jurisdictions include, but are not limited to: the states of Arkansas, Arizona, Figure 24. LEED v3 c ompar ed w ith LEED NC 2.2 by c redit
27 California, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Jerse y, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the cities of Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Boulder, Chicago, Dallas, Los Figure 24. C ont inued
28 Angeles, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, San Jos, Seattle, and Washington D.C. The degree of sustainability, the building types requiring certification, and the rating systems recommended or required vary by municipality This researcher has conducted independent research on this topic, which is reprinted in its entirety in Appendix H to provide detailed information for specific legislation as of 2007, in addition to providing resources for further research M any municipalities requiring AEC sustainability either require a specified level of LEED certification (ty pically LEED Silver or equivalent) or they require that LEED is used as a framework without necessarily requiring certification I n many instances existing legislation also ha ve stipulations similar to: adherence to all future versions of LEED promulgate d by the USGBC shall be required (Del Percio 2008). As the USGBC is preparin g to introduce LEED v3, Del Percio (2008) questions how changes to LEED will effect current legisla tion: Will the current laws be amended to reflect the new version of LEED? Will legislators become more hesitant to implement sustainable laws, since rating systems will continue to evolve? The USGBC LEED Steering Committee has commented has commented multiple times that it does not intend to treat LEED as a building code however more and more localities are beginning to require some degree of sustainability (Del Percio 2008). In consideration of the extremely relative infancy of LEED v3, which in fact has yet to be completely introduced at the time of this writing these and other questions will only be answered in due time. Building Information Modeling (BIM) S ustainability cannot remain a niche market within small pockets of the AEC community ; instead, sustainability must be come a vital aspect of the entire AEC industry. Striving t o answer t he question, How is sustainability achieved? i t should be readily apparent that just like with any design related decision, there is no one single answer to this question. This research explores
29 the potential of Building Information Modeling ( BIM) software, which currently appears to be greatly beneficial in assisting AEC professionals throughout the processes of designing and constructing more sustainable buildings Building Information Modeling has no single widely accepted definition ( Campb ell 2006). BIM can refer to either: the Building Information Modeling software, the process of creating the digital BIM model or the actual digital B IM model itself. For the purposes of this research, BIM has all of these definitions, depending on the context in which the term BIM is used. In addition, this research also includes tertiary analysis software within the definition of BIM, such as specialized energy or lighting analysis software, for example. Sometimes, such analytical tools are built into BIM software packages. O ther times tertiary applications require impor ting the model data from external BIM software especially in the event the tertiary analysis application cannot be used to build the digital model Building Information Modeling software utilize what are typically referred to parametric databases, in which all aspects of the building design and construction details are linked to one another to simplify building analysis To elaborate, the building is digitally modeled in three dimensions, such that any modifications to the actual model are automatically updated in all supporting twodimensional views or camera angles of the model, including not just the exterior elevations, but the floor plans, building sections, and any interior elevations as well. The parametric nature of data storage can possibly provide many potential benefits. BIM is a technology integrated into various computer software applications as a way to potentially improve the process es of design and building documentation, con struction, fabrication, and life cycle assessment of buildings Building Information Modeling is the creation and use of coordinated, consistent, computable information about a building project in design
30 information used for design decision making, product ion of highquality construction documents, predicting building performanc e, cost estimating, construction planning, and, eventually, for managing and operating the facility ( Krygiel and Nies 2008; Autodesk Inc. 2008). Bentley Systems describes BIM as new way to approach the design and documentation of building projects, elaborating several advantages of BIM over CAD (Bentley Systems Inc. 2008a): Building consideration of the buildings entire lifecycle (design/build/operations) Information inclusion of all information about the building and its lifecycle Modeling defining and simulating the building its delivery and operation using integrated tools BIM models are not simply graphic tools; they are also databases for information that assist in th e automatic generation of drawings and reports, design analysis schedule simulation, facilities management, and more. These benefits assist the building team in making more informed decisions in collaboration among project team members while reducing or e liminating data redundancy, data re entry, data loss, miscommunication, and translation errors (Be ntley Systems Inc. 2008a) Eastman et al. characterizes BIM models as having the following characteristics (Eastman, Teicholz, Sacks and Liston 2008): Digita lly represented building components with intelligent associations among graphic data, parametric rules, and object attributes necessary for project analysis and work processes including quantity takeoff, specifications, and energy analysis Consistent and nonredundant data such that changes to object data are reflected in all views of the object Coordinated data such that all views of the 3D model are associative Campbell (2006) describes BIM as an intelligent simulation of architecture A digital representation of a building must have the following characteristics in order to characterize it a BIM model; these characteristics are critical for ease of future revisions and analyses:
31 Digital Spatial (3D) Measurable (quantifiable, dimensionable, and query a ble) Comprehensive (encapsulating and communicating design intent, building performance, constructability, and include sequential and financial aspects of means and methods) Accessible (to the entire AEC/ owner team through an interoperable and intuitive interface) Durable (usable through all phases of a facilitys life) BIM is becoming an increasingly common catch phrase among software developers when marketing their software. Eastman et al. (2008) stresses the importance of emphasizing information storage and analysis, the I of BIM, describing several characteristics of models which are NOT derived from BIM software: Models only containing graphic visual 3D data without object attributes Models with no support of behavior or parametric proportioning and dimensioning Models generated from combining multiple 2D CAD reference files Models allowing dimensional changes in one view which are not automatically updated in all other views As BIM continues to gain more frequent usage among the AEC community, many pr ofessionals are be ginning to utilize BIM for the design, construction, and operations of more sustainable buildings in a way which was not possible years ago using a more graphical 2D approach (Smith 2007). Within the context of sustainability, the followi ng section compares traditional design methods with design methods using BIM. Traditional Design Methodologies and BIM The problem with traditional design methodologies is that t he design aspect of the AEC community is traditionally comprised of architects structural engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and a host of other various professional s who work for owners and clients
32 by typically prescribin g building s components as twodimensional lines i n paper format, or more recently, in AutoC AD or other digital software Even after the transition from the traditional paper media to digital media, th ese drawings typically occurred in relative isolation from one another in comparison to the manner in which BIM relates the drawings ; although trac ing paper for physical media and drawing layers for digital media mak e it possible to view other 2D drawing s as an underlay, it is difficult if not impossible to place every other relevant finalized or in process drawing physical or digital, underneath t he current drawing in progress As a result, errors, omissions, i nconsistencies and/ or clashes (overlapping building components) can and do occur quite frequently wh en any given drawing within the architectural documen ts is incorrect with respect to any other drawing (Eastman et al. 2008). B uilding Information Modeling can potentially reduce such error a mong multiple drawings by uniting multiple aspects of the building design processes into a single database of information. With BIM software, the building is designed in 3 D or potentially 4D which considers time related issues of construction sequencing. The 3D model can then be used to produce high quality 2D construction drawings Due the parametric modeling aspect of BIM efficiencies are introduced which could expedite the design proce ss (East man et al. 2008). C onsider a typical green building project before BIM was readily accessible. During preliminary design, rough drawings and sketch models are produced to explore architectural concepts such as b uilding mass/void, exterior/interior views, materiality, lighting, color, etc. It is through a series of iterations which the proc ess of building conceptualization progresses : Multiple conceptual physical mo dels might be built in order to explore design possibilities and programmatic requirements of the building A solar analysis model might be constructed to study exterior shading of the building and its impact on the design
33 A daylighting model might be used to analyze interior lighting conditions and to be gin to design artificial light ing systems A separate 3 D digital model might then be produced to assist in fine tuning of the design and to provide a pre sentation medium for the owner investors, and other parties A digital 3 D energy model might be created to assess energy loads regarding solar insolation, heating/cooling, equipment heat gain, v entilation, and occupant loads Ultimately the architect will use a variety of tools which will be used to generate the final design and finally the construction documents, which are typically generated as a series of lines printed in traditional 2 D CAD or similar software Historically, it has been unlikely that these multiple phases in the design process occurred within the same platform. (Krygiel and Nies 2008). BIM has the potential to provide methods of consolidating the phases of sustainable architectural design even at an extremely preliminary design pha se When the concept of BIM was originally introduced, it predicted the ability of a single building model to support all aspects of design, construction, and operations (Khemlani 2006a). It can very well be argued that this technology is not yet at this level of development, taking into account that BIM is still relatively new but in consideration of recent and potential future improvements to software and hardware, the use fulness of BIM for sustainable design and sustainable construction is likely to increase (Livingston 2007a). While the capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages of BIM varies depending upon which software application(s) are utilized, i t would be desirable that any software accurately marketed as BIM should be able to provide all of the benefits discussed in the following sections : Benefits of BIM to Owners BIM has the potential to stream line the planning and documentation processes of design and construction project delivery (Eastman et al. 2008). A B uilding Information Model is able to assist each individual party in coordinating the necessary AEC processes with every other party
34 involve d. The potential for coordination among multiple parties typically involved in construction projects is visualized in Figure 2 5 ( Autodesk Inc. 2008). This collaboration of various professionals typically leads to an overall reduction of errors and/or omis sions on the construction drawings, which in turn leads to more efficient cost estimating and construction sequencing planning. These benefits allow project planners to provide owners with more accurate estimates of project cost and construction duration, even very early in the design process. Obvious benefits to the owner include potentially reducing disputes over estimated costs versus actual costs, as well as reducing the potential for late completion ( Eastman et al. 2008) In addition, architects using a three dimensional model as a tool for discussion with the owner can ensure that the programmatic design requirements of the building are satis fied; the owner may not be as proficient as the architect at visualizing the building design in two dimensions. The 3 D model can assist the owner in becoming more involved in the conceptual design processes, thereby improving the likelihood that the owner will receive the building as envisioned. The collaboration between the designers and the owner can potentially reduce costly and timeconsuming owner directed change orders during the construction process. In consideration of sustainability, BIM also has the potential to benefit the owner through lower operating costs. Because BIM Figure 2 5. Potential of BIM fo r collaboration
35 stores its data in parametric databases, a Building Information Model can be utilized early in the design process to analyze expected energy usage in order to design strategies for energy usage reduction. Lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation r equirements for the building could be accurately modeled. ( Eastman et al. 2008). Gleeson (2005) expresses his belief that the use of BIM by the architects and engineers can help make the building design more efficient, resulting in greatly reduced energy consumption and therefore greatly reduced operating expenses. Benefits of BIM to Architects and Engineers BIM has the capability to benefit architects in a variety of ways. During the early phases of conceptual design, experimenting with the building form in terms of mass and void in three dimensions instead of two dimensions can greatly help the decisionmaking processes of the design processes BIM is also beneficial to architects by streamlining the process of building documentation. Because the design is created in three dimensions, the 2D construction documents (CDs) can be derived from the 3 D model. Changes to the model are automatically applied to the drawings, eliminating the need to manual ly update each individual sheet and reducing the t otal time required for design documentation. Also, various schedules such as door, window, room, and materials schedules can be generated directly from the model, and these are also automatically updated as the model is modified. This automatic linkage bet ween the Building Information Model and the CDs has the potential to reduce time consuming and costly errors which might and often do occur when the information is extracted manually. BIM also has the capability to improve collaboration between architects and engineers. Because the architectural de sign, the structural design, and the mechanical/electrical/plumbing ( MEP ) design are typically performed by separate professionals, many problems could arise. The most consequential problems relate to spatial cons traints for the necessary equipment or for the
36 installation of equipment. Utilizing a Building Information Model for the design of not just the architectural systems but also the MEP systems can maximize the efficiency of the design and construction proces ses. Conflicts between structural members, architectural components, and MEP systems can be detected early in the design process by a tool commonly referred to as clash detection, as opposed to identifying these conflicts manually during design or even dur ing actual cons truction when the time and cost necessary to resolve such issues are much greater ( Eastman et al. 2008) The ability of BIM to improve collaboration is greatly beneficial to sustainable design. Vaugan ( cited in Tulacz and Traynor 2008) beli eves that a paradigm shift is necessary for sustainable design; the architects and engineers must work together as early in the design process as possible in order to make the greatest difference in optimizing MEP systems for improved sustainability regard ing issues such as energy usage related to input output analysis. Greater collaboration between architects and engineers, which is possible with BIM, can provide substantial energy savings, especially during the design of the building envelope which is a c ritical factor in energy analysis and energy consumption; the engineers are much more efficient with regard to sustainability when collaborating with the architect during preliminary design (Cooper cited in Tulacz and Traynor 2008) Benefits of BIM to Con tractors E arly collaboration between the owner, architect, and engineers is advantageous in resolving problematic issues before they arise; this is also the case with contractors. Involving the contractors during the design phase is beneficial in addressin g constructability issues related to the project. The Building Information Model itself has the capacity to contain much more data than a nonparametric set of drawings. Assuming accuracy in the model, the q uantities of
37 materials to be delivered to the job site can be taken right from the model, thus eliminating the possibility of errors from manual quantity take offs. The resulting quantities can have applicable costs applied to generate accurate cos t estimates. Typically, the acts of preparing quantity tak e offs and estimating occur v ery late in the design stages, since the design must be relatively complete to perform these tasks, but by utilizing BIM, these cost estimates can occur throughout the design process. As the design is modified, the estimates ar e continuously updated, allowing for better control to minimize these costs a clear benefit to the owner Attributes related to construction sequence planning can also be applied to objects within the model to assist project managers in sequencing of cons truction work in what is typically called 4D planning, by adding the element of time to the 3D model. This construction sequence can then be used to: control the delivery of materials to the site ; compare the actual construction sequencing against the sche dule; and monitor recordkeeping regarding requests for payment from the owner ( Eastman et al. 2008) Summary of BIM Processes Building Information Modeling has great potential to provide dramatic improvements to productivity throughout the design, construction maintenance, and occupation of buildings. It provides a single source for data relevant to the specific building project and facilitates the sharing of information among the numerous professions beneficial to design and construction processes BIM f acilitates AEC industry processes by the nature of how it stores information in a parametric database, which c an contain as little or as much data pertinent to the building as necessary. All data originates from the 3 D model, so regardless of whether the project is in the preliminary design stage or at 99% design completion, a change to the BIM model will automatically update all 2 D drawings of the construction document set. Additionally, the
38 updated model can be easily used to generate updated energy and lighting simulations, which typically requires reexporting the modified 3D model into external energy analysis software. In addition, as the model is updated, updates can be made automatically to the schedule of values (AIA Document G 703) to ensure acc urate construction materials quantity takeoffs. Project planning regarding cost estimation and construction sequencing can be facilitated by the automatic generation of spreadsheets which are updated with accurate materials quantities as the BIM model is modified. Figure 26 graphically displays how the utilization of BIM can potentially reduce costs and save time while facilitating the processes of project planning from design conceptualization through construction and operation (Livingston 2008). Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected BIM Software Applications There currently exists a variety of different BIM software platforms, and the decision on which BIM application to use is influenced by a variety of factors. Primary factors which Figure 2 6. E fficiencies resulting from the u se of BIM
39 typically influence the decision to utilize a particular BIM software application include ( Eastman et al. 2008) : T he family of software applications available T he extent of interoperability between multiple BIM ap plications T he extent of the object or family libraries such as doors, windows, walls, etc. T he types of objects the software can model The level of detail of the object attributes T he complexity of the software. T he building classification system (s) s upported. T he ability to easily generate the construct ion drawings from the BIM model T he eas e of use and the user interface. T he software cost T he frequency and quality of software updates T he employee/ contract boundpartys familiarity with the softwa re The degree of training required to use the software The following sections detail various aspects of different BIM software applications, as compile d from a multitude of sources Th is research provide s a single concise source to assist in performing side by side comparisons. Note that although the following detailed BIM descriptions aim to be thorough, lists of features and benefits may or may not be all inclusive. Attempts were made to generate these BIM descriptions from the most up to date versions of the software at the time of the writing of this document Revit Architecture, Structure, and MEP ( Autodesk Inc .) Revit is possibly the most widely known BIM application and has been available from Autodesk si nce 2002. Revit is a series of programs including Revit Architecture, Revit Structure, and Revit MEP, which can be easily utilized by separate professionals working on the same project. By the definition of BIM, Revit applications utilize a central databas e to link all information pertaining to a specific project, so that all pertinent project data originate from and is saved to the same place. Internally, Revit fosters communications among architects, engineers, contractors, and owners. The database for any given project can be shared among various professionals working
40 on various aspects of the Building Information Model simultaneously. The database is typically saved to a main server, which can be accessed and modified by various team members working loc ally, and then the changes are saved to the central server. The software can be controlled such that various architectural, structural, MEP components of the building model can only be modified by the team members r esponsible for those components. The sof tware and its interface are relatively simple to learn; an understanding of basic AutoCAD somewhat improve s the learning curve However, there are some significant differences between Revit and AutoCAD. The actual 3D model is saved in a RVT file, but Revit utilizes object families which are 2 D or 3 D parametric objects saved as RFA files These families are similar to AutoCADs external references (XREFs) except that they are parametric in nature : ratios of dimensions can easily be manipulated and mater iality information can be applied to the objects properties to assist in assessing aesthetics as well as estimating cost. F amilies are lo aded into the project as needed, reducing the size of the RVT file, but as more families are loaded to the project file, the file size inevitably increases Changes to the family RFA files can quickly and easily be updated within the model, thereby ensuring that the construction drawings generated from the model accurately reflect changes to the family files Revit suppor ts file imports from other software such as AutoCAD and SketchUp using DWG, DXF DGN, SAT and SKP file extensions. Camera views in Revit can be saved as common file formats such as BMP JPG TGA, TIF or PDF files for still images. Additionally the 3 D mo del can be imported/exported to/from Autodesk 3DStudio using MAX files for improved detailed realism regarding rendering options. Revit files are useful for solar analysis, and Revit MEP is capable of energy analysis. Revit files can also be exported to the Green
41 Building Extensible Markup Language ( GB XML files ) which is also beneficial in predicting and minimizing energy consumption of the building (Eastman et al. 2008). However the in memory system (in RAM as opposed to in the file) that Revit uses can cause substantial comp uting slowdown for large files T his drawback can be resolved by utilizing better and typically more expensive computers, or by breaking up the model into separate regions, then saving as individual files which can be re combined aft er importing into other software Another drawback is that the Revit platform has limited ability to parametrically model complex angles, and the ability to model complex curvatures is nonexistent in the current version of Revit Such geometry must genera lly be imported from other modeling software in order to accommodate such shortcomings (Eastman et al 2008) However, this issue is addressed by Revit 2010. D espite such issues, Revit seems to currently have a competitive advantage within the current BIM market. This is due in part to that fact that Revit was developed in consideration of the BIM process es regarding information storage (Khemlani 2008a). Khemlani adds that Revits ease of use for BIM processes make Revit appealing to companies transitioning from 2D CAD to BIM. A dvantages and disadvantages of Revit are summarized as follows (L ivingston 2007b; Eastman et al. 2008; Khemlani 2008a): The Revit Suite of applications is the most widely known, widely used BIM platform and c ompared to other softwa re, Revit is r elatively s imple to learn. Parametric object families can be loaded into the project as needed, which minimizes file size and simplifies ease of software since modifications to object families can be easily updated within the BIM model Multiple typical files types supp orted for exporting include: DWG, DXF DGN, SAT SKP MAX, BMP JPG TGA, TIF PDF and GB XML Revit MEP or external applications are capable of energy analysis for RVT files. The software has built in features for rendering and animation.
42 Revit is memory based instead of file based resulting in potential computing slowdown for large files but this disadvantage can be compensated for by partitioning the project Not appropriate for complex three dimensional angled or curved geom etry, an issue to be addressed by Autodesk in future versions of Revit ; currently, complex geometry can be imported from other modeling software. ArchiCAD 12 (Graphisoft) As with any software which is appropriatel y marketed as BIM software, ArchiCAD also utilizes a central parametric database for the collection and storage of building information, so that changes to the model are automatically reflected in the 2 D drawings, greatly simplifying the construction documentation process Similar to Revits object families, ArchiCAD uses object libraries to make quick modifications to the design, and similarly uses what is referred to as a TeamWork concept to improve collaboration between multiple professionals working on the same project from the central database. Many of the interface menus and options are similar to Revit (Eastman et al. 2008). Rendering and animation capabilities are built in, or the model could be exported to other software for final visualization (Gr aphisoft R&D 2008). ArchiCAD works with Graphisofts Constructor software, which imports the design BIM model generated in ArchiCAD and provides contractors the ability to upgrade the design model for use as a n independent construction BIM model by allowin g construction data to be added to the design model (Khemlani 2006a). A dvantages and disadvantages of ArchiCAD 12 are summarized as follows (E astman et al. 2008; Graphisoft 2008; Khemlani 2008b): ArchiCAD is a r elatively easy to learn BIM application. Arc hiCAD is o ne of the few BIM products available for both Windows and Mac Parametric object libraries, similar to Revits object families, can be loaded into the project as needed, which minimizes file size and simplifies ease of software since modification s to object families can be easily updated within the BIM model.
43 ArchiCADs TeamWork concept assists collaboration amongst the parties involved in the project. The software has built in features for rendering and animation ArchiCAD is memory based instead of file based, similar to Revit, resulting in potential computing slowdown for large files, a disadvantage that can be compensated for by partitioning the project The software l ack s the ability to define spaces into zones a necessity for energy modeling The software lacks the ability to perform clash detection between multiple models ; this can be compensated for by exporting the model into an external application such as NavisWorks or Vico. The software lacks the integration with structural and MEP BIM applications, an issue that Graphisoft has announced will be resolved soon. Bentley Architecture, Structural Electrical, and Mechanical (Bentley Systems ) Bentley Systems offers Bentley Architecture and Bentley Struc tural as its BIM software package. Bentley software is programmed with Microstation and TriForma, making it extremely versatile from a design standpoint. Similar to Revit, Bentley Systems software also uses what it calls families to build and categorize objects with as little or as much detailed type information added to the objects as needed. U nlike Revit or ArchiCAD, Bentley easily supports the modeling of extremely large projects, including projects with complex Bezier and NURBS curved surfaces. How ever, the modeling interface is not as fluid for quick 3D sketching as software like SketchUp, but geometry can be imported (Khemlani 2006b). To facilitate collaboration, it utilizes what is referred to as Bentley ProjectWise to provide multiple parties access to the BIM database over a LAN ( l ocal a rea network ) or a VPN (virtual private network ) (Bentley Systems Inc. 2008b). A model created with Bentley Systems software can also be linked to project scheduling software, such as Primavera, in order to assist proj ect members in coordinating construction activity sequencing with the architectural design. In addition to common file type supported by other software the powerful RAM, STAAD, or
44 ProSteel file types can be used for thorough structural analysis using Bent ley Structural (Khemlani 2006b). Bentley software works with EnergyPlus, Trace700, and IES to perform sustainability analysis (Livingston 2007b). Also, Bentley has likely completed its compatibility with Green Building Studio and GB XML format, at the time of this writing. Additionally regarding sustainability, Roberts (cited in Livingston 2007b) states that Bentley Electrical and Bentley Mechanical provides links to manufacturers catalogs, such that when light fixtures, fan units, chillers, etc. are insert ed into the model, data such as power draw and cooling provided can be immediately incorporated into the energy analysis. Unfortunately, the lack of clash detection reduces the integrity of the BIM model that this software is capable of producing; walls c an overlap, doors and windows can overlap, even room areas can overlap without being readily detectable, making it critical that these potential inaccuracies are not overlooked by individuals digitally building the model. Additionally, Bentley Systems software is as complex as it is thorough, making it extremely complicated, very difficult to master, and time consuming to learn. Bentley System software also has smaller object libraries than other common BIM software (Eastman et al. 2008). A dvantages and di sadvantages of Bentley Systems BIM software are summarized as follows (Khemlani, 2006b; Livingston 2007b; Roberts cited in Livingston, 2007b; Eastman et al. 2008) : Bentley software supports the design of large projects and the modeling of complex geometri es Multiple typical and atypical file export types include : DWG, DXF DGN, PDF STEP IGES STL SKP, IFC RAM, STAAD, and ProSteel Bentley software is interoperable with Primavera Software for project scheduling
45 The software does not provide support for c lash detection and has smaller object libraries compared to other BIM software. The software has a d ifficult learning curve with less a than fluid modeling interface NavisWorks 2009 (Autodesk Inc) Purchased by Autodesk in 2007, NavisWorks 2009 is available in four different software packages and is relatively simple to learn and utilize. NavisWorks is especially applicable to complicated projects with large 3D data sets, even manufacturing/process plants, air ports, power plants, or commercial buildings. It is typically beneficial for large scale projects and not necessarily essential for smaller projects, such as singlefamily residential. NavisWorks is capable of combining models from various applications inc luding Revit and ArchiCAD. Associations between groups of similar building components can be saved and the model can be searched for all components having specific properties. NavisWorks facilitates the design review processes among team members; building components can have comment tags applied, automatically creating a new 3D viewpoint which highlights the building component and the comment. The final NWC file uses a high compression technology claimed to result in up to 70% file size reduction, facilitating faster work on large projects which have been broken up into multiple 3D models, such as multiple architectural models, structural models, MEP models, etc. Earlier versions of NavisWorks support file extensions such as DWG, DXF DGN, 3DS, and IGES; Nav isWorks 2009 also supports 3D, DWF STL SKP and IFC formats. NavisWorks also provides file exporters such that Revit Bentley, and ArchiCAD files can be used in the NWC file format ( Khemlani 2008c ) Advantages, and disadvantages of the four NavisWorks 2009 software packages are summarized as follows (Khemlani 2008c):
46 NavisWorks Freedom a f ree downloadable 3D viewer r etains saved viewpoint s of the original file and comment tags and clashes can be easily saved and retrieved as viewpoints NavisWorks Fre edom a llows only for model viewing, comment review, and navigation, with regard to gravity and clash detection NavisWorks Freedom c annot be redlined, limiting the capability of review process es NavisWorks Review includes Roamer, which can be used to combine multiple 3D models (architectural, structural, MEP, HVAC, etc) from various platforms into one model, and can also be used to create animated walkthroughs by using viewpoints as keyframes, outputting to BMP JPG or AVI for video NavisWorks Review als o includes Publisher, used to create compressed and secure files for NavisWorks NavisWorks Simulate includes the capabilities of NavisWorks Review, as well as Presenter, which allows textures, materials, lights, shadows for still and animated renderings i ncluding back/foreground atmospherics and other effects in addition support for output to TIF and TGA file formats. NavisWorks Simulate also includes TimeLiner, beneficial for linking specific 3D objects or object groups are to schedule activities to gener ate 4D construction simulation, providing a direct link to Primavera P3, Micr osoft Project, and the common MPX file type from other programs including Primavera SureTrak. NavisWorks Manage includes the capabilities of NavisWorks Simulate, as well as Clash Detective, which assists in clash detection within models created by different 3D applications, although it only understands geometry and not building components, so defining the building component (wall, beam, column, duct, pipe, etc .) in the original models maximizes the usefulness of Clash Detective Innovaya (Innovaya LLC) Innovaya software is possibly the first tool that brings the BIM model created during the design phase into construction the construction phase, providing a different perspective regarding the ongoing debate of "design models versus construction models," and "one model versus multiple models" (Khemlan i 2006a) Innovaya was one of the first BIM applications which allow s contractors to utilize the design model to perform quantity take offs which facilitate cost estimations in Sage Timberline without the need to re build the model for construction related analyses In contrast to the link between Graphisoft ArchiCAD and Graphisoft Constructor,
47 Innovaya software does not require a separate BIM model to be created by the contractor. Innovaya LLC is planning future improvements to the software by developing other constructionrelated applications related to scheduling and constructability analyses in an effort to reduce the need to create a separate construction model or heavily modify the design model in order to make the model appropriate for construction and operations analyses (Khemlani 2006a ). Similar to NavisWorks, Innovaya uses a high file compression ratio to more easily handle large projects which have been merged from multiple imported files, in the event the building was broken up into multiple models However the only files which can be imported into Innovaya s INV file format are R evit, AutoCAD Architecture, or AutoCAD MEP files (Khemlani 2006a ) The potential interoperability of Innovaya software is illustrated in Figure 2 7. Advantages and disadvantages of the five Innovaya software packages are as follows (Khemlani 2006a): Innovaya V isual BIM is beneficial for visualization, however other Innovaya products are necessary for greater usefulness of the BIM model. Figure 2 7. Interoperability functionality of Innovaya, as adapted from Innovaya LLC 2008
48 Innovaya Visual Quantity Takeoff 9.4 is capable of visualization and quantification. Innovaya Visual Estimating 9.4 is capable of visualization, quantification, and price estimating and has integrated the UniFormat and the MasterFormat building component classification systems which are beneficial for linking the model data to the specifications in order to generate highquality quantity takeoffs and cost estimates. Innovaya Design Estimating 9.4 provides interoperability with RS Means Assembly D atabase and Sage Timberline Estimating Innovaya Visual 4D Simulation 3.0 provides interoperability with Primavera software and Microsoft Project for 4D planning of construction sequencing Innovaya has limited importing interoperability with other softwar e. Additionally, the two Innovaya addons to AutoCAD and Revit provide the following opportunities for interoperability (Khemlani 2006a): Innovaya Composer is available as an add on for AutoCAD Architecture or AutoCAD MEP, capable of merging multiple proje cts into an INV file which automatically updates when changes are made to the original models. Innovaya Composer is also available as an addon for Revit Architecture, Structure, and MEP with the same capabilities as the AutoCAD add on, but it is also capable of tracking building assemblies through Revits Assembly Code in an objects Family Type in order to link assemblies to other Innovaya software for estimating and scheduling without the need to map the objects geometric data. IES
49 software package include: VE ModelBuilder, VE Energy, VE Lighting & Daylighting, VE Egress, VE Mechanical VE Value & Cost useful for initial and life cycle cost planning and VE CFD (computational fluid dynamics) capabl e of predicting exterior air flow around the building and interior air flow within the building and useful for considering HVAC system planning with regard to exterior climate and internal heat sources (Figure 2 8). VE Toolkits provide additional functionality of IES software, and are ideal for assessing sustainability during preliminary design. The Sustainability Toolkit contains the aforementioned capabilities of VE Ware as well as having the ability to perform ASHRAE and CIBSE load calculations, daylight assessments, and solar shading animations. The LEED Toolkit is beneficial in checking preliminary designs regarding potential LEED credits; and the Green Star Toolkit and BREEAM Toolkit will be available soon (Khemlani 2008d). However, IES
51 DProfiler (Beck Technology) DProfiler is a BIM tool useful fo r quickly creating conceptual design models using methods similar to SketchUp, making it easy to learn and use. DProfiler is unique in that the model is not derived from a floor plan, as there are no tools for placing walls, doors, or windows; instead roo ms of three different types are placed adjacent to one another to build the model, simulating a floor plan. However, floor plans can be imported from DWG or DXF formats to be used as a reference when creating the 3D model (Khemlani 2008e). Even during prel iminary design, DProfiler is capable of performing accurate cost estimations based on building type, project location, RSMeans, Sage Timberline Office estimating applications, or custom Excel files DProfiler is also compatible with Uniformat and Masterfor mat (Khemlani 2008e). Kh e mlani (2008 f ) que stions the paradox inherent in utilizing preliminary conceptual design models for detailed cost estimating A ccording to Beck Technology however, the users of DProfiler realize construction estimates within 5% of t he actual cost as opposed to a 20% margin of error resulting from other preliminary design phase estimating methodologies (Khemlani 2008f) DProfiler can also be used to perform energy analyses on preliminary design models, a capa bility only recently int roduced. I t difficult to determine the accuracy DProfilers inherent energy analysis tools during this early phase of software development (Khemlani 2008f). However, Beck Technology also provides an optional Energy Analysis module for integration with the energy simulation tool eQuest, which is installed as an add on to DProfiler (Figure 2 9). Disadvantages of DProfiler include minimal interoperability on the importing side, which is limited to DWG and DXF, but the exporting capabilities are quite sufficie nt (Khemlani 2008f). DProfiler has no support for clash detection, so rooms can overlap or even extend outside the
52 perimeter of the building mass without any error messages; it is unsure how this could impact the energy modeling, so it is imperative that the model is built accurately. Ideally, architects would be the primary users of DProfiler, but the modeling interface lacks the fluidity of other software, making it less appropriate for the actual process of design conceptualization. Developers stand to gain the greatest potential benefits of DProfiler, using it to estimate project costs and perform energy analyses even before hiring architects and contractors thus utilizing DProfiler as a tool to initiate d iscussion with other professionals (Eastman et al. 2008, Khemlani 2008f). Advantages and disadvantages of DProfiler are summarized as follows (Eastman et al. 2008, Khemlani 2008e, Khemlani 2008f): Figure 29. DProfiler i ntegration with eQuest for e nergy a nalysis
53 DProfiler uses a simple and easy to le arn interface, useful for quick generation of preliminary models; however the modeling tools are somewhat different from other software, slightly influencing the learning curve. DProfiler is compatible with the UniFormat and MasterFormat building component classification systems for integrated construction cost estimating on preliminary designs using RSMeans or Sage Timberline. DProfiler is beneficial for energy analysis and is also interoperable with eQuest for further energy analysis. DProfiler is most ap propriate for developers desiring to assess project feasibility before hiring architects and contractors. DProfiler has no support for clash detection, so it must be ensured that the model is built accurately for reliable estimates and analys e s. DProfiler has minimal file importing capabilities, supporting DWG and DXF only. Digital Project (Gehry Technologies) Digital Project is a powerful yet complicated BIM software. It can handle very large files, but it also requires intensive computing power. Digital Project includes many of the features typical of BIM software, including parametric modeling database storage of the project and clash detection sometimes absent in other software (Khemlani 2006c) Digita l Project is capable of modeling complex geometry which is difficult, if not impossible to model in other software (Eastman et al. 2008) Similar to Innovaya and DProfiler Digital Project also has the UniFormat and the MasterFormat building component clas sification systems integrated into the software. It also provides interoperability via Primavera Integration addons to assist project managers in the coordination of construction sequence planning (Gehry Technologies 2008) and it has interfaces with Ecot ect for energy analysis (Eastman et al. 2008). Multiple typical and atypical export file types are supported by Digital Project: DWG, DXF, STEP, SAT, STL, IGES, CIS/2, 3DXML, SDNF; Release 3 also has IFC support. The major shortcomings of this software are its cost, its extreme complexity, and its steep learning curve. Its limited object libraries and drafting
54 capabilities typically necessitate exporting sections to external drafting applications for the completion of assembly detailing (Eastman et al. 2008). Advantages and disadvantages of Digital Project are summarized as follows (Eastman et al. 2008, Gehry Technologies 2008, Khemlani 2006c ): Digital Project is very powerful and capable of modeling large, complex projects Digital Project features clash d etection capabilities missing in other applications such as Bentley or DProfiler. Digital Project is compatible with the UniFormat and MasterFormat building component classification systems for construction cost estimating. Digital Project is interoperable with Primavera for scheduling Digital Project is interoperable with Ecotect for energy analysis. Digital Project is expensive, has a difficult learning curve, with limited object libraries. Virtual Construction Suite 2008 ( Vico Software Inc. ) The Virtual Construction Suite has been designed specifically as a BIM tool useful for the construction side of the AEC industry. The Virtual Construction Suite is actually six integrated platforms beneficial in construction modeling, estimating, scheduling, construction simulation, cost management, and change management: Vico Constructor includes a working version of ArchiCAD, but Vico Constructor takes ArchiCAD to the next level by including all structural and MEP objects e ssential for a complete and more thorough representation of the building (Laiserin 2008) T he major difference between Vico Constructor and other BIM applications, is that the model is typically built just as the building will be constructed, allowing for a great level of detail while requiring extensive knowledge of construction techniques. Once the model is built a quantity takeoff is easily and quickly generated for export into Vico Estimator for detailed cost estimations Vico Estimator can easily prio ritize construction line items by percent over budget versus percent of total project cost, simplifying the identification of cost control
55 issues (Laiserin 2008). The model can be exported into Vico Control for the planning of construction sequencing to a llow for extensive what if analysis, and allows the construction team to explore many budgeting, scheduling, and procurement options, including those related to lean construction and fast track construction (Khemlani 2008e ). Vico 5D Presenter can be use d to combine the model with the estimate and the schedule to track to progress of the construction in real time. Vico Cost Manager can be used to compare the estimated costs and the projects budget with the actual costs as the construction sequence progre sses. Vico Change Manager can be used to simplify the process of managing change orders throughout the construction process and considers the data enter into the other Vico applications Each of these Vico applications, when used together, is currently the most comprehensive, best integrated, and most highly evolved construction oriented BIM application currently available (Laiserin 2008). In December 2008, it was announced that Vico is now integrating its software suite with Revit, such that a Publish to Vico option in Revit can be used to export the Revit model, presumably into Vico Constructor, which could then be used with any of the six Virtual Construction Suite platforms. This improvement to Vicos interoperability opens the doors for Vico to c onsider integrating with other BIM solutions (Khemlani 2008d) Advantages and disadvantages of the Virtual Cons truction Suite 2008 software package are as follows (Khemlani 2008d, Khemlani 2008e, Laiserin 2008): Vico Construction Suites are extremely thor ough platforms for managing the constructionrelated aspects of a project. However, its interface and the methods of using the software entail a paradigm shift from traditional methodologies, but Vico Software Inc. provides extensive online tutorials and e ducation programs to acclimate its users to the potential benefits. Vico Constructor is the interface for generating the 3D model, and is beginning to see improvements to interoperability with other software such as Revit. Vico Estimator is used for accurate model based cost estimating.
56 Vico Control is used to manage the 3D model with respect to the 4D schedule in real time. Vico 5D Presenter can display the 3D model, the 4D schedule, and the 5D cost management in a single view. Vico Cost Manager is used to track discrepancies between the estimated construction costs and the actual costs. Vico Change Manager is used to manage change orders to the project throughout the duration of construction. Summary of Selected BIM Software Applications The wide variety o f differences among BIM software can often cause confusion over which software to utilize The preceding discussion of BIM software is included to introduce the wide variety of capabilities of particular applications and to assist in comparing the softwar e It is only through the exploration and research of such BIM applications that a company should select a specific application to be deemed most appropriate for the particular companys needs. Many BIM software manufacturers offer free downloadable trial versions of their software which should be e x plored when determining which BIM application is most appropriate. Recent Improvements in AEC Sustainability The general publics increasing awareness of the current environmental situation has been acknowledged by the construction industry which has shown a continually increasing interest in sustainable construction during recent years Engineering News Record (ENR) released its very first To p 100 Green Design Firms list in June 2008, which ranks U.S. design f irms based on revenue from green projects. In 2007, 7.4% of the $8.68 billion total revenue for these 100 design companies was derived from projects which were either registered with or actively seeking certification by third party sustainability rating sy stems such as LEED In the general building market, sustainable projects for these top
57 100 companies generated $1.56 billion, 18.0% of the total revenue. Figure 210 illustrates the breakdown of green revenue for these 100 design firms (Tulacz and Traynor 2008). In September 2008, ENR released its second ever Top 100 Green Contractors list, which ranks contractors based on revenue from green projects. In 2007, 20.1% of the $22.77 billion in total revenue for these companies was derived from projects which were either registered or certified by third party sustainability rating systems such as LEED. This is an increase from 2006, when 15.3% of the total revenue for the Top 50 Green Contractors was derived from sustainable projects; the very first Top Green C ontractors list only presented data for the top 50 companies. Figure 211 illustrates the breakdown of green revenue for the top 100 green contractors in 2007 (Tulacz 2008). In November 2008, Autodesk and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) revealed the results of the 2008 Autodesk/AIA Green Index, an annual sustainable building survey (TenLinks Inc. 2008). Some of the most significant findings of the survey are: Figure 2 10. ENR 2008 top 100 green design firm s revenue from green project s in 2007 Figure 2 11. ENR 2008 top 100 green contractor s revenue from green projects in 2007
58 Forty two percent (42%) of architects indicated that their clients are asking for sustainable building elements on over half of their projects Forty seven percent (47%) of clients are implementing sustainable building elements on their projects, up from 32% in 2007 Thirty nine percent (39%) of architects are now using renewable, onsite energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, low impact hydro, biomass, or biogas on over half of new buildings, up from 6% in 2007 Thirty four percent (34%) of architects are now designing with some type of green roof on over half of new buildings, up from 7% in 2007 Fifty seven percent (57%) of architects indicated that the ir company is implementing standardized practices in order to inform their clients of sustainable design, up from 49% in 2007 Forty one percent (41%) of architects use some type of software to assist them in evaluating the environmental impacts and lifecyc le costs of the buildings they design Sixty six percent ( 66 % ) of architects indicate that client demand is the major factor on their practice of sustainable building; architects believe that the major reasons that their clients are requiring sustainable buildings are : R educed operating costs (60% ) M arketing (52 % ) M arket demand (21% up from 10% in 2007) Architects indicated an increase in their use of design software to help evaluate : HVAC operating costs (39 % up from 31% in 2007) E nergy consumption, ener gy modeling and baseline analysis (33 % up from 29% in 2007) A lternative building materials (35 % up from 20 % in 2007) Among of architects in the United States 89% believe that architects should practice sustainable design whenever feasible, followed by 88% in the United Kingdom, 73% in Italy and 59% in Japan In the United States sustainable building are primarily driven by client demand (66% ); in the United Kingdom and Japan, the major drivers for sustainability are regulatory requirements (75% and 64% respectively) ; and in Italy, the major drivers for sustainability are rising energy costs (70%)
59 BIM for AEC Sustainability Despite many obstacles and/or disadvantages to BIM, this type of software appears to be gaining acceptance due to its inherent advantages (Smith 2007) Although BIM is still not yet widely adopted, BIM has the potential to assist the AEC community in making extraordinary sustainability related improvements to the built environment (Gleeson 2005). Gleeson states that with BIM, architect s now have the potential to more easily integrate higher degrees of sustainability into their preliminary design decisions, and not simply relegate it as the responsibility of mechanical engineers BIM can and should be utilized to create and analyze the digital prototype of the building, so that once the building is constructed, the AEC team can be certain that the building will achieve its anticipated sustainable goals (Bhatt cited in Smith 2007). Specialist in design, sustainability, and architectural te chnology, Heather Livingston conducted a 2007 interview with Renee Cheng AIA, head of the School of Architecture at the University of Minnesota, to elaborate on the ongoing discussion on the use of BIM for sustainable design The comments most relevant to this research a re summarized as follows ( Cheng cited in Livingston 2007a) : The recent increase in BIM usage as well as sustainability efforts is a fortunate augmentation of the two trajectories, where they both have had quite a bit of momentum in the pas t couple of years and were starting to see them intersect. Sustainability efforts are mostly based on quantifiable data, whether immediate or long term, and BIM has the capacity to handle volumes of data. The alignment between BIM and sustainable design is likely to increase into the foreseeable future. There is a big difference between what BIM could do, and what BIM is currently capable of doing, which is probably one of the most frustrating gaps with the potential of BIM for sustainable design. In the ory, BIM and sustainability are a natural fit due to the capacity of BIM to inventory data beneficial for measuring lifecycle costs or performing energy analysis but in practice, a lot of problems with BIM have been arising related to interoperability, re gulation, and compliance issues, in addition to software which has been slow to respond to users needs. The big three BIM software manufacturers, Autodesk, Bentley, and Graphisoft, need to improve interoperability with tertiary supporting software, such a s energy analysis
60 software like Ecotect. Graphisoft appears to handle such interoperability issues the best, but further improvements are certainly desirable. For example, if Revit could resolve interoperability with Ecotect by eliminating the need to rebu ild models or manually transfer data between programs, then the software would become much more conducive to sustainable design. Ideally, both situations should exist, where tertiary programs such as energy analysis software could either be embedded and/or interoperable with the modeling software depending on the needs of the user. Therein lies the inherent problem because unfortunately, BIM is still in such relative infancy that the mega program is not feasible and the micro programs are not currently communicating with each other very well. In five (5) years, the software will hopefully be able to function with greater interoperability, and it should facilitate improved and more detailed analysis on topics such as minimizing waste, performing energy c alculations, and assessing lifecycle cost. In ten (10) years, the AEC community will hopefully witness sustainability compliance beyond the minimum, in addition to increased detail within the sustainability measurement systems such that many more factors w ill be assessed The Future of BIM for AEC Sustainability Many professionals have voiced their expect ations of improvements to the level of detail, interoperability, and integration of BIM over the coming years. Roberts (cited in Livingston 2007b) states t hat as BIM becomes the stan dard AEC practice, sustainability will become integrated into the design process instead of being treated as an afterthought; this is when BIM can truly provide significant benefits. Smith (2007) notes that future challenges of u sing BIM to achieve sustain ability within the AEC industry include the ability of the software adequately represent the building and its components, considering that materiality has an extreme impact on energy consumption. Future BIM models must fully repr esent all elements of the building, and as manufacturers begin to market sustainable building products, the technical and sustainable data must become available for use in the energy analysis (Smith 2007). The use of BIM to achieve sustainability has the p otential to dramatically change the AEC profession by assisting in the design and construction of higher quality buildings (Gleeson 2005).
61 As legislation for more and more jurisdictions is mandating some degree of sustainable design and construction, the use of BIM to achieve sustainability will soon become essential (Bhatt cited in Livingston 2007b). T he difficulty with sustainable legislation is that variations exist in the laws from county to county, or jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or even among individual agencies within the same city; therefore the technology must be able to accommodate such variations (Smith 2007). However, BIM technology is not yet the penultimate solution to attaining a higher level of sustainability, but it is instead one of many tools available to assist the entire AEC community continuously in assessing the environmental benefits and consequences of their actions and decisions. Summary As the AEC professions, and truly humanity as a whole, continues to gain a greater understanding of the environmental impacts of the actions and decisions we make, we must strive to learn from the mistakes of the past in an effort to provide a path towards a more sustainable future. Imbuing the AEC professions with greater degrees of sustainability w ill definitely not be the Rosetta Stone for the environmental quagmire resulting from the industrialization of society, but after analyzing the environmental atrocities committed by the AEC professions on a daily basis including virgin materials consumption, energy consumption, and waste generation, increased AEC sustainability will certainly help improve the current environmental situation. Many experts agree the BIM is a perfect fit for increased AEC sustainability, but to what extent is the current BIM technology capable being used to facilitate improvements to AEC sustainability? Upon the conclusion the literature review, it became immediately clear that it was imperative to compose and distribute a voluntary survey to be completed by various AEC profes sionals from companies of differing sizes and specializations. The survey gained insight
62 into their perceptions of sustainability, and their perceptions of BIM, but most importantly, their specific uses of BIM for sustainability. In addition, the survey re sults are compared to the current literature. The details of the survey are introduced in Chapter 3.
63 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This research was conducted in order to explore the potential for the use of Building Information Modeling to achieve impr oved sustainability within the various AEC professions. Additionally, this research analyzes the extent to which the use of BIM has modified and/or improved the workflow processes of various companies within the AEC industry. As such, this research uses a survey to attain insight from various AEC professionals as to what extent BIM is utilized by these professionals in order to complete projects with higher degrees of sustainability. A list of potential survey participants was established to include a wide variety of companies, in order to involve every possible sector of the AEC community, such as design, engineering, general contractors, subcontractors, design build firms, and construction management firms, etc. This researcher intended to include compani es who work on projects of every possible type of project, such as commercial, industrial, residential, transportation, heavy civil, etc. Potential survey respondents were all listed in the following recent 2008 Engineering News Record (ENR) lists : the Top 100 Green Design Firms (ENR 2008a ) the Top 100 Green Contractors (ENR 2008b ), the Top 100 DesignBuild Firms (ENR 2008c ) the Top 100 Construction Management at Risk Firms (ENR 2008d) and the Top 100 Constructionfor Fee Firms (ENR 2008e ) A total of 5 00 company names were acquired from the five ENR lists previously introduced. H owever due to many companies appearing on multiple lists, 343 individuals from their respective companies were contacted in order to determine their willingness to participate in the survey The minimum preferred sample size was calculated to be 47 responses, based upon a 95% confidence level, and a permissible error of 0.05, therefore the ideal minimum response rate should be at least 13.7% of the total 343 possible survey respondents
64 The survey can be found in Appendix F in its entirety The survey included six c ategories of questions, specifically: 1) company information, 2) personal information, 3) sustainability related questions, 4) BIM related questions, 5) questions whi c h relate BIM to sustainability, and 6) a final question asking respondents if they would like to recei ve the final product of this research. The following section s elaborate on how each individual survey question addresses the five research o bjectives init ially pre sented in Chapter 1. Category 1: C ompany Information This category of questions were focused on acquiring basic company information such as the type of company: general contractor, specialty contractor, architecture firm, engineering firm, and/or other; the method of project delivery: designbuild or construction management; the types of projects the company becomes involved in: residential, commercial, industrial, heavy civil, transportation, and/or other; the number of company employees; the number of LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED APs) employed ; and how long the company has been in business. These questions only had true potential usefulness when analyzed in combination with other responses ; these questions indirectly a ddress all five r esearch obj ectives Q 1.1) Company Name : R esponses to this question among two others (particularly Q2.1 and Q2.2) will remain anonymous indefinitely due to the confidentiality requirements of research prescribed by the UF Institutional Re view Board (IRB) S ubmitted IRB documentation is found in Appendices B and C. It should be noted every confidential question was included in the survey to impart a humanistic and interpersonal aspect to the survey, since face to face interviews and/ or telephone surveys were not practical for all 343 potential companies indentified for possible participation. Since the responses to Q1.1 will never be reported anywhere, t he sole purpo se of this question was to eliminate the occurrence of unnecessary duplicate requests to potent ial survey respondents who had already previously replied.
65 Q 1.2) Company Type : Individual re sponse s to this question presented their most significant relevance when compared against other survey responses The analysis of these combinations of survey responses addresse d the relationship between: company type and sustainability, company type and its use of BIM, as well as company type and its use of BIM to achieve sustainability ( Q1.2 + Q3. X Q4.X and Q5.X respectively). Q 1.3) Number of Employees : Simila r to question 1.2, this question provide d research relevance when analyzing the size of surveyed companies in relation to other survey responses The analys e s of these combinations of survey responses addresse d the relationship between: company size and su stainability, company size and its use of BIM, as well as company size and its use of BIM to achieve sustainability (Q1.3 + Q3.X, Q4.X, and Q5.X, respectively) Q 1.4) Number of LEED Accredited Employees : The relevance of Q1.4 was ultimately not to determine the number of LEED APs employed by each company, but the percentage of LEED APs within each company. S imilar to question 1.2, this question provide d research relevance when analyzing the percentage of LEED APs employed in relation to other survey resp onses (Q1.4 + Q3.X, Q4.X, and Q5.X) Q 1.5) How long has the company been in business? : S imilar to Q1.2 and Q1.3, this question provide d research relevance when assessing the size of surveyed companies in relation to other survey responses (Q1.5 + Q3.X, Q 4.X, and Q5.X) Category 2: P ersonal Information This category of questions was largely focused on gain ing insight into the survey respondents expertise in the profession. Since the responses to these questions will not be reported due to confidentiality requirements of the UF IRB, they were mostly optional questions It should be noted that the se confidential questions were included to impart a humanistic and
66 interpersonal aspect to the survey, since faceto face interviews or telephone surveys were not practical for all 343 potential companies. Q 2.1) Name (Optional) : The personal names of individual respondents will remain confidential due to ethical reasons, as well as the UF IRB requirements previously discussed. This question was included solely to fa cilitate oneonone communications with individual survey respondents at the conclusion of this research regarding category 6 and whether the respondent ask e d to receive a copy of this completed research Q 2.2) Title/Position (Optional ) : Responses to this question will also remain confidential. This question was included for correspondence purposes and also to determine if the respondents specialization within the company was pertinent to research exploring the subjects of sustainability and BIM Q 2.3) Ho w long have you been in this industry? : As with question 2.2, t his confidential responses to this question were aimed at gauging the survey respondents level of expertise in the AEC industry. Q 2.4) How long have you been with this company? : Similar to que stion 2.2, this question wa s intent on gauging the respondents familiarity of the company he or s he is representing, particularly the familiarity of company specific knowledge pertaining to sustainability and BIM typically revealed in subsequent categories Category 3: S ustainability This category of questions were focused on gain ing insight into the sustainability aspects of projects the company undertakes, such as the frequency of sustainable projects and the motivation for achieving sustainability. Thes e questions were independent of BIM usage. Q 3.1) What percentage of project completed by this company has received LEED or other green building certification? : The intent of this question was to determine the extent of
67 sustainability of the surveyed compa ny s projects, regardless of the reasons why sustainability is pursued. Q 3.2) What percentage of sustainable projects was LEED or otherwise certified because it was requested by the owner? : The intent of this question was to determine the extent to which s ustainable certification is required by the owner, one of the major reasons why a project might be required to be certified, as discussed in Chapter 2. Q 3.3) What percentage of sustainable projects was LEED or otherwise certified because certification was required to be certified by either federal, state, or local legislation? : The intent of this question was to determine the extent to which sustainable certification is pursued by project managers due to legal requirements to achieve improved sustainability The combination of Q 3.2 and Q3.3 a ddress ed the que stion : Is the pursuit sustainability predominantly a result of request from the owner, or is it instead more often the result of the requirement of conform ance to the law? Category 4: B uilding Informati on Modeling (BIM) This category of questions were focused on gain ing insight into the BIM applications the company does or does not use and why the company does or does not use them, in addition to determining perceived advantages and disadvantages of using BIM. This c ategory addressed r esearch objective 3: determine the perceived and actual advantages and disadvantages to utilizing BIM. Q 4.1) Does your company utilize BIM software, and if so, which software applications? : An introductory question regarding BIM usage among survey respondents, this question wa s simply aimed at determining specifically which software platforms are utilized by various companies. Using the aforementioned ENR lists to identify potential survey respondents, the researcher intended to identify companies representing a variety of the AEC professions, in order
68 to determine how various sectors of the AEC community are or are not utilizing BIM for sustainability. Ideally, every survey respondent would have some familiarity with the use of BIM for sustainability, thus maximizing their abilities to divulge more detailed responses to the category 5 questions which examin ed the perceptions of using BIM to achieve greater sustainability and the impacts of BIM on the AEC professions. Conversel y, it was also important to receive responses from companies which do not utilize BIM in order to analyze reasons as to why BIM is not used. Q 4.2) H ow long has your company used BIM? : A straightforward question regarding the duration of BIM utilization, re sponses to this question were beneficial in combination with responses to other questions similar to the questions from category 1: Company Information Q4.3) If [ your company does not utilize BIM ] why not? : Q uestion 4.3 through the remainder of the surve y consisted of seven open ended questions. As elaborated in the Survey Informed Consent Documentation ( Appendix E ) survey respondents we re encouraged to divulge as much or as little information as desired or necessary part icularly for such openended questions and many did so in paragraph format. In order to analyze the responses to openended questions the researcher established a framework or rubric in order to categorize the type of information included in each respons e, discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. The major goal of Q4.3 was simply to determine reasons for not utilizing BIM software applications regardless of the specific software platform Q 4.4) What do you feel are the greatest advantages to utilizing B IM? : The second of seven openended questions, Q4.4 identified specific advantages of BIM as perceived from companies which use BIM as well as companies which do not. Ideally this question would generate a wide variety of responses to indicate the benefit s of BIM to every phase of AEC project delivery for
69 design, construction, and operations A rubric was established for Q4.4 to categorize each advantage as appl icable to any one or multiple phase s of a buildings lifespan Q 4.5) What do you feel are the g reatest disadvantages or obstacles to utilizing BIM? : Obstacles were implied to refer to any negative attributes of a particular BIM software platform which might deter companies from pursuing utilization of a particular BIM software platform Disadvantage s were implied to refer to any negative attributes of a ny particular BIM software application which does not improve or even detracts from particular work flow processes. In many instances, a disadvantage could also be an obstacle, just as an obstacle coul d also be a disadvantage, but this is definitely not always the case; not every potential obstacle is a disadvantage and likewise not every potent ial disadvantage is an obstacle. This question explored perceptions across various sectors of the AEC industry as to what obstacles might deter the use of BIM and what difficulties might arise as a result of utilizing BIM. Category 5: S ustainability and BIM Th is category of questions w as focused on link ing t he two previous c ategories in determining perceived and a ctual advantages and disadvantages to utilizing BIM for improved sustainability. The questions within this c ategory measured AEC perceptions regarding the use of LEED for sus tainability, as well as AEC perceptions regarding the use of BIM for sustainabilit y. Bringing to conclusion c ategories 3 and 4, c ategory 5 addressed r esearch objectives 4 and 5 by asking AEC professionals if and how LEED and/or BIM is being used to provide sustainable projects, as well as if and how BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery. Q5.1) Do you perceive that utilizing LEED (or other certification) has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects and if so, how?: This question determine d the extent to which sustainable bene fits are actually realized as a result of
70 using sustainable rating systems to help achieve sustainability, not the potential for increased sustainability if rating systems were to be used. Q5.2) Do you perceive that utilizing BIM has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects and if so, how?: This question determine d the extent to which sustainable benefits are actually realized as a result of using BIM, not the potential sustainable benefits which could become realiz ed if companies were to use BIM. Combined, Q5.1 and Q5.2 determine d whether BIM applications or sustainability rating systems are more conducive to providing benefits for increased sustainability. Q 5.3) Do you feel that BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to sustainable project delivery, and if so, how? : The intention of this question was simply to explore if BIM is changing or improving the methods by which the AEC industry conducts business, not necessarily changes to how the particular respondents company conducts business. Q5.4) Do you think that improvements could be made to the BIM applications your company uses in order to better facilitate the delivery of sustainable projects and if so, what improvements would y ou like to see?: The intention of this question wa s to determine how BIM software manufacturers could possibly improve the software to increase the functionality of BIM for sustainability. Category 6: O ptional Q 6.1) Would you like to receive a digital cop y of this research, once completed, to help inform you of the potential for utilizing BIM to provide your clients with green and sustainable projects?: Th is sole question in category 6 was offered to survey respondents in order to provide bi directional co mmunication between this research and the specific members of the AEC community participating in the survey. Just as survey respondents graciously and typically enthusiastically offered their time and knowledge to the benefit of this research, the research er
71 has return ed their favor of participation by providing an exchange of information to potentially enhance the BIM related sustainability efforts of those respondents and the companies which employ them. Summary The survey portion of this research proved to greatly compliment the review of a variety of literature discussing the use of BIM for improved AEC sustainability. Chapter 4, which follows, examines the responses to the survey and then categorizes the responses to the open ended questions for furthe r analysis Ultimately, the survey analysis will be compared with the literature in a series of conclusions presented in Chapter 5.
72 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS T he minimum preferred sample size of this study was determined to be 47 out of 343 possible responses. A total of 29 individuals from various AEC companies agreed to participate, completing the survey and submitting their responses electronically and a survey response rate of 8.5% was established Due to the survey sample size of 29 being less t han the minimal preferred sample size of 47 respondents, and due to the openended and subjective nature of the most significant survey questions, the survey results were evaluated utilizing descriptive statistics. As a consequence of the sample size being less than statistically preferable, the results of this survey cannot be deemed to be representative of the entire AEC industry. H owever, the following results can still be beneficial to companies and individuals interested in sustainability, BIM, and the use of BIM for improved sustainability. The most beneficial survey responses were those responses to the various openended questions, in which respondents were encouraged to divulge as much or as little information as desired or necessary ; many responded with great detail in paragraph format. Such questions were asked in survey c ategories 4 and 5, which explore BIM and the use of BIM for sustainability respectively In order to analyze the nature of such openended responses, the researcher establishe d rubric s for those questions in order to categorize the type of information in each response to these open ended questions The nature and intent of the rubrics for each question are explained as they are presented in subsequent sections. The analyses of the responses to each survey question are presented in the following sections T he verbatim survey responses are reprinted in their entirety in Appendix G providing first hand insight i nto the nature of the responses. A dditionally, the original responses ensur e the validity of the rubrics established to categorize each response.
73 Survey Analys i s The following analysis of the completed surveys exclude s the responses to confidential questions In p articular the responses to Q1.1) Company Name and Q2.X ) Perso nal Information have been excluded from the following discussion of the research results and analysis In order to protect the anonymity of companies involved, the 29 company names have been replaced by letters, for example: Company A, B BB, and CC. Among the responses reprinted verbatim within this document any references to a company name or the specific geographic location of a company have been withheld to further protect anonymity. Company Name : Q1.1 Responses to this question will remain indef initely confidential in order to preserve the anonymity of the companies who assisted this research. Company Type : Q1.2 This question subtly asked two questions at once: What types of services does this company perform?, and What types of projects does this company pursue? T he most prevalent services of surveyed companies are : general contracting 59% ( 17 respondents); constructi on management 45% ( 13 respondents ) ; design build 41% ( 12 respondents ) ; architecture, 34% ( 10 respondents ) ; and engineering 17% ( 5 respondents ) (Figure 4 1) The types of projects on which these companies work are predominantly : c ommercial 55% (16 respondents ) ; industrial 21% (6 respondents ) ; residential 10% (3 respondents); and transportation 7% (2 respondents) (Figure 4 2). O ther less frequent responses are also presented in Figures 4 1 and 42. While the original responses to this question ( Appendix G, Figures G 1 and G 2) are only marginally useful alone, when used in conjunction with other survey responses, these figures fa cilitate d more detailed analyses pertaining to other questions, for example: Is BIM use more prevalent among architecture firms versus engineering firms?, or
74 Figure 4 1. Types of c ompany s ervices : Q1.2 Figure 4 2. Types of projects : Q1.2
75 Is the u se of BIM for sustainability more prevalent among contractors versus designbuild firms? Such analy ses are presented in subsequent sections pertinent to BIM (category 4), and the use of BIM for sustainability (category 5) in an effort to address the obje ctives of this research introduced in Chapter 1 Number of Employees : Q1.3 Similar to Q1.2, responses to this question are analyzed in combination with other questions, and such simultaneous analyses of multiple questions are addressed in subsequent sectio ns. This research developed a rubric which defin es: small companies ( 100 employees ) medium sized companies ( 100500 employees) and large companies ( 500 employees ) These ranges were selected to attain the most normalized distribution among responses, a s opposed to selecting the ranges based upon preconceptions of the AEC industry by this researchers personal perceptions of what is meant by small, medium, or large AEC companies Among the respondents, 8 (28%) are employed by small companies, 10 (34%) ar e employed by medium sized companies, and 9 (31%) are employed by large companies (Figure 43). General categorizations of the size of surveyed companies shown in Figure 4 3 are presented for general assessment of company characteristics to be compared wit h other characteristics in upcoming sections. While Figure 4 3 is useful for general analysis, it is ultimately the original responses to Q1.3 (Appendix G, Figure G 3) which facilitate d detailed analyses relating company size with Figure 4 3. Company s i ze : Q1.3
76 BIM usage (survey category 4), and the use of BIM for sustainability (survey category 5). T he smallest company has 60 employees, the largest company has 2,000+ employees, and the mean was 300 employees, illustrating the relatively normal distribut ion of the rubric established by th is research Data presented in Figure 4 3 is useful for general analysis whereas Figure G 3 is useful for thorough a nalys e s which follow. Number of LEED Accredited Employees : Q1.4 The relevance of this question was not t o determine the number of LEED APs employed by each company, but the percentage of LEED APs within each company simplifying the comparison among companies. Similar to other questions in category 1, the responses to this question have lesser significance in isolation of the other questions, and greater significance when compared against other question responses. The rubric was developed to categorize t he percentages of LEED APs as low ( medium (5% 25%) and high ( in order to approximate the m ost normalized distribution among these three categories Among the respondents, 7 (24%) are employed by companies with low LEED APs, 13 (45%) are employed by companies with medium LEED APs, and 8 (28%) are employed by companies with high LEED APs (Figure 44). This data is beneficial for general assessment of the companies responding to the survey, and the significance of this data is presented once all other company characteristics are introduced. Figure 4 4. Percentage of LEED APs e mployed : Q1.4
77 T he original verbatim responses to Q1.4 (Appendix G, Figure G 4) facilitated detailed company specific analyses relating percentage of LEED APs with BIM usage (category 4 questions), and the use of BIM for sustainability (category 5 questions). As with previous questions, data presented in Figure 4 4 is useful for general analysis whereas Figure G 4 is useful for company specific analyses. S ubsequent sections use the original responses in Appendix G for greater thoroughness of survey response analysis Duratio n of Company Operations : Q1.5 S imilar to the three previous questions, the companies were categorized into three general groups: new companies ( medium aged companies (26 75 years old) and well established companies ( Again, t his rubric wa s not confined by any preconceived definition by the researcher of what defines new, medium aged and well established companies but instead the companies we re grouped as such in order to normalize the distribution among these three categori es. Among the respondents, 7 (24%) are employed by new companies, 12 (21%) are employed by medium aged companies, and 9 (31%) are employed by older companies (Figure 4 5). This categorization wa s helpful in determin ing if there is any general relationship among company age, BIM usage (category 4 questions), and the use of BIM for sustai nability (category 5 questions) Similar to other category 1 questions, the original responses to Q1.5 (Appendix G, Figure G 5) were used for more detailed analyses in subseq uent sections. Figure 4 5. Duration of company operations : Q1.5
78 Personal Information : Q2.X Similar to Q1.1, responses to these questions will remain indefinitely confidential in order to preserve the anonymity of the companies and the individuals who ass isted this research. Sustainability : Q3.X Due to poor phrasing of the questions and the resulting misunderstanding by survey respondents of the intentions of these questions, a wide variety of responses were generated, responses which could not be adequate ly compared to one another The original intention s of the questions in category 3 ( s ee Chapter 3) were to explore the sustainability efforts of surveyed companies, independent of BIM usage. However, the responses to these questions proved to be the least beneficial to this research, such that a thorough analysis of the responses is not necessary. See Chapter 5 : Conclusions and Recommendations for several suggestions to improve these questions, to help make the intent of these questions more clear to respondents such that more useful information could be obtained by future research U tiliz ation of Specific BIM S oftware : Q4.1 Among the companies surveyed, 79% (23 respondents) reported that they utilize at least one BIM software application (Figure 4 6). The utilization of particular BIM applications by survey respondents is illustrated in Figure 4 7, revealing that the most frequently used BIM software is Autodesks Revit. Many companies using Revit 48% (14 respondents) did not indicate a specific Revit platf orm, whereas the utilization of specific Revit applications such as : Revit Architecture 10% (3 respondents); Revit MEP 10% (3 respondents); and Revit Structure 3% (1 respondent ) were indicated less frequently than the general response of Revit. In tot al 19 of the 29 companies (66%) use at least one type of Revit application. Figure G 6 pre sents all orig inal responses to this question since Figure 4 7 does not indicate company usage of multiple
79 app lications. (Since many survey respondents relied with m ultiple responses, t he fact that 66% of surveyed companies use Revit cannot be implied from Figure 4 7, as the percentages shown t here do not sum to 100%.) The predominant usage of Revit was somewhat anticipated regarding the market position of Autodesks Revit as the most widely known and accepted BIM software. As a result of such widespread usage of Revit among survey respondents, this research indentifies no direct relationship between the use of Revit and specific company characteristics including: company type (Q1.2), size (Q1.3), percentage of LEED APs (Q1.4), or the companys duration of operations (Q1.5). Revit is used by a wide variety of surveyed companies, for example: large and small; new and well established; design, engineering and construction companies. It is impossible to state that only companies with certain characteristics use Revit applications. The second most prevalent BIM application among survey respondents is Autodesks NavisWorks. NavisWorks provides greater capacities than Revit to link the design activities with the construction activities ( see Chapter 2). Among the 31% (9 companies) using NavisWorks, 8 companies perform general contracting services, and 5 companies perform general contracting, Figure 4 6. General utilization of BIM : Q4.1
80 construction management, and design build services. The utilization of NavisWorks by companies performing such services indicates the softwares usefulness for both design and construction planning, especially among the designbuild companies (A ppendix G, Figure G 5). AutoCAD was cited as a BIM used by 14% (4 respondents), and while AutoCAD is not traditionally considered BIM software, models generated in the DWG format can be exported to many tertiary applications for greater project analysis; all 4 of the companies mentioning the use Figure 4 7. General utilization of particular BIM a pplications : Q4.1
81 of AutoCAD as BIM software use tertiary applications. Therefore, AutoCAD is included in the discussion and the figures pertaining to this survey question. However, only one ( 1) of the four ( 4) companies citing the use of AutoCAD as BIM actually indicated increases in sustainability as a result of using BIM based upon the compar ison of responses to Q4.1 and Q5.2. ( see Figure G 5 and Table G 4) L ess frequently used BIM applications include : Bentley software 10% ( 3 respondents ) ; and Graphisofts ArchiCAD 7% (2 respondents) Recalling various literature cited in Chapter 2, Autodesk, Bentley, and Graphisoft are three big players in the field of BIM and a more even distribution of the usage of their software was anticipated. Another result of this question is the total number of BIM applications used by each company (Figure 4 8): 21% do not use BIM, 42% use one BIM application, and 38% use two or mo re. Figures 48, G 3, G 4, and G 5 provide the basis for the following analysis: The 6 companies (21%) not using BIM are small to medium sized companies having less than 8% of employees LEED accredited. With the exception of one, they are all relatively ne w companies. The 12 companies (42%) using exactly one BIM application are typically slightly larger companies with higher percentages of LEED APs. These companies have been operating for relatively longer periods of time. Revit is used as the sole BIM application by 8 (28%) of these companies, which did not specifically note the use of Revit MEP. Note that Revit MEP or other external software is necessary for energy modeling with Revit. The 11 companies (38%) using two or more BIM applications are also typically larger companies with higher percentages of LEED APs. Many of these companies have been in business for the longest periods of time. Some BIM platforms are ideal for modeling the building, but cannot perform detailed energy analyses, while other BI M platforms are excellent for energy analysis but cannot be used to generate a 3D model at all ( see Chapter 2). The sustainability related benefits of BIM to companies which use only one BIM application are possibly limited, since there does not currently exist a single BIM application capable of providing every benefit; currently, for better or worse, AEC professionals must typically work within multiple platforms to realize the
82 maximum potential benefits of BIM. Companies using more than one BIM applicati on are typically larger companies, with more LEED APs, and a more established history, with the exception of a few which are smaller, newer companies also having high percentages of LEED APs. Companies using more BIM applications typically provide a wider array of services, especially general contracting, construction management, architectural, and/or design build. The company specific utilization of BIM software (Appendix G, Figure G 6) is used to determine specific relationships between this question and subsequent questions Figure 4 8. Number of BIM a pplications utilized : Q4.1 Duration of BIM Utilization: Q4.2 The duration of BIM usage among the 23 of 29 survey responde nts who us e BIM is not lengthy : 83% (19 of 2 3 respondents) of companies using BIM reported BIM utilization of 4 years or less ; 22% (5 of 2 3 respondents) of companies using BIM have used it for 1 year or less;
83 and 21% (6 of 29 respondents) do not use BIM at all (Figure 4 9). S uch relatively low duration of BIM usage was somewhat anticipa ted simply due to the consider ation of how recently the software manufacturers have adopted the terminology BIM despite the history of such technology, in addition to how historically slow the AEC industry responds to change. In fact, only Company P rep orted using BIM for more than 6 years, reporting 10+ years. Generally, companies using BIM for the longest periods of time are most often larger sized companies, with lengthy histories of company operations, and higher percentages of LEED APs (Appendix G, Figure G 7). Additionally, survey respondents with extreme familiarity of BIM provided highly detailed responses to the openended questions relating BIM to sustainability. See Appendix G for thorough verbatim survey responses. Figure 4 9. General dura tion of BIM usage : Q4.2
84 Reasons for not Utilizing BIM : Q4.3 Among the 29 surveyed companies res ponding to the survey, 79% of surveyed companies (23 respondents) are currently using BIM whereas 21% (6 respondents ) are not currently using BIM. Responses to t his question w ere used by the research er to generate four (4) categories of responses ( Figure 4 10) Most notably, among the companie s not currently using BIM, 14% ( 4 respondents ) indicated that the ir company is currently researching BIM and exploring its usage Additionally, 3% (1 respondent ) perceives that BIM is not necessary for the type of work it s company performs ; and 3% ( 1 respondent) indicates that BIM is not used because local bus iness associates do not use BIM therefore BIM is unnecessary when collaborating with these other companies The original verbatim responses to Q 4.3 by survey participants are presented in Appendix G ( Table G 1), to ensure the validity of the rubric created by the researcher for this question (Figure 4 10). Figure 4 10. General reasons for not utilizing BIM: Q4.3 Perceived Advantages of Utilizing BIM: Q4.4 As indicated in Figure 48, 79% of companies (23 respondents) use at least one specific BIM application, and such widespread BIM usage by respondents established the foundation for a wide variety o f detailed advantages of BIM. Every company described at least one advantage of using BIM, even companies not currently using BIM. Due to multiple responses from many companies, the 29 companies generated a total of 108 responses regarding the advantages of
85 BIM, according to the rubric categorizing the responses to this survey question (Figure 4 11). The rubric developed to categorize the responses considered particular advantages of BIM as applicable to one of the three major phases of a buildings lifecycle: design, construction, and operations. The end of lifecycle activities such as deconstruction, recyclability, and/or materials reuse are not specifically addressed by respondents, thus these topics are not addressed here ( see recommendations in Chapter 5). Advantages of BIM pertaining to design oriented BIM benefits are perceived or realized more frequently than BIM related advantages pertaining to construction or operations. Design advantages represented 42% of responses ( 45 of 108 responses); construction advantages represented 20% of responses (22 of 108); and operations advantages represented 11% of responses (12 of 108). General advantages of BIM pertaining to both the design and construction phases of a project represe nted 27% of responses (29 of 108). The detailed analysis of specific advantages of BIM is displayed in Figure 412. The greatest specific advantage of BIM indicated by 69% (20 respondents) is its ability to improve the coordination among various project t eam members within the same company as well as across multiple companies. The most prominent significance of this result is that: if 69% of these companies feel project team member coordination is important, and if these companies are using Figure 4 11. General a dvantages of BIM by project phase: Q4.4
86 Figure 4 12. Specific advantages of BIM by project phase: Q4.4
87 BIM to improve coordination, they should be capable of producing highly sustainable projects, as opposed to situations where such collaborati on is difficult or nonexistent. Coordination is an extremely important aspect of being able to prepare documentation for LEED or other green certification which is helpful in improving the extent of sustainability throughout design and construction. Impr ovements to productivity are indicated by 28% (8 respondents) are also general advantages of BIM, and for some companies, this response is applicable to the design phase, for other companies it is applicable to the construction phase, and for others it is applicable to the entire project lifecycle (Figure 4 12 and Table G 2). A wide variety of literature indicates that potential synergies could result from using BIM (see Chapter 2). Ot her advantages of BIM frequently cited all pertain to the design phase of a project, including: improvements to design visualization, 48% (14 respondents); improvements to drawing quality, 38% (11 respondents); detecting and preventing object clashes, 24% (7 respondents); and the use of BIM to facilitate pre design planning, 24 % (7 respondents). The potential advantages of BIM specific to improved sustainability include: energy modeling benefits, 28% (8 respondents); and a reduction of construction waste, 10% (3 respondents). The rubric developed by the researcher ( Appendix G, F igure G 8) displays the company specific advantages of BIM software. As in previous figures, t he X in Figure G 8 indicate s a definitive response, whereas some new symbols are introduced: the indicate s that the response is most likely applicable to th e rubric, the ? indicate s that the response is implied to be applicable to the rubric, and an entr y such as Q5 3 indicate s that the respondent identified this response in question 5.3. Such symbols are used throughout the remainder of these figures in Appendix G.
88 T he original survey responses are reprinted in their entirety ( Appendix G, Table G 2) to ensure validity of the rubric created by the researcher and to assist future analyses. T he highlighted company names in Table G 2 indicate certain respons es with high level s of detail and are noteworthy responses worth singling out. All equally noteworthy survey responses in such tables throughout the remainder of Appendix G are similarly highlighted In many instances, the companies providing the most deta iled responses have typically been using BIM for the longest amount of time ( see Figure G 7 and Table G 2). Many of the aforementioned advantages of BIM can most often create synergies within the processes of project development which can allow ing the AEC project teams to devote more time and effort to the design and construction of buildings with greater degrees of sustainability. The specific details of how the surveyed companies actually use BIM to achieve improved sustainability are presented in the dis cussion of category 5 questions in subsequent sections. Perceived D isadvantages or O bstacles to U tilizing BIM : Q4.5 A subtle distinction between disadvantages and obstacles was implied here As with other openended survey questions, many respondents repli ed in paragraph format, necessitating the creation of a rubric to categorize the nature of the response to simplify the analysis. Many respondents replied with multiple advantages and/or obstacles to BIM such that 29 individuals reported a total of 60 res ponses to this question, resulting in 18 distinct categories of replies ( Figure 4 13) One of the most frequently noted disadvantage and/or obstacle of BIM is t he cost of utilizing and/or implementing BIM as cited by 28% (8 respondents ) Among these eight ( 8) respondents, four (4) mentioned the not only software cost, but they also noted additional expenses related to hardware upgrades and the cost to hire and/or train employees to utilize the software.
89 Figure 4 13. General disadvantages and/or obstacle s to BIM: Q4.5
90 The difficulty in persuading the entire project team to use BIM is cited as an obstacle to BIM and/or a disadvantage of BIM mentioned by 28% (8 respondents). Considering that the project team is typically comprised of employees from multiple companies, and recalling that collaboration is a great advantage of BIM, greater benefits can be realized if more project team members are either using the same software, or if the variety of software applications used by multiple entities are actually ca pable of smoothly transferring data to and from one another. As a result of actual or perceived disadvantages and/or obstacles, BIM is not used by every AEC company surveyed, and convincing other project team members to incur the necessary costs to make t he transition to BIM is not always a simple argument. The difficulty of convincing your own companys executives to make the transition to BIM is not ed by 24% (7 respondents). Interestingly, six ( 6) of these seven ( 7) companies currently use BIM, having fi rst hand experience of the difficulties arising when transitioning to BIM software (Appendix G, Figure s G 6 and G 9 ). Another disadvantage and/or obstacle to BIM commonly cited in AEC literature is its lack of smooth interoperability amongst various applic ations, mentioned by 24% (7 companies). Among these seven (7) companies, five (5) companies currently utilize more than one (1) BIM application, indicating their firsthand experience in dealing with interoperability limitations. This is an extremely significant issue, since not a single BIM application can provide eve ry potential desired benefit. Therefore, it is commonly necessary to transfer files from one program into another in order to realize the maximum potential advantages related to BIM usage esp ecially regarding sustainability related advantages pertaining to analytical tools. Additionally, the topic of liability is repeatedly cited in the literature as being detrimental to the proliferation of BIM within the AEC community as reported by 17% ( 5 respondents)
91 Traditionally, the architect is responsible for the accuracy of the information contained within the drawings, but as more individuals from various professions within the AEC community are working in collaboration on the BIM model, how is li ability assessed and who is responsible if drawings generated from a BIM model contains errors? In particular, one respondent noted that many contracts will either discourage or not allow sharing of BIM data, and as mentioned previously, data sharing and c ollaboration are greatly beneficial to imparting sustainable attributes to a building project. Other disadvantage s and/or obstacle s include : the fact that many BIM applications have a difficult learning curve 17% (5 respondents ) ; and that resistance to c hange and adapting to change also deter BIM proliferation 17% (5 respondents) To assist in detailed analysis summarized in subsequent sections the original responses to Q4.5 are presented in Appendix G ( Table G 3 ) Realized Benefits of Rating Systems to I mprove Project S ustainab i lity : Q5.1 A common benefit of utilizing LEED or other certification systems is that they provide a framework for measuring the extent of a projects sustainability as cited by 62% (18 respondents). Other benefits of rating syst ems include the use of rating systems to: assist in the proliferation of sustainability throughout the AEC community 38% ( 11 respondents ) ; assist in improving sustainable project planning and development 24% ( 7 respondents); increase awareness regarding environmental responsibility 17% ( 5 respondents); and utilizing the rating systems to improve the sustainability of projects which do not actually intend to obtain certification 10% ( 3 respondents ). Sustainability rating systems such as LEED can potentia lly provide other benefits as illustrated by Figure 4 14. The rubric developed to analyze this question is itemized by company in Appendix G ( Figure G 11) for further analysis. The verbatim
92 responses to Q5.1 are presented in Table G 4 to ensure the validi ty of the rubric. Table G 4 also provides a basis for comparison between Q5.1 and Q5.2, which is presented in the following section. Figure 4 14. General realized benefits of certification rating systems for sustainability: Q5.1 Realized Benefits of BIM to Improve Project Sustainability: Q5.2 A slight majority of companies surveyed, 52% (15 respondents), state that BIM has not improved project sustainability, but these respondents indicate that the potential of BIM to improve project sustainability will become more significant in the near future as the software capabilities increase. (Figure 4 15). Among the 17% (5 respondents) of companies which have not realized any sustainable benefits from BIM, three (3) companies do not currently use BIM and are curr ently exploring its potential benefits, and the remaining two (2) companies use BIM, but do not perceive any usefulness of BIM for sustainability purposes (Figures 415 and G 11).
93 Specific uses of BIM for improving sustainability (Figures 4 15 and 416) a re indicated by 31% (9 respondents). Among these nine (9) companies currently realizing improved analysis beneficial for sustainability resulting from the use of BIM, six (6) went into greater detail regarding the benefits realized, including using BIM for : energy analysis, 10% (3 respondents); Figure 4 15. General realized benefits of BIM to improve project sustainability : Q5. 2 Figure 4 16. Specific realized benefits of BIM to improve project sustainability : Q5. 2
94 airflow analysis, 7% (2 respondents) ; and solar analysis, 7% (2 respondents). While many of the uses for BIM to assess project sustainability (Figure 4 16) are greatly beneficial, it is interesting to note the relatively low percentages of the use of BIM to ascertain sustainable aspects of projects among the entire survey sample. The rubric developed to analyze this question, which links BIM to sustainability, is itemized by company in Appendix G (Figure G 11) for further analysis. The verbatim survey responses to Q5.2 are presented in Appendix G (Table G 5) for detailed analysis. In comparing responses to Q5.1 and Q5.2, the researcher queries: Does BIM or sustainability rating systems provide greater benefits for improved sustainability? The survey respondents replied with a total of 47 re sponses regarding uses of LEED or other rating systems for improved project sustainability (Q5.1 and Appendix G, Figure G 10), However, a total of 23 responses indicated increased project sustainability resulting from usage of BIM software (Q5.2 and Appendix G, Figure G 11). While BIM is beneficial to certain companies identified by this research, LEED appears to have a greater impact on the overall ability to provide improved sustainability. In many instances, companies realizing sustainable benefits resul ting from the use of BIM are larger companies, performing a wide variety of services with higher percentages of LEED APs, but this is not always necessarily the case ( Appendix G, Figures G 7 and G 11 ). There is no direct relationship between questions in c ategory 1 and Q5.2 which indicat es that companies with specific characteristics are more likely to use BIM for sustainability than other companies ( see Appendix G) Improvements to Traditional Methods of Sustainable Project Delivery Resulting from BIM : Q5. 3 Whereas the sustainable benefits actually realized as a result of using BIM are not universal ( Q5.2, Figure s 415 and 416), the perceptions that BIM is changing the AEC
95 professions ability to deliver projects with improved sustainability are more commo nplace (Figure 4 17). Specific ways in which BIM can potentially improve the ability of companies to deliver sustainable projects are as follows: The ability of BIM to improve the efficiency for designing and delivering sustainable projects was noted by 34 % of responses (10 respondents). Improvements to coordination among project team members working on sustainable projects were indicated by 28% of responses (8 respondents). The indication of the use of BIM for energy Figure 4 17. General potential of BI M for improving the methods of delivering sustainable projects: Q5.3
96 analysis to potentially improve project delivery, opined by six ( 6) companies (21%), is interesting considering that eight ( 8 ) companies (28%) believe energy analysis is one of the gener al benefits of BIM (Q4.4 and Figure 412), yet four (4) companies (14%) have actually realized the benefit of using energy analysis to improve project sustainability (Q5.2 and Figure s 415 and 416). Another perceived use of BIM for sustainability is BIMs ability to store and process data, especially data pertinent for achieving LEED or other certification (21%). Among the surveyed companies, 21% ( 6 respondents) believe that BIM evolves, it could possibly become a major driver for promoting sustainability and 7% (2 respondents) believe that factors other than BIM are more substantially impacting the ability to deliver sustainable projects. Additionally, 14 % ( 4 respondents ) were unfamiliar with the subject of using BIM to facilitate the delivery of sustain able projects and 10% (3 respondents) feel that BIM is not applicable to sustainable project delivery. The rubric developed by this research to analyze this question is itemized by company in Appendix G (Figure G 12) and the verbatim survey responses to Q 5.3 are also presented in Appendix G (Table G 6). Detailed analysis of the results conclude that perceptions of BIMs impact on the industry are not directly linked to specific company characteristics, and the reasons for using BIM are as varied as the AEC community itself (see Appendix G). Recommended Im provements to BIM for Increased Sustainability Analys i s : Q5.4 Despite the sustainability related advantages of BIM, improvements to BIM software currently available must continue in order to fully realize the potential synergies between BIM and sustainability ( see Chapter 2 ). ( Figure 4 18) The most commonly suggested improvement to BIM for sustainability is the addition and/or improvement of sustainability tools and tips within the software, as indicated by 28% of responses (8 respondents). Additionally, 24% (7
97 respondents) requested improved abilities of BIM to analyze projects for compliance with sustainable rating systems such as LEED. Improvements to interoperability were also suggested by 24% (7 responde nts). Other recommended improvements to BIM for sustainability include: increased capabilities of BIM to provide more internal benefits for sustainability, as opposed to Figure 4 18. General recommendations to improve to BIM for sustainability analysis: Q5.4
98 relying on external software, 7% (2 respondents); and improvements to the abilities of BIM to check the design against building code requirements, 3% (1 respondent). Among the seven (7) respondents replying N/A or giving no response, five (5) do not currently utilize BIM (Tables G 1 and G 7). All original survey responses to Q5.4 are presented in Figure G 19 for further analysis. The rubric developed by this researcher to analyze this question itemized by company (Figure G 13) indicates that every c ompany perceives potential improvements to BIM for increase sustainability analysis, regardless of specific company characteristics. The verbatim recommended improvements to BIM (Table G 7) provide further insight into specific companys utilization of BI M within their specific niche within the AEC community; generally, the recommended improvements could be beneficial to both the design and construction aspects of the industry. Survey Respondents Requests for Copies of this Document : Q6.1 A large majority of individuals from surveyed companies (28 of 29, 97%) indicated they want to learn more on the topic of BIM for sustainability. These 28 respondents asked to receive a digital copy of this document with the intention that this research could assist comp anies in gain ing a greater understanding of the utilization of BIM for sustainability. In addition, the researcher hopes this document can assist these companies implementing the use of BIM for improved sustainability analyses. Again, the researcher would like to thank these companies for their contribution to this research. Summary The following information has been compiled from the previous sections t o consolidate the results of this research
99 Characteristics of Companies Using BIM Reasons for utilizing or not utilizing BIM are as varied as the different BIM applications, as well as the entire AEC community itself. Companies using BIM the longest are typically larger companies with longer durations of company operations and higher percentages of LEED APs. Among the 29 companies participating in this research: Seventy nine percent (79%) of surveyed companies using at least one BIM application: Forty two percent (42%) of surveyed companies use exactly one BIM application, and are typically slightly larger co mpanies, slightly older companies, and have slightly increased percentages of LEED APs employed Thirty eight percent (38%) of surveyed companies use two or more BIM applications, and are also typically larger companies with the longest durations of compan y operations, and having the highest percentage of LEED APs employed Eighty three percent ( 83 %) of surveyed companies using BIM have used BIM for four (4) years or less Twenty two percent ( 22 %) of the surveyed companies using BIM have used BIM for one ( 1) year or less Sixty six percent (66%) of surveyed companies use Revit Thirty one percent (31%) of surveyed companies use NavisWorks Twenty one percent (21%) of surveyed companies use Bentley software Other software is utilized significantly less frequ ently Twenty one percent (21%) of surveyed companies do not use BIM, and are typically smaller, newer companies having less than 8 % of employees LEED Accredited Fourteen percent (14%) do not use BIM, but are currently researching BIM Three percent (3%) do not use BIM due to perceptions that BIM is not necessary for the type of work performed. Three percent (3%) do not use BIM because it is not practical since bus iness associates do not use BIM
100 Perceived Advantages of BIM Perceptions of the advantages t o utilizing BIM were provided by every company participating in this research, regardless of whether or not the company actually uses BIM or has actually realized any of these potential benefits: Forty two percent ( 42% ) of perceived advantages of BIM were specific to design: Forty eight percent ( 48% ) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to design visualization Thirty eight percent ( 38% ) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to the integrity of the architectural drawings with respect to consi stency and/or accuracy Twenty four percent ( 24% ) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to proj ect planning and overall design. Twenty four percent ( 24% ) of surveyed companies perceived benefits related to clash detection capabilities Twenty one pe rcent ( 21% ) of surveyed companies perceived i ncreased detail of the drawings Twenty seven percent ( 27 % ) of perceived advantages of BIM were general in nature, specific both design and construction: Sixty nine percent ( 69% ) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to team coordination. Twenty eight percent ( 28% ) of surveyed companies perceiv ed improvements to productivity Twenty percent (20%) of perceived advantages of BIM were specific to construction: Fourteen percent ( 14% ) of surveyed companies perc eived the usefulness of quantity takeoff and cost analysis tools Ten percent ( 10% ) of surveyed companies perceived improved planning of const ruction sequencing Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to construction quality Ten pe rcent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived a reduction of construction waste.
101 Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies perceived improved constructability analys is Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies perceiv ed a reduction of change orders Seven per cent (7%) of surveyed companies perceived a reduction of construction cost Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceived improvements to the planning of prefabricated building components Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceived a reduction in trade stacking Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceived reduced RFIs Eleven percent (11%) of perceived advantages of BIM were specific to operations: Twenty eight percent (28%) of surveyed companies perceived the abi lity to perform energy analysis Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived general uses for the BIM model during operations Perceived Disadvantages of BIM and Obstacles to BIM Again, every company participating in this research indicated perceived disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM: Twenty eight percent (28%) of surveyed companies perceived that other companys inability or unwillingness to use BIM prevents them from realizing the full potential benefits of BIM Twenty eight percent (28%) of surveyed companies perceiv ed that the cost of BIM is prohibitive; fourteen percent (14%) of companies mention not only software cost, but also hardware costs, employee training costs, and the costs of hiri ng new employees skilled in BIM Twenty four percent (24%) of surveyed companies perceived disadvantages related to interoperability limitations Seventeen percent (17%) of surveyed companies perceived obstacles pertaining to the relative infancy of BIM, stating that the software is too new to make the transition to BIM Seventeen percent (17%) of surveyed companies perceived disadvantages and/or obstacles pertaining to the difficulty of the learning curve of BIM software.
102 Seventeen percent (17%) of surveyed companies perceived disadvantages related to liability issues pertaining to exactly who owns the BIM model and who is ultimately responsible for its accuracy when the data is shared among multiple companies Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived obstacles relating to how to decide which BIM application to use, in cons ideration that no single application is capable of pr oviding every desirable benefit Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies perceived disadvantages relating to the time required to build the BIM model Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceived difficulties of BIM softwares ability to manipulate large files; specifically, Revit, NavisWorks, eQuest, and DProfiler are noted Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceived a minimal capability to perform cost analysis Three percent (3%) of surv eyed companies perceived a minimal extent of MEP families in Revit Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies noted that inaccuracies built into the model perpetuate errors for other parties using the model Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies perceive d limitations for engineering analysis Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies noted that the additional work required when using BIM does not necessarily gu arantee additional compensation The Use of LEED or Other Certification Rating Systems for Sustai nability Every company participating in this research indicated specific improvements to the sustainability of projects as a result of using LEED or other rating system, with the exception of three ( 3) companies: Sixty two percent (62%) of surveyed compani es perceived that rating systems help provide the metrics and standards necessary for measuring the extent of project sustainability Thirty eight percent (38%) of surveyed companies perceived that rating systems help persuade other p arties to pursue susta inability Twenty four percent (24%) of surveyed companies perceived that rating systems assist in making improvements to the development and planning stages of projects Seventeen percent (17%) of surveyed companies perceived that rating systems improve a wareness of environmental responsibility
103 Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived that rating systems assist them achieving the sustainable requirement s of project owners Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies perceived that rating systems assi st them in improving the sustainability of projects, without the necessarily pursuing any sustainability certification processes Benefits of BIM Actually Realized by Companies to Deliver Sustainable Projects Whereas nearly every company identified advanta ges of LEED for improved sustainability, the use of BIM to achieve improvements to sustainability are not nearly as commonplace: Fifty two percent (52%) of surveyed companies have not realized any benefits from using BIM to improve sustainability while noting that there is potential for using BIM to achieve greater degrees of sustainability especially as improvements are made to the software. Seventeen percent (17%) of surveyed companies have not realized any improvements to sustainability on their projec ts as a result of BIM; 60% of these companies do not currently utilize BIM whereas 40% of these com panies do currently utilize BIM Thirty one percent (31%) of surveyed companies have used project analysis tools within BIM to improve overall project sustai nability; among these companies, specific benefits actually realized include: Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies have used BIM for energy analysis to improve overall project sustainability Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies have used BIM to ass ist in team member coordination beneficial to improve overall project sustainability Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies have used BIM for airflow analysis tools and/or solar analysis tools to improve overall project sustainability Three percent (3% ) of surveyed companies have used BIM for daylighting analysis, life cycle cost analysis, lighting/shading/glare analysis, and/or thermal analysis to improve overall project sustainability Perceptions of BIM for Improving the Delivery of Projects with Greater Degrees of Sustainability Although LEED is used more frequently than BIM to attain improved sustainability, many companies perceive that BIM is beginning to have an impact on how the AEC industry delivers sustainable projects:
104 Thirty four percent (34% ) of surveyed companies perceive that BIM increases the overall efficiency beneficial for the delivery of sustainable projects Twenty eight percent (28%) of surveyed companies perceive that BIM improves collaboration among project team members beneficial to real izing more sustainable projects Twenty one percent (21%) of surveyed companies believe that as BIM technology evolves, it will become more conducive to facilitating the d elivery of sustainable projects Twenty one percent (21%) of surveyed companie s believe that the energy analysis benefits of BIM facilitate the d elivery of sustainable projects Twenty one percent (21%) of surveyed companies believe that BIM provides the increased ability to acquire data necessary to attain LEED or other certifi cati on for sustainable projects Fourteen percent (14%) of surveyed companies are not familiar with the topic of using BIM to deliver projects with higher degrees of sustainab ility Ten percent (10%) of surveyed companies do not believe that BIM is changing the ability to provide sustainable projects Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies believe that factors other than BIM are more significantly changing the traditional methods of delivering sustainable projects Recommended Improvements to BIM to Facilitat e the Delivery of Sustainable Projects Although BIM for sustainability is not universally accepted, many AEC professionals will agree that improvements to BIM could definitely facilitate its use for improvements to the sustainability of projects: Twenty ei ght percent (28%) of surveyed companies recommend that more tools and tips should be built into the BIM software to fac ilitate sustainability analysis Twenty four percent (24%) of surveyed companies recommend more direct links to LEED within BIM to more e asily assess a projects ability to acquire LEED credits; currently the LEED Toolkit for IES
105 use BIM whereas two (2) of these companies do use BIM but do not suggest any improvements to BIM for improved sustainability analysis Seven percent (7%) of surveyed companies recommended improved capabilities of BIM software to provide more internal benefits for sustainability instead of relying on external software Three percent (3%) of surveyed companies recommended the ability to check the BIM model against building codes in order to more easily facilitate their ability to deliver projects with h igher degrees of sustainability
106 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Awareness of environmental responsibility ha s increased over recent decades while simultaneously, extraordinary improvements to technology have occurred, more specifically BIM tec hnology in particular. The potential usefulness of BIM to design, construct, and operate buildings in a more sustainable manner is certainly promising The following sections discuss the research conclusions derived from both the literature review and the analysis of the survey res ponses (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 4) Research Conclusions Many within the profession currently use BIM as a general design and ana lysis tool not necessarily for sustainability purposes. The benefits of BIM pertaining to producti ve data storage and data computation are greatly advantageous throughout the design and construction processes. Benefits including increased coordination and collaboration among project team members, improved design visualization, improved project producti vity, and constructability feasibility analysis are commonly touted reasons for utilizing BIM. Other benefits including reduced construction and operating costs as well as improvements to project management are cited as well. T he current and future potenti al advantages of BIM are beginning to have an influence on the AEC industry. The use of BIM to attain higher degrees of sustainability is certainly becoming more commonplace than ever before However, BIM is used for design and construction management purposes more often that it is used for sustainability analysis F actors other than BIM such as rating systems like LEED still currently have greater i nfluences on improved sustaina bility of the design, construction, and operations of buildings.
107 A s technology tends to improve at an exponential rate, the future uses of BIM to realize greater levels of sustainability is likely to increase as the technology is improved and as more AEC professionals begin to integrate BIM software as a part of their standard workf low procedures. The utilization of BIM to assess project sustainability is certainly possible, but continued improvements to BIM are necessary for improved and more thorough sustainability analysis The current functionality of BIM can assist AEC professionals in assessing a project s ability to secure sustainability certification, but it is not currently the penultimate solution. While some BIM applications are more conducive than others in collecting data for sustainability rating systems, measurements ou tside the capabilities of BIM such as collecting field data must also occur throughout the certification process to ascertain evidence that the environmental footprint they imprint during design and construction is actually minimized as predicted However, BIM holds the potential for the general assessment of a buildings environmental footprint, possibly more so today than ever before. As the society clamor s for increased environmental responsibility, many AEC professionals are likely to continue to demand an increase in BIM softwares ability to assist in s ustainability certification assessment of buildings. T he use of BIM does appear to be increasing amongst AEC companies. However, many problematic issues arise resulting from the use of BIM, especially re garding the interoperability of different software applications and the abilities of multiple applications to communicate with each other effectively while transferring data back and forth. Many BIM applications must export data to external analysis softwa re for sustainability assessment. Although BIM has evolved and interoperability improvements have been made, the software has still not been
108 perfected, especially pertaining to the use of BIM for sustainability analysis wherein the use of multiple softwar e applications is typically necessary. Assessment of the Research Objectives The goals of this research were to address specific objectives pertaining to sustainability, BIM, and the use of BIM for sustainability. The se research objectives are reprinted he re to assist in assessing if and how this research addresses them : 1. Determine the extent to which sustainability is affecting the AEC industry. 2. Determine the extent to which BIM is being utilized by the AEC community. 3. Determine the perceived and actual adv antages and disadvantages to utilizing BIM. 4. Determine various AEC companys perceptions of BIM regarding utilizing BIM in order to achieve sustainability, and the reasoning behind such perceptions. 5. Determine whether or not BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to sustainability, and if so, how and why. Research Objective 1 The goal of achieving improvements to sustainability within the AEC industry is certainly becoming more commonplace. The greening of cities across the United States, and indeed across the globe, is beginning to occur faster than the first environmentalists could have ever hoped for. M ore AEC companies are beginning to implement procedures and methodologies to facilitate the awareness of the need to impr ove overall sustainability, as indicated by various literature and the analysis of the survey conducted as part of this research. AEC sustainability related terminology such as LEED is slowly but surely becoming a part of everyday language and not simply r elegated as specialized colloquial jargon. While this research cannot definitively indicate the rate at which sustainability is proliferating within the AEC industry, this research can definitely conclude that an era of increased sustainability awareness i s certainly upon us.
109 Research Objective 2 T he use of BIM is certainly becoming more commonplace As a result of improvements to technology, BIM has evolved from its ancestor, the traditional CAD format, as a tool capable of imbuing greater levels of infor mation into the design and construction documents. Similar to CAD, BIM is a means to an end which will likely become as commonplace as the currently antiquated blueprint once was many years ago This research is not capable of determining the rate at which BIM utilization is proliferating within the AEC industry but it can conclude that the use of BIM is increasing, and many decades will likely pass before BIM becomes as outdated as the ammoniated blueprint; in fact BIM is likely to evolve in perpetuity, n ever to become a relic of the past as its capabilities evolve and its users expect greater software functionality from improved technology. Research Objective 3 Specific advantages and disadvantages of BIM are discussed in detail in Chapters 2 and 4, and need not be recalled in detail here. Suffice to say that the current BIM technology is capable of providing extraordinary benefits beyond the comprehension of a young Vitruvius Despite such advantages previously cited, many flaws are inherent to BIM, and despite attempts by software manufacturers to resolve such issues, many disadvantages currently remain unresolved, much to the chagrin of many AEC professionals who utilize BIM. However, many agree that despite potential disadvantages, the advantages of B IM have provided substantial benefits to the project teams which utilize BIM. Research Objective 4 The specific use of BIM to ascertain project sustainability is certainly not as commonplace as the general use of BIM for its other advantages, as clearly i ndicated by various literature as well as by the survey conducted as part of this research. Those professionals utilizing BIM for
110 sustainability analysis praise its advantages while simultaneously cursing its disadvantages. BIM is definitely not perfect, but the AEC industry has come a long way since the days of graphite on trace paper. As more AEC professionals make the transition to BIM, many are beginning to utilize the capabilities of BIM to assist them in maximizing sustainability related benefits real ized on project using BIM specifically for improving sustainability. Research Objective 5 The AEC industry is always changing, albeit comparatively slower than other industries, and while BIM is not necessarily leading the way, BIM is beginning to have an impact on the means and methods by which AEC companies provide their clients with sustainable projects. P rofessionals disagree over the extent to which BIM is having an impact on sustainable project delivery Some do not feel BIM has any impact on sustainability, whereas others revere it as a necessity for their ability to deliver sustainable projects. As previously noted, the definition of BIM varies depending upon who is providing their own perception of what specifically constitutes BIM. As the software continues to evolve to become more conducive for sustainability analysis it is likely that the terms BIM and sustainability will become synonymous. However, such synchronicity is not expected to occur for many years or even decades. Retrospective Improve ments to this Research In order to receive more descriptive survey data, Q1.2: Company Type, could have made a better distinction between: AEC Sector ( architectural design, interior design, engineering, general contractor, specialty contractor etc.) Proje ct Type (commercial, industrial, residential, transportation, etc.) Client Type (government, private, public, nonprofit entity)
111 Project Delivery Method (Design Build, CM at Risk, CM for Fee, etc.) A more immediately clear distinction in this question coul d improve the usefulness of this question when using the responses to analyze responses to other questions. In order to receive more pertinent survey data, Q3.1: What percentage of projects completed by this company has received LEED or other green buildi ng certification? should have read: H ow many projects has this company completed which have been LEED or otherwise certified? The original question was poorly worded and resulted in diluted response data, esp ecially for old er companies who have completed numerous projects Among newly formed companied, the percentage of LEED projects might be high; among older companies, the percentage of LEED projects will be much lower, considering the relative infancy of LEED compared to companies which have 80, 90, 100 year histories for example. In order to receive more pertinent survey data, Q3.2: What percentage of sustainable projects was LEED or otherwise certified because it was requested by the owner? should have read: How many LEED or otherwise certified p rojects achieved certification due to owner s requirements but not legal require ments ? Several respondents were unable to make a clear distinction between the intent of Q3.2 and Q3.3, and due to the confusion regarding the nature of this question, a wide variety of responses were generated. The responses to the original question did not prove to be beneficial when comparing responses from different companies One respondent in particular noted that if a specified degree of sustainability is required by la w, it is implied that the owner will require sustainability in order to comply with the law, so logic dictates that the only correct answer to the original question is 100%. This slight change to Q3.2 would convey the intention of the question much better, thereby facilitating more useful responses.
112 In order to receive more pertinent survey data, Q4.1: Does your company utilize BIM software, and if so, which software applications? should have read: If you utilize BIM, w hy do you utilize the specific BIM applications currently utilized as opposed to other applications? This will address not only which BIM applications are used, but also the reasoning behind their usage. Check boxes should be used instead of requesting a type written response, so that resp ondents can peruse a list of various applications and select those which are most applicable. Additionally, do not simply use one check box for Revit for example but instead use separate check boxes for Revit Architecture, Revit Structure and Revit MEP to ensure that every application actually used by respondents is adequately accounted for. A higher response rate could be realized by indentifying more potential respondents. This research identified 343 potential respondents and required that at least 47 respond, thus approximately 1:7 responses were necessary. Realistically, this ratio should be closer to 1:12 or 1:15, and a larger sample size would greatly facilitate more responses. Additionally, t he Survey Participation Request Letter (Appendix D) should have been written such that potential respondents are immediately made aware of who is conducting the survey, that this is UF research as opposed to an independent study. This could have potentially resulted in a higher survey response rate. Recommenda tions for Future Research Repeat the survey multiple times over the time span of several years to determine the rate at which the AEC industry i s integrating sustainability and BIM. Intuitively, the use of BIM for sustainability will increase over time, bu t just how rapidly is the AEC industry accepting BIM as a possible solution for increased sustainability? Additional topics to consider include specifically analyzing the uses of BIM for sustainability tactics such as recyclability, deconstructability, mat erials reuse, or passive design and include specificity within the actual survey form to
113 determine if such sustainable tactics are actually realized as a result of using BIM or if they are achieved by other methods. Recommendations for the AEC Community If sustainability rating systems are to be used in an effort to improve project sustainability, the AEC community should be certain to use the rating system most applicable to the project, a lways bearing in mind the sustainable goals of the project and usi ng the rating systems as a guideline not as the sole indicator of sustainability. Also, for example, simply because two buildings are both rated LEED Silver does not imply that they are equally as sustainable; attaining certain LEED credits can improve th e overall sustainability of the project much more significantly than attaining others. Instead of simply attaining credits which only marginally improve overall sustainability in order to cross the threshold from LEED Silver to LEED Gold, for example, prof essionals must always remain cognizant of the actual sustainable impacts resulting from achieving particular credits. If BIM is to be utilized for improving project sustainability, AEC professionals must be certain to fully understand the capabilities of t he particular software being used. T he capabilities of the software should determine which application(s) are most appropriate to suit the particular needs of the companies using the software. However, in many instances, other companies working in collabor ation on the same project might use different software. Therefore, it is essential to understand the extent of currently available interoperability amongst the software used by business partners, to maximize the potential benefits of the software. A common saying in the BIM community is garbage in, garbage out, implying that if the BIM model is inaccurate, incorrect, or inapplicable in any way, the resulting analysis is not likely to adequately represent real world conditions. Professionals must never for get that BIM models are representations of reality which might not completely reflect every possible real world
114 condition. Conversely, BIM models attempt to most adequately represent reality to the fullest extent possible, determined by the capabilities of the specific BIM application. The model and the resulting analysis of the model will more closely approximate reality as more and more detailed information is applied to the model. Recommendations for BIM Software Manufacturers Many experts have expressed their belief that there is potential for BIM to be utilized in sustainability analysis, and while improvements to BIM over the years have increased the softwares ability to provide such benefits, there is always room for improvement. It is unfortunate t hat so few BIM applications can analyze aspects of project s in respect to actually achieving certification. For example, some LEED credits can be tracked in Revit, but many credits cannot be tracked by any current software. The ability of BIM software to a nalyze a projects ability to attain certification must be improved. Additionally BIM should not just provide the ability to analyze the potential for LEED certification, but it should also be compatible with Green Globes, BREEAM, etc. Although improveme nts to interoperability between applications have occurred over the years, increased improvements are demanded by many within the AEC community. As hardware and software technologies improve, some professionals believe that there should simply be one singl e BIM application capable of performing every possible function, effectively negating the interoperability issue. On the other hand, other professionals believe that different applications should be specialized to suit their specific needs, effectively reducing the complexity and the cost of the software. Ideally, there should be both mega programs and micro programs, all capable of smooth interoperability among each other to maximize transfer of data and minimize the need to modify the original model w ithin ancillary software. T hese applications must be capable of communi cating among each other in a more fluid manner. Currently, interoperability
115 issues typically necessitate reworking the model in different programs, which is simply inefficient, nonpro ductive, and unacceptable.
116 APPENDIX A RESEARCH PROPOSAL Committee: _____New, _____Changed, _____ Same Degree Sought: _____MBC, _____MSBC Funded Research Project: _____Yes, _____ No January 16, 2009 To: Dr. R. Raymond Issa From: Christophe r M. Hostetler Subject: Proposal for Graduate Committee Proposed Committee: Chair: Dr. Svetlana Olbina Co Chair: Dr. Robert Ries Member: Dr. Charles Kibert Proposed Subject: Building Information Modeling (BIM) and sustainability within the architecture / engineering / construction (AEC) community. Research Objectives: The primary goal of this research is to determine the extent to which Building Information Modeling (BIM) is utilized by the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) community in order to improve its ability to deliver green or sustainable projects to their clients. The secondary goal of this research is to provide recommendations to the AEC community on how to utilize BIM to deliver sustainable projects to their clients. The obj ectives which this research intends to a ddress are as follows : 1) Determine the extent to which sustainability is affecting the AEC industry. 2) Determine the extent to which BIM is being utilized by the AEC community. 3) Determine the perceived and actual advantages and disadvantages to utilizing BIM. 4) Determine various AEC companys perceptions of BIM regarding utilizing BIM in order to achieve sustainability, and the reasoning behind such perceptions. 5) Determine whether or not BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to sustainability, and if so, how and why.
117 Research Methodology: This research will use surveys to collect information from various sectors of the AEC industry in an attempt to identify relationships between BIM and sustainable project delivery. The data will be collected and analyzed. Following data analysis, recommendations will be provided for the AEC community and for future researchers. Expected Completion: August 2009 1/20/2009 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Dr. R. Raymond Issa Director of the Graduat e Program Date
118 APPENDIX B IRB SURVEY PROPOSAL SUBMISSION UFIRB 02 Social & Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Title of Protocol: Building Information Modeling and its Impacts on Susta inable Building Project Delivery Principal Investigator: Christopher M. Hostetler UFID #: 94516440 Degree / Title: Masters Degree, Thesis Department: School of Building Construction Mailing Address: 7123 SW 44th Place Apt 7 Gainesville, FL 32608 Emai l Address & Telephone Number: firstname.lastname@example.org 352.8708675 Co Investigator(s): N/A UFID#: N/A Supervisor: Dr. Svetlana Olbina UFID#: Degree / Title: Assistant Professor Department: School of Building Construction Mailing Address: 304 Rinke r Hall / POBox 115703 Gainesville, FL 326115703 Email Address & Telephone Number: solbina @ufl.edu 352.273.1166 Date of Proposed Research: 09/20/2008 07/30/2009 Source of Funding: No external sources of funding. Scientific Purpose of the Study: The primary objective of this research is to determine the extent to which Building Information Modeling (BIM) is utilized by the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) community in order to improve its ability to deliver green or sustainable projects to their clients
119 The secondary objective of this research is to provide recommendations to the AEC community on how to utilize BIM to deliver sustainable projects to their clients. Describe Potential Benefits and Anticipated Risks: Potential benefits will depend on whether or not survey respondents wish to receive a copy of the research when completed, with the intention of using this research to make more informed decisions regarding sustainable building practices. All survey responses will be held i n complete confidentiality, so there are no anticipated risks to participating in this survey Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited, the Number and AGE of the Participants, and Proposed Compensation: I will contact various members of the AEC com munity who have participated in previous University of Florida career fair s and other AEC community members who have been listed as Engineering News Record top companies. The total number of answered surveys must be at least 47. Assuming a response rate o f 1:6, a minimum of 282 surveys will be mailed electronically. Participants will be working age adults and will be contacted by tele phone to assess their interest in becoming involved in this research. The sole compensation will be optional and nonmoneta ry. It will consist of a digital copy of the completed research to assist AEC companies surveyed on how to utilize BIM to improve the sustainability of the projects they undertake. Describe the Informed Consent Process. Include a Copy of the Informed Con sent Document: Once potential survey participants have been identified, I will send the survey and consent forms electronically Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Chris topher Hostetler Supervisor Signature: Dr. Svetlana Olbina Department Chair/ Center Director Signature: Dr. R. Raymond Issa Date: 01/20/2009
12 0 APPENDIX C IRB SURVEY APPROVAL
121 APPENDIX D SURVEY REQUEST LETTER Dear AEC Professional: Will you please help us with a very important research project? We are conducting a survey in order to determine a correlation between the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), and the ability of the architectural / engineering / construction (AEC) community to deliver sustainable projects to their clients. A major goal of this research is to provide a resource to AEC professionals to assist them in utilizing BIM in order to make more sustainable decisions. Your responses to the attached questionnaire will be extremely helpful to this body of research. The survey should only take about 1525 minutes depending on the level of detail in your responses, and will be of no risk to you or your company, as all responses will be anonymous. If the topics of BIM and sustainability are not your specialty, would you please forward this message to someo ne in your company who specializes in these topics, and who would be willing and able to participate. P lease download the attached pdf file, complete the form, and click the Email Completed Survey button at the end. Your prompt reply will be greatly app reciated and I thank you very much for your help. We hope to hear back from you soon. Sincerely, Christopher M. Hostetler Principal Researcher University of Florida Graduate Student
122 APPENDIX E SURVEY INFORMED CONS ENT DOCUMENTATION Protocol Title: Building Information Modeling and its Impacts on Sustainable Building Project Delivery Please read this Informed Consent Document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of this research study: The primary objective of this r esearch is to determine the extent to which Building Information Modeling (BIM) is utilized by the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) community in order to improve its ability to deliver green or sustainable projects to their clients. The secondary objective of this research is to provide recommendations to the AEC community on how to utilize BIM to deliver sustainable projects to their clients. What you will be asked to do in this study: Answer a short survey regarding Building Information Modeling and sustainability Time required: The survey will take about 1525 minutes, depending on the level of detail of your responses. Benefits: Your involvement in this survey could potentially benefit you and/or your company. If you would like to rec eive a digital copy of this research, in order to help inform you of the potential for utilizing BIM to provide your clients with sustainable projects, please indicate as such on the survey form. Risk s : There are no risks involved with participating in t his survey. Your completed survey can contain as little or as much information as you wish to divulge. Confidentiality: Your responses will be held in complete confidentiality. It is completely optional to include your personal information in the survey
123 Voluntary participation: Participation in this survey is completely voluntary, and there is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from this study: You have to right to withdraw from this study at any time with no risk. Whom to cont act with questions about this study: Chris Hostetler, Principal Investigator, School of Building Construction Phone: 3528708675 Email: email@example.com Dr. Svetlana Olbina University of Florida School of Building Construction Phone: 3528708675 Email: solbina @ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in this study: IRB02 Office, POBox 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250 Phone: 3523920433 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Agreement: I have read the Info rmed Consent Documentation above. I have received a copy of the research proposal, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this research. Participant: _________________________________________________ Date:_______ Principal Investigator: ________________________________________ Date:_______
124 APPENDIX F SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
126 APPENDIX G SURVEY RESPONSES Figure G 1. Types of company services by surveyed c ompanies : Q1.2
127 Figure G 2. Types of projects by surveyed c ompanies : Q1.2
128 Figure G 3. Specific company s ize s : Q1.3
129 Figure G 4. Specific p ercentage of LEED APs employed by surveyed c ompan ies : Q1.4
130 Figure G 5. Specific duration of surveyed c ompany operations : Q1.5
13 1 Figure G 6. Specific utilization of particular BIM applications by surveyed companies: Q4.1
13 2 Figure G 7. BIM and other company information
13 3 Figure G 7. Continued
13 4 Figure G 7. Continued
13 5 Figure G 7. Continued
13 6 Figure G 7. Continued
137 Table G 1. Verbatim responses regarding reasons for not utilizing BIM : Q4 .3 Compan y Name Question 4.3: If [your company does not utilize BIM], why not? G We are currently researching BIM applications that may be useful in our industry. We have performed one project where we utilized 3D shop drawings to coordinate piping, conduits and d uctwork in above ceiling and other interstitial spaces. M We're currently investigating its use. O The architecture community has been slow to adopt [the use of BIM in our region]. S BIM is a new technology. [Our company] is a project management/constru ction management company and does not utilize CAD or BIM software. V BIM is a new technology. We have investigated this software and will probably be purchasing something shortly. W We are researching its use within the development industry, and we bel ieve that as we move into 2009 and beyond, we will begin to utilize BIM. All Others No Response
138 Figure G 8. Specific advantages of u tilizing BIM : Q4.4
139 Figure G 8. Continued
140 Table G 2. Verbatim responses regarding advantages of utilizing BIM : Q4.4 C ompany Name Question 4.4: What do you feel are the greatest advantages to utilizing BIM? A Coordination. *B 1) Design and construction coordination. 2) Ability to verify the design; verify that areas meet owners requirements, verify sight lines, conduct shadow studies on building and on site, etc. 3) Ability for all team members (Designer, Owner and Constructor) to understand and agree on what we are trying to build. C 1) Increased coordination and concept presentation to clients and contractors. 2) Increased workload for informed design using [our current] modeling software. D When the software gets up to speed and is user friendly. I think it will help with collision detection, work coordination and ultimately to reduce change orders. *E 1) It g ives everyone on the job team a clear picture of the finished product. This is especially important for complex installations and to show the Owner what the finished product will look like. 2) It is essential for the coordination of mechanical, electrical and plumbing trades to coordinate piping, conduits, ductwork, equipment and etc This tool will prove invaluable on my current project. 3) It requires the design team to put more details and information into the building and as a contractor, I have unlimit ed cut sections to view the building. 4) It helps to synchronize field crews during the construction of the building when you tie the schedule to the model. You can view what is being constructed at certain times to assure that crews are not stacked on top of each other. F Visualization and trade coordination. G Coordination of trades. H Planning and design. I Coordination. Capacity for additional information, metrics, and additional tools.
141 Table G 2. Continued Company Name Question 4.4: W hat do you feel are the greatest advantages to utilizing BIM? *J BIM is a toolset whose greatest advantage is that it improves information exchange and promotes collaborative project delivery. BIM is revolutionizing what had become a fairly inefficient information exchange process in the construction industry. The visualization that comes with 3D and 4D models as well as the collaborative environment that it promotes gives BIM the opportunity to reduce wasted effort and improve efficiency at every phase of project delivery. In the design phases, improved communication and collaboration can allow owners and designers to better understand each other in terms of program requirements the owner has and design ideas the designers have. Collaborating with contra ctors can occur at this early stage as well. This collaboration with the contractors done in a highly visual virtual environment (3D and 4D models) can prove far more productive than traditional contractor review. In the construction phase, the virtual environment can again serve as the forum for playing out the design and identifying potential problems, schedule conflicts, or constructability issues. Clash Detection (MEP coordination in the virtual environment) is a low input, high output version of the tr aditional drawing overlay coordination that makes it very popular as many contractors' first leap into BIM. In the closeout phase, initiatives like COBIE (Construction Operations Building Information Exchange) and FM 10 are attempting to streamline the clo se out submittal turnover process and improve the quality of the submittals themselves. K Speed, accuracy, and coordination. L Consistency, 3D visualization, comprehensive use of all data, ease of production. M Better understanding of the design documen ts intent. Should improve design document coordination and construction quality. N Earlier understanding of building aesthetics and performance. *O Less conflicts, better coordination, less waste, more efficient during construction. *P Better coordina ted and more complete document sets, the potential to do away with 2D document sets entirely, quantities and constructability analysis from the modeled elements, better team building enabled by the required interaction to assemble a multi disciplinary BIM. Q Integrated design and documentation. *R Better visualization; better quality in the field; fewer field related issues; better collaboration with the building team; more efficient and cost effective construction; better information passed to the owner *S Virtual building design (build the project electronically before building it physically); 3D visualization; estimating; conflict (clash detection) resolution; better coordinated design by design/building disciplines; integrated project delivery. Pro vide energy and performance modeling. "What if" scenarios.
142 Table G 2. Continued Company Name Question 4.4: What do you feel are the greatest advantages to utilizing BIM? T Conflict identification in mechanical/architectural/marketing. *U More detaile d and accurate information; ability to plan construction sequence with greater accuracy and at higher level of detail; ability to increase prefabrication and shorten construction schedule. V Building the building on the computer to identify problems. W Collision detection prior to field. Centralized repository. Ability to energy and daylight model without fully recreating models. X Improves communication with clients on design issues. Improves our understanding of design solutions. Has the potential to improve quality and efficiency. Y Allows for Integrated Project Approach, better coordination, reduced unknowns, but most importantly, identifies costs and minimizes risk. Z Visualization, communication, efficiency of time and materials. *AA* So far, using BIM tools helps reduce field generated RFI's and change orders, [as well as] reducing waste compared to traditional coordination processes. Also, 3D visualization helps construction teams interpret design intent much faster. BB We model as we will build, in 3D. This is information rich and intelligent. *CC* One of the great benefits of a BIM program is access. We learned after our first few BIM related project that not only do we need to coordinate the physical objects into the model, but we also need to model open space as well. Equipment such as VAV boxes above the ceiling needs to have access. Many pieces of equipment need maintenance access or have [building]> code required clearances. [We] will put these clearances into the model as an object. This ensures that the owner easily maintains the finished project.
143 Figure G 9. Specific disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM : Q4.5
144 Table G 3. Verbatim responses regarding disadvantages and/or obstacles to BIM : Q4.5 Company Name Question 4.5: What do you feel are the greatest disadvantages or obstacles to utilizing BIM? A Cost / Training. *B Current contracts do not allow for (or discourage) sharing BIM data. [BIM] changes how our industry operates many, many people are resistant to change. [A nother problem is] not getting paid for doing work that is beyond traditional scope of services. C 1) Lack of MEP "families." 2) Resistance to change. 3) Investment in software, training, hardware, and the learning curve. *D The software is over promi sing what it can do. The use of it is very time intensive and adds cost to the project for MEP design. There are still some legal issues to be worked out. Once this model has been built, who owns it and what is the liability for all other parties? E The s ingle greatest disadvantage to BIM is the current lack of knowledge and regulation in the industry. This is particularly true in Indiana. This is the first BIM project for most of the contractors involved on my current project. Aside from the learning curv e and convincing people this is the future of design and construction, I do not see disadvantages or obstacles. F File size of complex models is difficult to move around and work with. G Having subcontractors able to participate. H Getting all team play ers to use it. Must design in BIM, not design in 2 D then convert to 3 D. I N/A *J Open exchange of information. Just as improved information exchange is one of the greatest attributes of BIM, it is also one of the obstacles. There are numerous BIM prog rams from numerous software developers. For maximum information exchange, these programs must be interoperable. Achieving full interoperability is a challenge. Also, getting buy in on the new technologies and processes, particularly when it comes to purcha sing the necessary equipment, software, and training to get your company up to speed. K Getting all firm members to get on board and adopt the technology. L Learning curve, difficulties caused by lack of sophisticated modeling tools, lack (to date) of re liable metrics/case histories/legal precedents, etc., for forecasting pricing and anticipating legal/insurance issues. M Upfront cost and training. N Unwillingness among design leaders.
145 Table G 3. Continued Company Name Question 4.5: What do you feel are the greatest disadvantages or obstacles to utilizing BIM? O Cost, confusion in the [BIM] market over which software to invest in. P Interoperability between programs. Q [Not] having enough people with Revit experience to fully staff project teams. R Learning curve, especially [with] field personnel; reluctance of design professionals to share the model. *S Cost and time to build the BIM model; inaccuracies from the design industry; and legal issues related to development of and sharing of BIM mode l between design, engineering and construction teams. T No down side; our principals must understand the capabilities prior to selling the feature in a project. U (Poorly worded question; disadvantages and obstacles are two different things.) We don't pe rceive any disadvantages. The greatest obstacle is identifying, selecting, and deploying tools that are the "best fit" with our business model. V BIM is a new technology that has not "caught on" yet. W Learning curve. Business process changes. Lack of software interoperability. X Retooling costs. Unrealistic expectations. Y Inoperability with other software, namely Revit and other Autodesk products. Z Getting started. It's a whole different way of working. *AA* Today's obstacles in using BIM include getting architects thinking, "How can I build the model such that it is more usable downstream by the construction teams and owner?" We spend a lot of time remodeling what should have been done by the architect, which is a wasteful process. Open standards for software is the other big challenge, allowing companies to use the right BIM tool for their organization and still allow the data to be used by other project team members. BB Obstacles are lack of interoperability and limitations of software for engi neering. Disadvantages are mostly related to the need for more knowledgeable building professionals who are not currently available.
146 Table G 3. Continued Company Name Question 4.5: What do you feel are the greatest disadvantages or obstacles to ut ilizing BIM? *CC* Common BIM Issues: 1) Interdisciplinary conflicts are discovered prior to construction and resolved on paper. This requires costly and time consuming re work in the field. 2) Maintenance access and code required clearances needs to be i dentified and confirmed. 3) Fire / Smoke damper testing and maintenance access need to be identified and confirmed. 4) The timing of various bid package issue dates will determine when the model is handed off from the designer to the subcontractor. Ident ifying this date and communicating the level of detail will provide an essential and smooth transition from design documents to shop drawings. 5) Ensuring the contractors build per the model once it is complete. [We have] a system in place that ensures suc cess: Involve field personnel (not just CAD technicians) during the coordination process. Field personnel can be helpful to resolve conflicts and understand the effort that goes into the coordination process, thus reinforcing the importance to build per the model. We provide 2D laminated color super plot drawings in the field to give all construction personnel access to the coordinated information. Continual communication and meetings with the installation team to make sure the well laid plans are followed.
147 Figure G 10. Specific perceptions of utilizing certification rating systems such as LEED to achieve s ustainability : Q5.1
148 Table G 4. Verbatim perceptions of utilizing certification rating systems such as LEED to achieve s ustainability : Q5 .1 Company Name Question 5.1: Do you perceive that utilizing LEED (or other certification) has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects, and if so, how? A No. *B Yes, LEED is a great tool for capturing the bread th of sustainability, as well as utilizing standardized metrics to measure the extent of sustainability implemented. Using a process of continual evaluation of sustainability, as required in a LEED project, is also utilized on non LEED projects to provide the most sustainable solutions. C Yes, USGBC LEED rating system provides a common, accepted measurement tool to present and guide the project through the process (owner, architect, engineer, contractor, operator). *D Yes, It is a starting point for disc ussion. It gives us a topic to inject sustainable concepts and schemes that the owner might not have entertained in the past. E *F The [LEED] check list is a good starting point, but the costs are prohibitive. Usually [we] will implement LEED items without the cost for the LEED process. G Yes. LEED has heightened awareness and increased demand for sustainable buildings by clients who would not normally consider life cycle costs as carefully. H Yes. LEED establishes minimum thresholds for design and c onstruction. I Yes, because it has legitimized sustainable strategies in the minds of our clients. *J Yes. The LEED initiative is rooted in sustainability and Green construction. Its certification process ensures that LEED projects are designed, constru cted, and operated in an environmentally responsible manner. *K Most of our clients require some level of LEED now. For us, it's a requirement for doing business. L Yes. This is the standard by which we can say we do provide, so it becomes understandabl e by the client. M Yes, through better understanding of the sustainable benefits of complying with LEED certification. *N Yes, we don't always push the envelope on LEED projects, but complying with LEED forces us to raise our standards and make some decisions we otherwise might not have made. O Yes. LEED is a good framework to get people thinking sustainably about design and construction. P Somewhat. It provides a benchmarking system, better information earlier, planning resources
149 Table G 4. Cont inued Company Name Question 5.1: Do you perceive that utilizing LEED (or other certification) has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects, and if so, how? Q Yes, by giving us more measurable guidelines in this are a. R N/A S Yes, with expertise to guide the client to make informed decisions with LEED certification. *T LEED is the only certification [rating system] we have been involved in. However, the sustainable aspect of architectural design is at the forefro nt in all projects now. Owners may not want to participate in LEED, but we use many of the sustainable principles. U Yes; by codifying sustainability goals and objectives. V Yes. Four of us in this office are LEED AP's. The short time we have held this a ccreditation has already assisted in procuring work and speaking intelligently to clients. *W Yes. Using a rating system provides a framework for development and construction of a sustainable project. It forces consideration of various aspects that may not have been considered without the framework. X Yes. The LEED certification process provides practitioners and clients with an industry standard design decision framework to achieve a sustainable project. Y Yes. Z Yes, it gives us measured goals an d parameters to work in which is easier to quantify for the owner. Plus, it makes sustainability marketable. AA Yes, because owners are requiring this gives the device to deliver sustainable projects. BB LEED has certainly provided a framework for us to make a case for sustainability to our clients. By having specific benchmarks, the performance can be pushed and design success can be quantified. CC Absolutely. We have built sustainable projects for the past 10 years, and we learn and improve from every project. We also add to the sustainable building practices our clients set goals for.
150 Figure G 11. Specific perceptions of utilizing BIM to achieve s ustainability : Q5.2
151 Table G 5. Verbatim perceptions of utilizing BIM to achieve s ustainability : Q5.2 Company Name Question 5.2: Do you perceive that utilizing BIM has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects, and if so, how? A Yes, by reducing & eliminating errors. *B We recognize the potential for BIM to im prove the process and evaluation for sustainable design, but have not observed any benefit, yet. The potential to track materials, perform calculations, evaluate decisions, feasibility studies, etc., utilizing the data contained in BIM is promising. *C Y es, see [ question 5.1]. Utilize a common database (BIM) for the model and utilize this model to support more "informed" [and/or] better designs through modeling analysis (lighting, solar, shading, glare, CFD/airflow thermal comfort, and energy analysis). D No. E We have not worked on a project that utilized both BIM and LEED, but we do perceive advantages in this process due to the advanced building modeling technology. *F Energy modeling is key to analyzing first and life cycle costs. G We have not yet made that connection between BIM and LEED. H Not yet. I do not believe BIM and LEED have not been tied together in one software package. I Yes, since it facilitates designing with additional parameters. *J Yes. First of all, BIM has improved our ability to deliver projects, period. Secondly, achieving LEED certification requires a great deal of individual attention and effort from all parties involved, from owner to designer to contractors. The collaboration that BIM promotes makes a more conducive environment for managing the highly detailed LEED certification processes and procedures than the traditional project delivery, where parties work more isolated from one another. K At this point, it has not been a major factor in sustainability. L Not enough data yet, but we have good expectations. M N/A *N Sometimes. When we use our models for sun, wind, daylight, or energy studies, we can better understand issues related to energy performance. O N/A
152 Table G 5. Continued Company Name Question 5. 2: Do you perceive that utilizing BIM has improved your company's ability to provide your clients with sustainable projects, and if so, how? *P Somewhat. [BIM] technology has the potential to allow earlier analysis, however interoperability between solut ions has hamstrung attempts so far to capitalize on this advantage Q Not so much yet. R N/A *S Yes, using BIM will help with visualization, and facilitating the testing for LEED performance metrics. T Our office has not linked sustainable practice wi th the BIM model to date. U We have not yet used BIM on a LEED or sustainable project. V Not to date. Possible in the future. W N/A X Yes, through the ability to improve analysis and study environmental design options. *Y Not yet, but it is coming once we implement energy modeling and daylight harvesting software. Z No, but it will in the future. AA Not yet, but the potential is there. *BB* BIM has allowed us to pursue better methods for integrated project delivery and performance based analytical design. CC Not entirely. We have primarily used BIM for hospital projects, which don't usually aim for high levels of sustainable building or LEED certification. BIM has not enhanced the sustainability of these projects.
153 Figure G 12. Specific poten tial of BIM for improving the methods of delivering s ustainable projects : Q5.3
154 Table G 6. Verbatim responses regarding the potential of BIM for improving the methods of delivering s ustain able projects : Q5.3 Company Name Question 5.3: Do you feel that BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to sustainable project delivery, and if so, how? A Yes. A digital model has a life after construction is complete. *B Yes. BIM has the potential to change the process and make it mor e efficient for LEED projects that require extensive documentation, but not necessarily as much for just sustainable design in general. Again, the extensive amount of data potentially included in a BIM model can be used to evaluate the metrics of LEED. C Yes. 1) See [ question ] 5.2. 2) Improved workflow, able to respond quicker to design changes for concepts, energy analysis, etc. D No. E I do not have the experience to give a good answer to this question. F What is sustainable project delivery? I'm awa re of CM, CMAR, GC, DB and IPD. BIM is changing delivery methods, but it has nothing to do with sustainability. G Although there are changes, I have not found a change unique to sustainable project delivery. H Right now they are two separate issues. Eventually they will be tied together. I Yes. Coordination and communication between designer and constructor is improving. *J I think green building initiatives are changing sustainable project delivery with or without BIM. I think BIM will help facilitate changes in sustainable project delivery, but I think green building initiatives are the primary driving force. K Yes. We plan on using other applications that work with BIM to help us track projects sustainability, such as Green Building Studio. L Earl y data, but BIM requires early and better input from our consultants, and we have found this a stumbling block on LEED projects, so hopefully both will force better opportunities for successful BIM/Sustainable projects. M Not familiar enough with BIM to u nderstand how it may impact sustainability. *N It can, but right now it's not being used specifically for energy modeling purposes, which often means that it's not modeled exactly how it needs to be modeled. There is an interdisciplinary rift between the architect and the engineer that is keeping the energy modeling knowledge from the teams building the models.
155 Table G 6. Continued Company Name Question 5.3: Do you feel that BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to s ustainable project delivery, and if so, how? O Yes, [BIM] better facilitates integrated design, which is how a sustainable project should be designed/constructed. Besides, the green building modeling plug ins for BIM software look very promising. *P Tra ditional methods of project delivery for sustainable projects are changing, and BIM is assisting that change, but is not [currently] the major driver. Significant improvements are needed in interoperability between BIM packages and sustainability analysis tools before BIM can truly impact the delivery of sustainable buildings Q It's starting to, by incorporating automated verification routines in the programs. R N/A S Yes, better documentation for LEED certification and implementing sustainable practice s. *T I think the BIM model has potential to aid in the sustainable design effort. For [us], at this point in time, we find the integration of sustainable design principals in our work a given. Time is critical in development of a project. The extent of BIM development for a particular effort is calculated at the outset of project development. We have had one project which was a collaboration of efforts between [ourselves] and the Construction Manager. The Construction Manager wanted to use the BIM model for marketing and explore the possible uses of an extensively developed model. One problem incorporating the BIM model into the mainstream of construction is that the majority of contractors do not have computer capacity to handle the BIM model. In a recen t hospital BIM, design we had to break up the model because of the size. U Yes. BIM allows [for] far more detailed analysis of building design, and enables design and construction teams to apply large data sets of sustainable design information for the a nalysis of individual projects that previously would have cost prohibitive to perform. V Not to date. Possible in the future. W YES! I believe BIM and sustainability are converging, and as BIM tools mature, the framework will be included within the too ls. The modeling that must be done will be inherent to the tool and therefore streamline the process. X Yes, but slowly. Use of BIM provides design practitioners with increased capabilities with respect to environmental design analysis. In addition, we trust that use of BIM will assist in our product selection process by linking the model with specifications. Y Absolutely. BIM allows for analyzing many aspects of a building including specifically building performance and alternatives regarding sustainab ility.
156 Table G 6. Continued Company Name Question 5.3: Do you feel that BIM is changing the traditional methods of project delivery with regard to sustainable project delivery, and if so, how? Z Yes, we are able to analyze sustainable decisions earlie r in order to decide their value to the end product. *AA* Yes, through more collaboration (IPD), the BIM tools can help teams work together to meet goals of the projects. The simulation features of BIM tools also help teams understand the projects sustainability. *BB* BIM facilitates design integration by coordinating decision making and providing a storehouse of design information. Among other things, this information can be used for building performance simulations to provide analytical feedback on the building's energy and environmental quality throughout the design process. CC No. BIM, if used effectively, gives the owner maximum value. It has provided the most value through overhead MEP installation. Not so much for sustainability.
157 Figure G 13. Specific recommendations to improve BIM for s ustainability : Q5.4
158 Table G 7. Verbatim recommendations to i mprove BIM for s ustainability : Q5.4 Company Name Question 5.4: Do you think that improvements could be made to the BIM applications your company use s in order to better facilitate the delivery of sustainable projects, and if so, what improvements would you like to see? A Yes. 40% of LEED Credits can be tracked and analyzed through a Revit Model. There should be better software data integration bet ween these two. B Yes. Perhaps additional software that extracts material costs that are related to LEED requirements, etc. Interoperability needs to be improved to allow design to be exported to any analysis package (daylighting, energy modeling, etc.). C 1) Tighter integration of BIM software with supporting analysis software. 2) Better standards and utilization of gbXML. 3) Tighter controls of architectural model to support use by REVIT MEP and associated programs. D Get the software to be cost afford able and not so user unfriendly, and then we can work on the sustainable side. E I do not know of any improvements at this time. F Integral cost, schedule and energy options in the modeling software. G N/A H Software that ties BIM and LEED together. I Yes. Tools that address specific metrics that are used in sustainable design would be helpful. *J Yes. Many BIM applications are fairly new and almost all BIM applications are continually [changing] with the needs of the industry. I think we will see so me of these applications begin to incorporate modules for management of sustainable project delivery. K Yes. More speed with 64 bit code and more online video tutorials. L Yes. Revit could have more explicit sustainability "pointers". Our firm should als o explore available lateral applications. M N/A N The link from BIM to energy modeling programs needs more work in fixing bugs and in tracking energy related data. O N/A
159 Table G 7. Continued Company Name Question 5.4: Do you think that improve ments could be made to the BIM applications your company uses in order to better facilitate the delivery of sustainable projects, and if so, what improvements would you like to see? *P Yes, where should I start First, exports from BIM applications li ke Revit into tools like Ecotect, GBS, or IES need to actually map all applicable values to the analysis models in those programs. Currently, things like materials (which have a MAJOR impact on building performance) do not map at all. This isn't acceptable. Secondly, changes made in these analysis programs must be able to map back to tools like Revit. We need a nonlinear workflow enabled by the software. I should be able to export from Revit to Ecotect, only fill out information that is NOT defined in Revi t already, and run my simulations. Any information created or generated in the analysis program that relates to modeled elements should be able to be exported back into Revit so future exports from Revit will have that information populated already. Also, any changes to things like materials, size of shading devices, etc should have some ability to map back into Revit as well, so that optimizations made in Ecotect do not require duplicate effort to update the Revit model. Q More directed sustainability gu idelines. R N/A S Perhaps. We have not yet used BIM in relationship to sustainability. *T I think the BIM model has potential to aid in the sustainable design effort. For [our company], at this point in time, we find the integration of sustainable des ign principals in our work a given. Time is critical in development of a project. The extent of BIM development for a particular effort is calculated at the outset of project development. We have had one project which was a collaboration of efforts between [ourselves] and the Construction Manager. The Construction Manager wanted to use the BIM model for marketing and explore the possible uses of an extensively developed model. One problem incorporating the BIM model into the mainstream of construction is th at the majority of contractors do not have computer capacity to handle the BIM model. In a recent hospital BIM design we had to break up the model because of the size. U Greater maturity in available sustainability analysis tools. V *W Yes. Since BI M utilizes a centralized Database as its core, the tracking, measuring and reporting required by various rating systems such as LEED or Green Globes could be incorporated into the tools to reduce the administrative burden. X Better interoperability betwe en BIM authoring applications and energy analysis tools. Wizards which assist the practitioner in determining what application to use to in facilitating environmental design studies.
160 Table G 7. Continued Company Name Question 5.4: Do you think that improvements could be made to the BIM applications your company uses in order to better facilitate the delivery of sustainable projects, and if so, what improvements would you like to see? Y Integration capability of LEED, Energy Star and CHPS rating systems a nalysis. This could help determine quickly where a project may fall with the designated point systems based on the ["I" of BIM, Information] incorporated within the model. *Z The ability to submit LEED or certification documentation directly from the BIM or analysis application to avoid additional administrative steps. AA The simulation part of BIM tools is the important part of sustainable projects. This is more important to designers during the design process, but contractors should have a way to track LEED requirements during construction. BB There is still a big need for improving interoperability between BIM and analysis software to maximize the benefit of using model data to influence design. Furthermore, the level of precision and accuracy of some analysis tools is not conducive to the design process. A balance is needed. CC
161 APPENDIX H THE EFFECTS OF SUSTAINABILITY LEGIS LATION ON THE DESIGN AND CONST RUCTION PROFESSIONS By CHRISTOPHER M. HOSTETLER 14 NOV 2007 M.E. RINKER, SR., SCHOOL OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007
162 2007 C hristopher M. Hostetler
163 Abstract This research explores the extent to which sustainability legislation and incentives are beginning to impact the Architecture / Engineering / Construction (AEC) industry. How, where, and why are voluntary sustainable design measures becoming standard practice due to the increasing pressures from environmentalist concerns legal pressure, and owner requests ? What are the legal stipulations which will affect the future practice of the design and construction professions in specific jurisdictions where the law prescribes it? This document identif ies specific state and municipal legislative acts as well as specific buil dings built as a result of such legislation as precedence studies in order to explore the effects of sustainable mandates and incentives on the AEC industry Introduction Many states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, N ew Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, have begun to introduce requirements or recommendations regarding sustainable construction techniques for state owned buildings. Likewise, numerous municipalities, including Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Boul der, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, San Jos, and Seattle, have adopted similar measures that require or recommend that city owned buildings be built according to green building criteria. Many localities also hav e created incentive programs for privately owned green building construction, including the use of direct subsides, density bonuses, and expedited permitting. What are the specific details regarding recent legislation and what impact might they have on the building design and construction professions? First, this research document examine s five (5) states in which legislation has recently been passed that will require sustainable methods be utilized in the design and construction process. What types of bui ldings do the legislation address and what is required of them? What
164 are some examples of recently constructed buildings which have already displayed positive benefits of such legislation? Then, this research will examine a series of e xecutive orders which also require sustainable methods be utilized in certain types of municipal buildings and explore what exactly these laws stipulate. Finally, this research will present five (5) extremely progressive city wide initiatives and the impact they are having on the local scale. Figure H 1 shows the states which have enacted state wide sustainable legislation, and Figure H 2 shows the states which have enacted e xecutive orders mandating sustainable practices. Both f igures were obtained from the AIA.org article: Ar chitects and Sustainable DesignGreen Building Executive Orders in the State s (AIA 2007) Figure H 1. State l egislation requiring s ustainable design and c onstruction Figure H 2. Executive orders requiring s ustainable design and c onstruction S tate Legislation Mandating Sustainable Design and Construction Arkansas On March 29, 2005, Arkansas passed House Bill 2445 and was confirmed by the Senate on Apri l 6, 2005. The bill is entitled An Act to Promote the Conservation of Energy and Natural Reso urces in the Design of State Building Projects Through the Use of Susta inable Building
165 Rating Systems. It requires state agencies initiating or financing a public building project or rehabilitation project to consider the utilization of Leadership in Energ y and Environmental Design (LEED) or Green Globes rating systems whenever possible and appropriate. The bill also establishes a Legislative Task Force on Sustainable Building Design and Practices. It goes on to mention that the Arkansas State Government spends in excess of seventy million dollars annually on natural gas and electricity and that those expenses are increasing at a rate of 4% per year over the last ten years. The Arkansas Legislature adamantly believes it is in the best interest of the State t o initiate a process to encourage improved building practices in order to reduce energy expenditures and environmental impacts (Arkansas Legislature 2005) Connecticut House Bill 5848 (Public Act 06187) passed in October 2006, mandates that all state facilities, exempting schools, parking garages, and maintenance facilities, valued at over $5 million must comply with green buildings standards (Connecticut Legislature 2006) The new green standards have not yet been drafted by the state and will be comparable to a LEED Silver Rating or a Two Globes rating by Green Globes. Until the state draws up its own specifications, it is using either rating system for certification on its public projects. All projects must also exceed the current energy efficiency stan dards by at least 35%. Work is currently underway to write legislation to include the greening of Connecticut public schools (Greer 2007) Maryland On March 26, 2005, Maryland passed House Bill 196 and was confirmed by the Senate with SB 92 on April 4, 2005. This legislation requires that state funded building projects meet high performance building standards by either achieving a minimum of a Silver LEED rating (33 out of 69 possible points), achieving at least a two globe rating according to the Green Building
166 Initiatives Green Globes program, achieving at least a comparable numeric rating according to a similar rating system, or by meeting nationally recognized, consensus based, and accepted green building guidelines, standards, or systems approved by t he state (Maryland Legislature 2005) Nevada Assembly Bill No. 3, signed on June 17, 2005 by Governor Guinn, requires that publicly funded state buildings must be certified or must meet the equivalent of the base level or higher in accordance with LEED or an equivalent standard. In addition, every other year at least two state financed public buildings must be designated as demonstration projects and when completed must meet or exceed silver LEED certification or an equivalent standard. It goes on to spe cify a series of energy usage requirements similar to LEED or Green Globes that must be met regardless of the certification system used to verify the environmentally sustainable features of new public construction (Nevada Legislature 2005) Washington Eng rossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5509, signed on April 8, 2005 by Christine Gregoire, requires statefunded projects over 5,000 sq ft, including school district buildings, to use highperformance building standards. ESSB 5509 states that all major faci lity projects of public agencies receiving any funding in a state capital budget must be designed, constructed, and certified to at least the LEED Silver standard. Public schools have the option of meeting the LEED Silver requirements or by utilizing the W ashington Sustainable School Design Protocol. Public agencies are required to monitor and document ongoing operating savings resulting from sustainable design and construction. The Bill emphasizes the Washington legislatures belief that public buildings c an be built and renovated using highperformance methods which have been shown to that save money by reducing energy and utility costs improve school performance by
167 increasing student test scores, and make workers more productive by reducing worker absent eei sm (Washington State Legislature 2006) State Executive Orders Mandating Sustainable Design and Construction Arizona Executive Order 200505, signed on February 11, 2005 by Governor Janet Napolitano, specifies that all new statefunded buildings must a cquire at least 10% of their energy from a renewable source including solar, wind, thermal, or biomass, and could offset this by purchasing renewable energy credits. The design of new state funded buildings must include standards for energy efficiency and must attain a LEED Silver rat ing or better. However, the executive order is only applicable to the Executive Branch of the state government, with a simple suggestion that the other state government branches comply (Napolitano 2005) More recently, on Janua ry 11, 2007, the Arizona House Legislature introduced House Bill 2275. In a move far wider reaching than the executive order from two years previous, it would require all of Arizonas cities and towns to adopt and annually update a building energy code for residential and commercial construction that conforms to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) adopted by the international code council (Arizona Legislature 2007) Many local Arizona firms have already acknowledged the impact that the growing sustainable buildings market and related legislation will have on the construction industry. As of September 2006, Adolfson & Peterson Construction in Tempe, AZ employed 20 LEED Accredited Professionals (LEED APs) and Kitchell Contractors of Phoenix emplo yed 22 LEED APs Other local firms are increasing the number of LEED APs; many local subcontractors have begun educating their personnel about LEED and establishing programs that are LEED compliant in order to gain competitive advantages as sustainable leg islation begins to take effect (Popeck 2006)
168 California Executive Order S 2004, signed on December 14, 2004 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, specifies that California publicly owned and funded buildings reduce gridbased energy purchases by 20% by 2015. Items which must be consider ed include: designing, constructing and operating all new and renovated facilities to meet or exceed LEED Silver certification; identifying the most appropriate financing and project delivery mechanisms to achieve these goal s; seeking out office space leases in buildings with a U.S. EPA Energy Star rating; and purchasing or operating Energy Star electrical equipment whenever cost effective. (Schwarzenegge r 2004) Colorado Executive Order D 005 05, signed on July 15, 2005 by Governor Bill Owens, requires that all state agencies and departments must evaluate their current business operations and develop and implement policies and procedures to promote environmentally sustainable and economically efficient practices. (Owens 2 005) State agencies are to adopt LEED standards where applicable, for all existing buildings and new construction and must institute an energy management program to monitor utility usage and associated costs. The executive order also establishes the Color ado Greening Government Coordinating Council which will include representatives from each state agency and department. The Council is responsible for development of programs and policies intended to reduce energy consumption throughout state agencies. The agencies, in turn, must submit an annual report to the Council which outlines relevant projects and their resultant environmental and fiscal benefits.
169 Florida Executive Order 05 241, signed on November 10, 2005 by Governor Jeb Bush, suggests that the state investigate methods for increasing conservation and energy efficiency. Included in the energy plan is a requirement that the State must evaluate all applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and even the Florida Building Code in order to ass ess the value of the savings resulting from the executive order (Bush 2005). Subsequently, the State Department for Environmental Protection has since recommended that the State require all new government buildings to meet LEED standards (AIA 2007) More recently, on July 13, 2007, Governor Charlie Crist signed three aggressive executive orders in regard to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicular emissions, and efficient electricity production. But in regard to the construction industr y, the most critical aspect of Crist's recent decisions is that the Florida Building Code must be revised to require construction to be 15% more fuel efficient by 2009 (Loder and Pittman 2007) Maine Governor John Baldacci signed an executive order on November 24, 2003 which stipulates that any state funded construction or renovation is required to adhere to t he most current version of LEED. It includes an exception which stipulates that additional expenses resulting from improving sustainability must be justified as the most cost efficient across the building life cycle, in consideration of not only first costs but also operating costs (Baldacci 2003) A separate executive order specifically address es sustainability in public school construction. Michig an
170 E xecutive Order 20054, signed on April 22, 2005 by Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, states that all Executive Branch buildings will be required to meet an energy savings target as set by the Department of Management and Budget. The targets are to attain a 10% reduction in energy use by December 31, 2008 and a 20% reduction in gridbased energy purchases by December 31, 2015, when compared to energy use and energy purchases for the state fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. The executive order sets as a minimum LEED C ertification (26 out of 69 possible points) for all new construction and renovation for all Executive Branch buildings (Granholm 2005) New Jersey New Jersey has implemented a wide variety of legislation which strive for improved sustainabil ity of state funded building construction and renovations. Executive Order 24, signed on July 29, 2002 by Governor James E. McGreevy, requires all New Jersey public schools to incorporate LEED 2.0 in order to achieve energy efficiency and sustainability (M cGreevey 2002) Assembly Bill 3841, filed on December 14, 2006, mandates that new state buildings achieve LEED Silver certification (Waste News 2007a) Also filed on December 14, 2006 was Assembly Bill 3852, which mandates that state government agencies be carbon neutral by 2012 (Waste News 2007a) Assembly Bill 1633, signed by the governor on January 12 2006, addresses New Jersey brownfield sites and analyzes the measures taken for remediation in annual inventory and progress reports (Waste News 2007b) More recently, Senate Bill 2146 require s that all state buildings over 15,000 sq ft receive LEED Silver certification (New Jersey Legislature 2006a). Also, Senate Bill 2152 would require the creation of a greenbuilding subcode to supplement the State Unif orm Construction Code (New Jersey Legislature 2006b) New Mexico
171 Executive Order 2006001, signed on January 16, 2006 by Governor Bill Richardson, mandates that all new and renovated Executive Branch buildings over 15,000 sq ft and/or using over 50 kWh at peak times be LEED Silver certified. All other new construction, renovations, repairs, and replacements of state buildings must utilize cost effective, energy efficient, green building practices to the maximum extent possible. The executive order also spe cifies that city planning be done with greater care, specifically in regard to siting new government and school facilities with respect to existing infrastructure to minimize energy usage and environmental impact (Richardson 2006) New York Executive Ord er 111, signed in June 2001 by Governor George Pataki, encouraged state agencies to be more energy efficient and environmentally aware. With regards to State Buildings Energy Efficiency Practices, the Order requires that to the maximum extent practical, the design, construction, operation and maintenance of new buildings, state agencies and other affected agencies shall follow guidelines for the construction of green buildings, including guidelines set forth in Tax Law 19, which created the Green Buildin gs Tax Credit, and the U.S. Green Building Councils LEED rating system. (Pataki 2001) State agencies and all other affected entities must also employ energy efficiency practices and strive to meet the ENERGY STAR building criteria throughout the operation and maintenance of all buildings that they own, lease, or operate (AIA 2007) Pennsylvania House Bill 3047 was sent to the House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy on Oct. 18 2006. It specifies that all major facility projects achieve spe cified l evel s of high performance building standards The Bill defines major facility project as any of the
172 following: a State funded new construction project in which the 13 building to be constructed is larger than 10,000 gross square feet; a State fu nded building renovation project where the State funding exceeds either 50% of the construction cost or $500,000 in State funds. A State funded commercial interior tenant fitout project that is larger than 10,000 square feet of leasable area (General Ass embly of Pennsylvania 2006). This aspect of the Order increases its scope substantially compared with much other recent legislation in that all federal buildings must comply with such environmental standards. The Bill also requires that all major facility projects receive an Energy Star Rating or 85 or above (General Assembly of Pennsylvania 2006) Rhode Island Executive Order 05 14, signed on August 22, 2005 by Governor Donald L. Carcieri, requires that the design, construction, operation and maintenance of any new, substantially expanded, or renovated public building must achieve LEED Silver certification. It is interesting to note here that public buildings are not exclusive of Executive Branch buildings, but are defined as any building owned by the S tate or any department, office, board, commission, or agency thereof, including state supported institutions of higher learning (Carcieri 2005) .This exemplifies a significant similarity to the Pennsylvania HB 3047, which also requires all federal building s adhere to sustainable standards A final stipulation in Executive Order 0514 is the evaluation of feasible energy efficiency measures on the basis of their total lifecycle costs for new or renovated public buildings (Carcieri 2005) Wisconsin Executiv e Order 145, signed on April 11, 2006 by Governor Jim Doyle, mandates that the Department of Administration (DOA) establish and adopt guidelines based on LEED for new construction and LEED EB for existing state facilities, office buildings/complexes, and c ampus
173 buildings within 6 months (Doyle 2006) The DOA in consultation with other agencies, set energy efficiency objectives for 20072009, with a goal for a 10% energy reduction per square foot by 2008, and a 20% energy reduction per square foot by 2010 ( State of Wisconsin DOA 2006) The DOA will also work with the Building Commission and Energy Center of Wisconsin to ensure that new facilities are constructed to be 30% more energy efficient than commercial code. The Order also strives to develop a set of sustainable building operation guidelines, including benchmarking and annual reporting to measure and ensure energy efficiency and sustainable design of new facilities (State of Wisconsin DOA 2006) Municipal Case Studies Many cities across the Unites Stat es have put into place legislation mandating sustainable building guidelines for municipal design and construction including, Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many more (Buildings.com 2005) Included below is a d iscussion regarding five case studies from unique cities with strict sustainability legislation Goodyear, AZ The first public school building in Arizona to achieve a LEED Silver rating as a result of Governor Napolitano's Executive Order 200505 is the D esert Edge High School in the Agua Fria Union High School District. Emc2 Architects and Adolfson & Peterson Construction collaborated on this 90,000 sq ft expansion, which is 28% more energy efficient than a typical high school with estimates of energy cos t savings of about $58,000 a year, savings which increase annually as energy costs continue to rise. Construction techniques which were utilized diverted over 84% of the construction waste from the landfill. Water conservation techniques are estimated to s ave approximately one million gallons of water per year resulting in $4,000 in annual savings. The school district worked with Green Ideas Environmental Building
174 Consultants to incorporate a highefficiency central cooling and heating plant along with an e xtensive daylighting scheme and daylight sensors for the classroom areas to reduce energy usage (Popeck 2006) New York City, NY New York City Local Law 86, also known as the Green City Buildings Act, became effective on January 1, 2007. The act is signif icant to the construction industry because it will affect a wide array of occupancy groups as well as many of New York Citys new and renovated municipal buildings by requiring that they achieve the high standards of either LEED NC or LEED EB in sustainabl e building design, construction and operation (NYC Legislature 2005) The act has the potential to dramatically affect the New York construction industry because the building materials and architectural design required by the act are sometimes substantial ly different than those used in traditional buildings. The City owns approximately 1,300 buildings and leases over 12.8 million square feet of space and the New York City Council has estimated that this legislation will affect approximately $12 billion in construction over the next ten years (Greer 2007) As presented in Table H 1, various building types and construction cost will influence the level of sustainability required under New York Citys Green City Buildings Act. In fact, this law has inspired individual agencies to establish sustainable building guidelines for their building construction programs: The Department of Education and School Construction Authority (SCA) has recently revised its standards with the help of Dattner Architects of New Yor k, DVL Consulting Engineers of Hackensack, and New York's Viridian
175 Table H 1. Requirements of the NYC Green City Buildings Act Energy & Environmental to create the Green Schools Rating System with standards equal to LEED Certified or better. A major objective for the development of the guidelines was to reduce the cost and complexity of installing green measures. Some architects, including New Yorkbased AKRF, are already designing projects for the SCA using the new standard. Michael Deane, Turner Co nstructions East Coast manager for sustainable construction, finds it inevitable that this type of legislation will spill over into the private sector. The Director of D.C.s Office of Environmental Coordination Robert Kulikowski believes this new law is critical because it impacts a variety of issues that are important for a sustainable New York. (Greer 2007) Unfortunately, not all contractors are thrilled with the move toward more green building, largely because of concern about higher costs, says Ja son Kliwinski, Director of Sustainable Design and Operations at the Prisco Group, an architect group in Hopewell, N.J. "The perception is that green building codes will increase the cost of doing business. It actually costs the same or less" in the long r un (Greer 2007)
176 District of Columbia The District of Columbia Legislature Bill 515 would establish the Green Building Act of 2006, which specifies revisions of construction codes for the inclusion of sustainable building practices. The Bill would set up the Green Building Fund, which would provide s taffing and operation costs for technic al assistance, plan reviews, inspections and monitoring of green buildings. It also stipulates that priority leasing should occur in buildings that meet the required stan dards. In addition, it would provide education, training, outreach, and incentives to the public and private sectors on green building practices ( DC Legislature 2006) It was finally signed by the Mayor on December 28, 2006 (Waste News 2007) Beginning in 2010, all new and substantially improved private and publicly owned commercial buildings and postsecondary educational facilities greater than 50,000sq ft will have to meet or exceed LEED NC or LEED CS Certified standards. The District of Columbia is the f irst district to make such requirements for privately owned buildings. All other public educational facilities will be required to meet the LEED for Schools Certified standards by 2012 (DSIRE 2007) Despite the fact that the District of Columbia's Green Building Act of 2006 will not begin to take effect until 2010, many local design firms are already preparing for the changes it will require. Alberto Cavallero, design principal in KlingStubbins Washington, D.C., office, says he expects the new LEED requi rements will particularly affect the design of buildings such as high end residential projects for which aesthetics drive value. These regulations will likely cause a shift in the types of building amenities owners choose to accentuate. Because LEED point garnering attributes such as sun shades, wind turbines, rooftop gardens and improved views will now be required, owners will likely ask architects and engineers to get more creative with
177 design (Bacon 2007) The new requirements are already having an i mpa ct on the local AEC community In one project, t he d esigners of 1225 Connecticut Avenue, a $30 million renovation of an eight story office building in Washington's downtown business district, were asked by the owner to go back and re design the renovation to meet LEED certified standards long after the original design documents were already complete (Bacon 2007) Scottsdale, AZ Resolution 6644, signed on March 22, 2005 by Mayor Mary Manross, is the first city wide law in the nation which requires that all municipal buildings of any size attain LEED Gold Rating (39 out of 69 possible points) and attempt to achieve a Platinum Rating (52 or more points). The Scottsdale City Council has required a payback period related to first cost increases in expenses due to sustainable design measures of no more than five years. If this extremely high goal is simply unattainable for a particular project the City Council will recommend a more suitable LEED rating or possible simply recommend which sustainable aspects of c ertification are the most viable for that specific project (Scottsdale Arizona Legislature 2005) Portland, OR S cottsdale Arizonas Resolution 6644 requiring LEED Gold for municipal buildings has prompted sustainability advocates in Portland, Oregon to re vise its 2001 Green Building Policy on April 27, 2005 to require that all city owned buildings achieve Gold level certification. Previously, the legislation stipulated a LEED Silver for federally funded projects. Portland is now only the second city in the nation to require such a high standard for design and construction. Vancouver, British Columbia is the only other North American city to put into place such stringent legislation. Portlands Revised Green Building Policy also stipulates that new city fund ed private sector buildings and major renovations to city owned buildings also
178 acquire a LEED Silver rating, with support provided to new private building projects for assistance in achieving LEED Silver. The revised Green Building Policy goes on to also r equire that all municipal buildings exceed the Portland baseline code requirements for waste recycling by 75% and exceed the baseline requirements for stormwater management, water savings, and energy savings by 30% (Portland Oregon Legislature 2005) In J anuary 2006 Howard Hall of Oregons Lewis & Clark College received the first LEED Gold rating in the state earning 45 out of 69 possible points (52 are required for Platinum). According to the college, the 51,000 sq ft building designed by Thomas Hacker Ar chitects and built by Portland based Hoffman Construction Co. enjoys a 40% reduction in energy consumption by utilizing techniques such as a raised floor system for HVAC circulation and energy efficient elevator systems. Howard Hall is the second building on the Lewis & Cla rk campus to earn a LEED rating. Roberts Hall a 24,700 sq ft residential complex earned a LEED Silver rating in 2002 under the original Green Building Policy of 2001 (DJC 2006) Incentives for Sustainable Design and Construction In addi tion to the wide array on mandated, legislated requirements for designing and constructing sustainably, there seems to exist just as many government incentive programs to encourage sustainability. In the U .S ., about 53 cities either offer incentives for sustainability or require some degree of sustainability (Ramstack 2007) Some sustainability advocates prefer that legislation be enacted in order to force more intelligent construction methodologies whereas others in the AEC community prefer incentives so as not to restrict the design process while providing leeway for project constraints such as monetary limitations or feasibility issues. While this topic is beyond the scope of this paper, it is intriguing enough to note for further refere nce that a fairl y th orough collection of sustainability related incentives can be found in the AIA State
179 Government Network 2006 report titled State of Washington High Performance Public Buildings Law pages 4053 (AIA State Government Network 2006) Summary Many state, county, and city governments have demonstrated their commitment to green building practices T here exists a large amount of legislation which encourages sustainable design and construction, and even more legislation which requires it. In many locations, s uch legislation typically applies to government buildings, but in other locations, the public and private sectors are also becoming subject to sustainability requirements. Some legislation requires LEED; whereas other legislation recommends LEED Green Glo bes or similar; whereas other legislation even calls for the authoring of a new rating metric specific to that municipality. Additionally, as an increas ing number of building owners are beginning to require certain degrees of sustainability for their proj ects when not necessarily required by law, sustainability seems to have migrated from a niche market into the mainstream. The current increase in sustainable building legislation is beginning to have a substantial impact on both the design and construction aspects of the industry. Some professionals are embracing the movement as a po tentially profitable emerging market whereas others are viewing it as burdensome to an already difficult profession. Some view it as an ethical decision to be environmentally r esponsible. As sustainable practices and techniques proliferate into the mainstream, the expenses required in order to achieve sustainability have declined, and will likely continue to decline. As sustainability standards become more commonplace the diff iculty in achieving such standards have decreased, and will likely continue to decrease. As sustainability laws are eventually incorporated into more and more buildings codes, they will begin holding AEC professionals to a
180 higher degree of accountability b y legislating higher standards. Hopefully this recent spur of legislation will preclude a future where it is required that all building projects meet or exceed sustainability benchmarks ; a future when environmental responsibility become s second nature to AEC professionals and their clients; a future when sustainable building practices become the standard procedure List of References for Appendix H AIA (American Institute of Architects). (2007). Architects and Sustainable DesignGreen Building Executive O rders in the States. URL:http://www.aia.org/advocacy/federal/AIAS078787?dvid=&recspec=AIAS078787 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). AIA State Government Network. (2006). State of Washington High Performance Public Buildings Law. URL:http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/2006_SGN_Green_Building_Legislation.pdf (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Arkansas Legislature. (2005). State of Arkansas 85th General Assembly House Bill 2445. URL:http://www.arkansas.gov/lobbyist/arliab/src/public/bills/200 5/html/HB2445.html (Accessed 21 Nov 2007). Arizona Legislature. (2007). State of Arizona House Bill 2275. URL:http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in Doc=/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2275p.htm (Accessed 12 Nov 2007). Bacon, S. (2007). D.C.'s Green Future: LEED Becomes the Law of the Land. Mid Atlantic Construction, 1 Oct 2007. URL:http://midatlantic.construction.com/features/archive/Fall07_Feature2.asp (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Baldacci, J. (2003). State of Maine Executive Order Regarding the Use of LEED Building Standards for State Buildings. URL:http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/ME09R.pdf (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Buildings.com. (2005). Americas Cities LEED the Way. URL:http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?contentID=2475 (Accessed 13 Nov 2007). Bush, J. (2005). State of Florida Executive Order 05241. U RL:http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/media/enews/2005/pdf/ExecOrder_05241.pdf (Accessed 12 Nov 2007).
181 Carcieri, D. (2005). Executive Order 05 14 Energy and Environmental Performance Standards for New Public Buildings. URL:http://www.governor.ri.gov/documents/executiveorders/2005/14_NewBuildings_Energy_E nvironmental_Standards.pdf (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Connecticut Legislature. (2006) State Of Connecticut House Bill 5846. URL:http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/ACT/PA/2006PA 00187R00HB 05846PA.htm (Accessed 12 Nov 2007). DC (District of Columbia) Legislature. (2006). District of Columbia Bill 16 515 The District of Columbia Green Building Act of 2006. URL:http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/images/00001/20061201163509.pdf ( Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Doyle, J. (2006). State of Wisconsin Executive Order 115. URL:http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?locid=19&prid=1907 (Accessed 8 Nov 2007). DJC (Daily Journal of Commerce) Staff. (2006). Lewis & Clark College Completes LEED Journey, Takes Gold. Daily Journal of Commerce, 19 Jan 2006. URL:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4184/is_20060119/ai_n16026511 ( Accessed 13 Nov 2007). DSIRE (Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency). (2007). District of Columbia: Incentives/Policies for Renewable Energy. URL:http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=DC09R&state= DC&CurrentPageID=1&RE=1&EE=0 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). General Assembly of Pennsylvania. (2006). State of Pennsylvania House Bill 3047: HighPerformance State Funded Buildings Standards Act. URL:http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sess Yr=2005&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=3047&pn=4834 (Accessed 12 Nov 2007). Granholm, J. (2005). State of Michigan Executive Directive No. 200504: Energy Efficiency in State Facilities and Operations. URL: http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,716821975_22515116177--,00.html (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Greer, D. (2007). Mandating Green; New Laws Push Sustainable Design Into Regulatory Mode. New York Construction, 1 Feb 2007. URL:http://newyork.construction.com/features/archive/2007/02_coverA.asp (Accessed 7 Nov 2007).
182 Loder, A. and Pittman, C. (2007). St. Petersburg Times (Florida) South Pinellas Edition. Governors Giddy with Green, 14 Jul 2007. URL:http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/14/Business/Governors_giddy_with_.shtml (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Maryland Legislature. (2005). State of Maryland Senate Bill 92. URL:http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/billfile/sb0092.htm (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). McGreevey, J. (2002). State of New Jersey Executive Order 24. URL:http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eom24.htm (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Nevada Legislature. (2005). State of Nevada Assembly Bill No. 3. URL:http://www.leg.state.nv.us/22ndSpecial/bills/AB/AB3_EN.pdf (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Napolitano, J. (2005). State of Arizona Executive Order 200505. URL:http://w ww.governor.state.az.us/eo/2005_05.pdf (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). New Jersey Legislature. (2006a). State of New Jersey Senate Bill 2146. URL:http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills /S2500/2146_I1.PDF (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). New Jersey Legislature. (2006b). State of New Jersey Senate Bill 2152. URL:http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S2500/2152_U1.HTM ( Accessed 7 Nov 2007). NYC (New York City) Legislature. (2005). Local Laws for the City of New York for 2005: No. 86. URL:http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/downloads/pdf/LL86/LL 86_of_2005.pdf (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Owens, B. (2005). State of Colorado Executive Order D 005 05 Greening of State Government. URL:http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/govowens/eos/eo05/d00505.pdf (Accessed 8 Nov 2007). Pataki, G. (2001). State of New York Executive Order 111. URL:http://www.nyserda.org/programs/exorder111orig.asp (Ac cessed 7 Nov 2007). Popeck, C. (2006). HighPerformance Schools Foster the Learning Process. Green Building.com, 7 Sept 2006. URL:http://www.lexisnexis.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/us/lnacadem...435933183&treeMax=true&treeW idth=0&csi=174569&docNo=1 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Portland, Oregon Legislature. (2005). City of Portland Revised Green Building Policy Resolution 2005. URL:http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=80633 (Accessed 12 Nov 2007).
183 Ramstack, T. (2007). Building for a Green Future; Energy, Water Usage being Cut by Design. The Washington Times, 18 Mar 2007. URL:http: //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/18/200703181257574681r/ (Accessed 6 Nov 2007). Richardson, B. (2006). State of New Mexico Executive Order 2006 001. URL:http://www.g overnor.state.nm.us/orders/2006/EO_2006_001.pdf (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Schwarzenegger, A. (2004). State of California Executive Order S 2004. URL:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/E xecOrderS 2004.htm (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Scottsdale, Arizona Legislature. (2005). City of Scottsdale, AZ Resolution 6644. URL:http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/ Assets/documents/greenbuilding/LEED_ResNo6644.pdf (Accessed 12 Nov 2007). State of Wisconsin DOA (Department of Administration). (2006). Energy Conservation and Green Building Incentives. URL:http://www.wisconsin.edu/news/2006/062006/jun08_energyConservationDOA.pdf (Accessed 8 Nov 2007). Washington State Legislature. (2006). State of Washington Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5509. URL:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5509&year=2005 (Accessed 11 Nov 2007). Waste News. (2007a). Capital Briefs. Waste News, 8 Jan 2007. URL: http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/capitalbriefs2.html?id=1168270304 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Waste News. (2007b). Capital Briefs Waste News, 30 Jan 2006. URL:http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/capitalbriefs2.html?id=1138737256 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Waste News. (2007c). Capital Briefs. Waste News, 6 Nov 2006. URL:http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/capitalbriefs2.html?id=1162829645 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007). Waste News. (2007d). Capital Briefs. Waste News, 22 Jan 2007. URL:http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/capitalbriefs2.html?id=1170342523 (Accessed 7 Nov 2007).
184 LIST OF REFERENCES Autodesk Inc. (2008). Autodesk: Revit Architecture 2009 Brochure. URL:http://images.Autodesk.com/adsk/files/revitarch09_brochure.pdf (Accessed 27 Nov 2008). Bentley Systems Inc. (2008a). About BIM. URL:http://www.bentley.com/en US/Solutions/ Buildings/About+BIM.htm (Accessed 21 Nov 2008). Bentley Systems Inc. (2008b). Bentley Architecture V8i BIM for Architectural Design and Documentation. URL: http://www.bentley.com/en US/Products/Bentley+Architecture/Top Reasons.htm (Accessed 29 Nov 2008). Campbell, D. A. (2006). Modeling Rules. URL:http://www.architectureweek.com/2006/1011/tools_11.html (Accessed 27 Nov 2008). Del Percio, S. (2008). What Will LEED v3 Mean for Green Building Legislation? URL:http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/2008/05/16/what willleed v3mean forgreen building legislation/ (Accessed 01 Mar 2009). Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K. (2008). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2008). Annual Energy Review 2007. URL:http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/aer.pdf (Accessed 5 Mar 2009). ENR (Engineering News Record). (2008a). The Top 100 Green Design Firms. Engineering News Record, 23 Jun 2008. ENR (Engineering News Record). (2008b). The Top Green Contractors. Engine ering News Record, 22 Sep 2008. ENR (Engineering News Record). (2008c). The Top Design Build Firms. Engineering News Record, 26 Jun 2008. ENR (Engineering News Record). (2008d). The Top Construction Management at Risk Firms. Engineering News Record, 26 J un 2008. ENR (Engineering News Record). (2008e). The Top Construction Management for Fee Firms. Engineering News Record, 26 Jun 2008. Fedrizzi, R. (2008). LEED 2009: A Message from Rick Fedrizzi URL:http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1928 (Accessed 01 Mar 2009).
185 Gehry Technologies. (2008). Digital Project Products. URL:http://www.gehrytechnologies.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&It emid=211 (Accessed 27 Nov 2008). Gleeson, J. (2005). Computer Aided Green Design. Architecture Week, 30 Mar 2005. URL:http://www.architectureweek.com/2005/0330/tools_11.html (Accessed 25 Sept 2008). Graphisoft R&D. (2008). Value Proposition for ArchiCAD. URL:http://www .graphisoft.com/products/ArchiCAD/ (Accessed 29 Nov 2008). Gleeson, J. (2005). Computer Aided Green Design. Architecture Week, 30 Mar 2005. URL:http://www.architectureweek.com/2 005/0330/tools_11.html (Accessed 25 Sept 2008). IES Ltd. (Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited). (2008). VEWare FAQ, 26 Aug 2008. URL:http://www.i esve.com/content/mediaassets/pdf/VE Ware%20FAQ SKU%20updated.pdf (Accessed 27 Feb 2009). Innovaya LLC (2008). Innovaya Software Products Overview. URL:http://www.innovaya.com/prod_ov.htm (Accessed 27 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2006a ). Visual Estimating: Extending BIM to Construction., 21 Mar 2006. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2006/VisualEstimating_pr.html (Accessed 7 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2006b). Bentley Architecture and Bentley Structural V8 XM, 31 Oct 2006. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2006/BentleyArchStructV8XM_pr.html (Accessed 11 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2006c). AIA CBSP Symposium on BIM for Building Envelope Design and Performance 15 Nov 2006. URL: http: //www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2006/AIA CBSP_BIM_pr.html (Accessed 23 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2008a). Revit Architecture 2009, 30 Apr 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.co m/review/2008/RevitArch2009_pr.html (Accessed 12 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2008b). ArchiCAD 12, 16 Oct 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2008/ArchiCAD12_pr.html (Accessed 1 2 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2008c ). Autodesk NavisWorks 2009, 23 Oct 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2008/NavisWorks2009_pr.html (Accessed 7 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. ( 2008d). AEC Exhibitor Highlights from Autodesk University 2008, 12 Dec 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2008/AU2008_Exhibitors.html (Accessed 10 F eb 2009).
186 Khemlani, L. (2008e). Technology Product Highlights from AIA 2008 Convention, 22 May 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/newsletter/2008/issue_34.html (Accessed 10 Feb 2009). Khemlani, L. (2008f). DProfiler: A Macro BIM Solution, 22 Jul 2008. URL:http://www.aecbytes.com/review/2008/DProfiler.html (Accessed 10 Feb 2009). Krygiel, E. and Nies, B. (2008). Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with Building Information Modeling. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing. Laiserin, J. (2008). Vico Virtual Construction Suite 2008. 1 Jul 2008. URL:http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=526884 (Accessed 23 Jul 2009). Lippiatt, B. (1999). Selecting Cost Effective Green Building Products: BEES Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Nov/Dec 1999. URL:http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build99/PDF/b99096.pdf (Accessed 04 Nov 2008). Livingston, H. (2007a). BIM and Sustainable Design, Part 1, 21 Jun 2007. URL:http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/BIM/BIM and Sustainable Design Part 1/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/436385 (Accessed 22 Sep t 2008). Livingston, H. (2007b). BIM and Sustainable Design, Part 2, 19 Jul 2007. URL:http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/BIM/BIM and Sust ainableDesign Part 2/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/440702 (Accessed 22 Sept 2008). Livingston, H. (2008). Architects Embrace BIM at AIA Convention. URL:http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/News/Architects Em...at AIA Convention/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/519955 (Accessed 22 Sept 2008). Mazria, E. (2003). Turning Down the Global Thermostat. Metropolis Magazine, Oct 2003. URL:http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=293 (Accessed 25 Sept 2008). Nelson, A. (2004). Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. URL:http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2004/12metropolitanpolicy_nelson.aspx (Accessed 27 Sept 2008). Ortiz, O., Castells, F. and Sonnemann, G (2007). Sustainability in the Con struction Industry: A Review of Recent Developments based on LCA. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2G 4RWJVTT 2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=9 62835598&_rerunOrigin =scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u serid=10&md5=585dae7dde6d1be5938b7834a62e0759 Accessed (22 Sept2008). Pitts, A. (2004). Planning and Design Strategies for Sustainability and Profit. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.
187 Rek acewicz, P. (2004). Raw Material Consumption in United States and Western Europe (Steel, Aluminium, Plastics and Cement). URL:http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/raw_material_consumption_in_united_states_and_western _europe_steel_aluminium_plastics_and_cement (Accessed 25 Sept 2008). Smith, S. (2007). Using BIM for Sustainable Design. AECCafe Weekly, 7 May 2007. URL:http://www10.aeccafe.com/nbc/articles/view_weekly.php?section=Magazine&articleid=38 6029&printerfriendly=1 (Accessed 21 Sept, 2008) TenLinks Inc. (2008). Architects Say 47% of Clients Adopting Some Green Building, 20 Nov 2008. URL:http://www.tenlinks.com/news/PR/AUTODESK/112008_greenindex.htm (Accessed 21 Dec 2008). Tulacz, G. and Traynor, M. (2008). The Top 100 Green Design Firms. Engineering News Record, 23 Jun 2008. Tulacz, G. (2008). The Top Green Contractors. Engineering News Record, 22 Sept 2008. USGBC (Unites States Green Building Council ). (2008a). LEED Rating Systems. URL:http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=222 (Accessed 01 Mar 2009). USGBC (Unites States Green Building Council). (2008b). LEED v3 Rollou t. URL:https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5176 (Accessed 01 Mar 2009). USGBC (Unites States Green Building Council). (2008c). LEED 2009 Frequently Asked Questions. URL:https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=5177 (Accessed 01 Mar 2009). USGBC (Unites States Green Building Council). (2008d). LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation 2009 w ith Comparison Project Scorecard. URL:http://www.leedlinc.com/pdfs/LEED%202009%20% 20New%20Construction%20 Checklist%20Changes%20Compar ison.pdf (Accessed 28 Oct 2008). USGBC (Unites States Green Building Council). (2009). Green Building by the Numbers. URL:http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3340 (Accessed 27 May 2009). Werthan, A. (2007). A Systemic Model for Designing Energy Optimized Buildings. URL:http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek_public/documents/pdf/aiap016785.pdf (Accessed 13 Feb 2009)
188 B IOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mr. Chris topher M. Hostetler has always s eem ed to have a natural inclination to design and create, whether building with Legos as a child, or while concocting culinary creations throughout the years in the restaurant and hospitality industry Creating synergies f rom combining building blocks or raw ingredients in meaningful ways to produce the final product it comes as no surprise that he became attracted to the study of architecture shortly after enro lling in his first drafting class in high school. F ascinated by the intricacies which merge the aesthetic and the practical to elevate great architecture to the level of occupiable art he decided to pursue a Bachelors degree in Architecture at the Univer sity of Florida where he became interested in sustainability, BIM design build methodologies historic renovation, brownfield reclamation, and urban restoration. Striving to learn more concerning not only the design, but also the construction aspects of the built environment, he pursued a Master of Science in Building Construction, which he recently attained from the University of Florida. He is currently awaiting decision from several possible employers, anticipating the potential to utilize his knowledge and skills to help improve the overall sustainability of the design and construction professions