What makes a good PICV?

September 22, 2020 by Leave a comment

by Andrew Pender, National Sales Manager at FloControl Ltd.

Over the last 5 years, PICVs have been widely accepted as the best method of terminal control in variable flow systems due to their energy saving potential.  The surge in popularity has led to an influx of products with varying designs, features and functionality.  This article reviews some of the mechanical PICV design elements and how they can impact on the PICV’s performance in an applicational context.

Where do we start?

To help specifiers and project engineers assess which PICV is best suited for an application, the BSRIA BTS1/2019 standard has been developed to provide a consistent test method for PICV manufacturer’s products to be benchmarked against.

Manufacturers should be able to provide test results in line with this technical standard which covers:

  • measured flow vs nominal flow
  • pressure independency or flow limitation
  • control characteristics, both linear and equal percentage
  • seat leakage test

Repeatability & Accuracy are central to the tests and they are key to good temperature control and realising the full energy saving potential of a PICV installation.

An accurate PICV means the measured results will be equal or very close to the manufacturer’s published nominal flow rate each time it is measured, known as low hysteresis.

Accuracy has a positive impact on a building’s energy consumption.  “Measured over time, a 1% increase in the accuracy of a PICV can result in a reduction of around 0.5% in the building’s overall hydronic energy consumption” (FlowCon International).

Valve accuracy is driven by the design, manufacturing process and material used for the internals of the valve.

  • The design of the PICV should allow for Full Stroke Modulating Control at all flow settings without any stroke limitation.  The flow setting and temperature control components should operate independently.  Some PICV designs use the stroke of the actuator stem to set the flow rate resulting in limited stroke and control.  This can cause issues at low flow rates whereby the PICV effectively becomes on/off irrespective of actuator selection.  
  • The manufacturing process and the component materials also contribute to accuracy. For example, injection-moulded, glass-reinforced composite materials cope better with water conditions that valves can be exposed to.  They also have less material shrinkage than other materials, delivering higher accuracy than valves that use alloy components.

What else should be considered?

The importance of accuracy and repeatability are paramount when selecting a PICV however there are other factors that should be considered:

  • Wide flow rate range – including low flow rates for heating applications, ideally covered by a small number of valves.
  • Setting the flow rate – setting the PICV can influence the accuracy. There are various scales used including set points related to flow rates and percentages. PICVs with very detailed scales with small increments between set points are more difficult to set accurately, leading to higher tolerances than the BSRIA standard recommended + 10%.
  • Wide ΔP Range – low start up pressure. To operate satisfactorily, the PICV requires a minimum pressure differential to overcome the initial spring resistance within the PICV, enabling the spring to move and take control. Care should be taken to ensure the minimum pressure differential is as low as possible to maximise the energy saving potential of the system.  The maximum DP should also be considered to ensure the PICV operates effectively under part load conditions.
  • Dirt tolerance – the Valve Control Opening Area [A] on all PICVs, irrespective of the manufacturer, is identical for each flow rate. The shape of the Control Area can be different depending on the valve design. A Rectangular flow aperture is more tolerant than an Annular flow aperture. Debris will pass through the rectangular aperture more easily.
  • Removable inserts – deliver the greatest flexibility and serviceability.  Products can be easily serviced in line without disruption. This is especially of value when water quality is poor or when flow requirements change due to changes in space usage.  Inserts can also be removed during flushing.  Valve bodies can be installed with blank caps eliminating the risk of damaging or contaminating the PICV element, whilst having a full-bore flushing capacity.
  • Installation – PICVs in general have no installation restrictions however in line with BSRIA BG29/20, it is recommended that PICVs should be installed in the return branch as small bore PICVs will have a high resistance which will hinder the flushing velocity during the forward flushing of terminal units.

Making the right choice

There are many aspects for specifiers and project engineers to consider when selecting the right PICV for an application.  The BTS1/2019 standard provides an excellent benchmark, but the individual designs also need to be carefully considered.  A correctly selected PICV will ultimately lead to a more comfortable indoor climate with better control of the space heating and cooling as well as potentially reducing the pump energy consumption in a building by up to 35%.

This post was authored by Andrew Pender, National Sales Manager at FloControl Ltd. All views expressed are those of the author. If you belong to a BSRIA Member company and wish to contribute to the BSRIA Blog, please contact marketing@bsria.co.uk

Filed under air conditioning, BEMS, best practice, BSRIA, BSRIA Member Post, Building services, buildings, Cooling, Design, Engineering, Heating, human comfort, HVAC, Technology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shift in Construction Technology for a ‘post-Covid, pre-vaccine’ era

September 3, 2020 by 2 Comments

by Amy Butler, JB Associates

In 2017, McKinsey Global Institute slated construction for evolving at a ‘glacial pace’ due to its ranking as the least-digitised industry in Europe. While plenty of technological advances were pitted as ‘on the horizon’, many companies were reluctant to take the necessary steps to push forward with digitisation. Critics warned that a lack of innovation would lead to companies folding, although it took a global pandemic before this prophecy materialised and those without suitable digital infrastructure in place were shaken.

The pandemic is now considered a catalyst for industry improvement, propelling construction out of its ‘glacial’ evolution and deep into the digitised era. A recent study undertaken by Procore found that two thirds of the surveyed construction companies had rolled out new technology during the lockdown, with 94% of these seeing an improvement to productivity and teamwork. However, what exactly are these technologies and where do we go from here?

Smart Buildings

While we are all now experts in the world of Zoom and Microsoft Teams, the challenge lies in returning safely to offices and various other workspaces. With many UK companies pushing for their teams to be back in work physically, how do we ensure that commercial buildings remain safe? Smart Building technology is reshaping the workplace and ensuring safety as well as energy optimisation. Buildings with integrated BMS systems and IoT sensors were already an option before the pandemic. Now, they are a wise choice for business owners.

Essential for a post-Pandemic and pre-Vaccine era, IoT systems can control air quality and ventilation. High-performance air filters and moisture controls will now be key due to Covid-19’s airborne nature. OKTO Technologies (Smart Buildings specialists) have even launched an Artificial Intelligence-led air filtration solution that is reportedly so advanced it can eliminate 99.98% of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) from the air in 10 minutes.

Similarly, density control counters and heat detection cameras can be incorporated into BMS systems to ensure that viruses are less likely to spread or enter into a facility. Airports have been trialling infrared cameras to measure body temperatures for a fever and several companies offer leases or installations for these cameras. While they are not a definitive medical diagnosis, they add a level of reassurance. This may be the aim of much of this technology; a form of due diligence in protecting staff.

BIM & VR

Technological advances are also prominent on site. Construction News reported that contractors employed for the Nightingale Hospital projects found huge value in Autodesk programs. A vital tool for tracking constant streams of updates in rapid working conditions, construction management software proved its worth in recognisably challenging projects across the UK.

As social distancing measures remain in place, it is imperative that technology is prioritised; virtual communication is still far safer than face-to-face. Software like BIM is also providing insights and tools to manage projects during a more challenging time. Even more impressively, companies are merging BIM models with the cloud, GPS and Virtual Reality software. This development means a ‘digital twin’ of a facility can be created and it opens a world of opportunities for Project Management and Design efficiency.

Remote working could even be a trend that stays long past pandemic precautions. Drones have been used previously to reduce safety hazards for technicians and now may be utilised in future remote inspections. Similarly, researchers at the University of Strathclyde have been given £35,000 in funding to create a remote inspection system. The 3D immersive building environment program aims to reduce risks by eradicating the need for Quantity Surveyors or Health and Safety Inspectors to be physically present on site.

Whether enabling remote working, improving the health and safety of commercial buildings or aiding on-site processes, technology has become a necessary tool for construction in the last 6 months. The companies that had embraced digitisation long before 2020 were undoubtedly the ones able to continue thriving in the tough lockdown period. The next step is for many companies is to streamline their management processes or workplace systems to ensure technology works for them as efficiently as possible. Breaking out of its inertia, construction’s ‘glacial evolution’ is firmly in the past and technological advances are here to stay.

This post was authored by Amy Butler of JB Associates – building consultancy specialists. The views expressed are those of the author.

BSRIA Members wishing to make a guest contribution to the BSRIA Blog should please contact marketing@bsria.co.uk

Filed under air conditioning, airports, best practice, BIM, BSRIA, BSRIA Member Post, building automation, building engineers, Building information modelling, Building Management, Building services, Business, cloud technology, Communication Technology, Connectivity, Construction, Contractors, covid-19, Design, Digital, disease control, Engineering, health, health and safety, Heating, HVAC, IAQ, IEQ, Indoor air quality, indoor environmental quality, information management, Intelligent Buildings, internet of things, Mechanical Ventilation, offices, operation and maintenance, robotics, smart buildings, Smart Systems, smart technology, software, Technology, wellbeing Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How hard can opening a new office be?

September 11, 2017 by Leave a comment

As some of you may or may not be aware, the new BSRIA North site is now open for business.

For organisations opening a new office or site, it should be a time of great anticipation and excitement as the company sets out a new path, but for many they approach this process with fear and trepidation and for those tasked with the job of making it happen, it can potentially be an extremely stressful period of time.  As Project Manager for the setting up of BSRIA North, I thought I would share with you my experiences – the very good, the sometimes bad and the occasional ugly!

This blog was written by June Davis, Business manager of BSRIA North

I will be sharing my experiences and tips on:

  • Identifying and interpreting the business requirements
  • How to determine the must have’s versus the nice to haves
  • The importance of establishing an internal project team – you can’t do this alone!

BUSINESS NEEDS

When establishing the business needs, spend time with colleagues from across the organisation to listen and understand what they would like to see from a new base – what is it about the current environment that works, what doesn’t work so well and what would improve their working environment if only it were possible!

Everyone one I spoke to was really keen to give me their wish lists and as I started to jot their ideas down, some similarities started to emerge, but for some their thoughts varied significantly.    Prioritise the must haves and rationalise the nice to haves and a vision of your new building will start to emerge.

TIP:   don’t lose those more obscure requests. Whilst on this occasion I couldn’t deliver a building that had an on-site wind turbine, I was able to deliver on the overhead gantry crane!

TIP:  to fulfil everyone’s requirements you would most likely need to commission a bespoke building, so make sure to manage expectations!

Internal Project Team

You can’t succeed on your own so it is imperative that you establish an internal project team.  Working with business managers from across the organisation proved a valuable source of knowledge and support.  Individual managers were allocated areas of responsibility spanning right across the project and each were tasked with identifying what needed to be done , this formed the basis of a project plan.

Example project areas:

·         Property

·         Fit out

·         Process/Systems

·         Health & Safety

 ·         Quality

·         Marketing

·         People

 

Ensuring the team communicated regularly weekly meetings were held and if on occasion some colleagues were unable to attend it ensured that we kept abreast of developments – or on occasion the lack of!

Select a property

It seems obvious, but finding the right property in the right location and that meets the detailed specification your colleagues have challenged you with can at times feel like finding a needle in a haystack. This is where the word compromise well and truly comes in to play!  Give yourself a sizeable geography in which to search for property – like you, everyone wants it all, so make sure you keep an open mind and research those properties that at first glance you would dismiss as not meeting your criteria.   What you think you need and what you finally agree is ‘the one’ may well prove to be completely different – it did for us!

TIP:   The more sites I visited the more ideas I collected as to what could work and might be achieved!

 TIP:  Draw up a short list of buildings and compare them to your must have list – is there a property that is starting to lead the way?

TIP:  Engage one of your project team to come with you to revisit your top properties – they will bring a new perspective to things.

TIP:  If possible, establish a good relationship with the previous tenant, in our experience they were really helpful in providing information about the building, how it operated and its history!

The legal process can take quite some time, it was certainly longer than we had anticipated; but don’t underestimate this vital element of the journey. It is critically important that your future building has the correct legal foundations in place, so ensure you seek good advice.

With the legal aspects complete we gained possession of the building and we all got a much-needed motivation boost! The project team visited the site to design the layout and agree what renovations needed to be made.  The vision was taking shape!

Renovations and installations!

Be ready – This is an extremely busy period.  Obtaining quotes, liaising with contractors, arranging building services are just a handful of the tasks at hand. I found that having someone local to the site with good local knowledge is hugely helpful.  Access can be required at various times of the day and sometimes night but with the building not yet fully functional requires a lot of coming and goings to site.   Ensure the alarm systems are serviced and activated and site security implemented.

TIP:  Take your readings!  Ensure you capture the utility readings on day one and contact the associated providers to inform them you are the new tenants submitting the readings.  This should be a straightforward exercise I can assure you it isn’t, so be warned!

 

For those who may be undertaking a similar process either now or in the future, I wish you every success.  My recommendation is to ensure you appoint the right person to lead the project, a person who loves to do detail, enjoys multi-taking, doesn’t mind getting their hands (very) dirty, and has the patience of a saint and most importantly a good sense of humour!

BSRIA North is proud of what has been achieved and we forward to welcoming you through our doors – please visit us any time!

TRANSFORMATION OF THE OFFICE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed under Architecture, budget, Building Management, Building Performance Evaluation, Building Regulations, Building services, buildings, Business, Construction, Design, documentation, domestic, Engineering, financial budget, Instrument Solutions, Intelligent Buildings, Lighting, market research, Workforce

BSRIA and our approach to BIM

June 29, 2017 by Leave a comment

As part of an upcoming BIM blog series following on from the Open BIM REC webinar series BSRIA answered the following questions.

What has been the key to your success with BIM?

The key to a successful BIM project, based on our current experience, has been using a procurement method which promoted truly collaborative working.  It can be difficult when each party is employed against their own particular scope to ensure everyone works together.  One party may have to decide to do either what is best for the project or what they have been specifically employed to do – these are not always compatible.

How many BIM projects have you been involved in?

We have been involved in one project which has reached site which is trying to adopt BIM Level 2 throughout the project duration.  The project is currently on site and is due to complete in July 2017.

Where was your greatest BIM challenge to start with and what shortcuts are available now (if any) that were not available when you started on your BIM journey?

The greatest challenge was to convert the BIM Level 2 documents into working project processes.  There is a huge gap between the BS/PAS 1192 documents etc. and working project practices and procedures and the amount of effort involved to achieve this shouldn’t be underestimated.

The instances of useful and practical information and tools to enable BIM Level 2 requirements to be incorporated into real projects have not materialised. Some of the tools provided by the Government do not work in practice.  As a result, a more flexible approach to BIM Level 2 is being put in place.

How can industry ensure that clients receive the full benefits of BIM?

The best way for the industry to ensure that clients receive the full benefits of BIM is to listen to the client.  The industry is focussed on telling the client what they will get based on their own skills (often modelling skills rather than true BIM Level 2 capabilities), and too often they don’t look at how the client will use the information generated through the project in the operation of the asset once handed over.

What else can be done to help improve collaboration within the construction industry?

The best way to improve collaboration within the construction industry is to use a form of procurement which truly promotes collaborative working. We’ve been reviewing Integrated Project Insurance as one method and can see some real benefits.

To find out more about BSRIA’s BIM services and advice please visit our website. We also have a collection of BIM blogs by our BSRIA experts. 

Filed under BIM, Building information modelling, Building services, Design, Digital, Performance Tagged with , , , ,

Construction quality could be catching up with other industries

May 17, 2017 by Leave a comment

This blog was written by Lynne Ceeney, Technical Director at BSRIA

If you order steak and chips at a restaurant, but the waiter delivers hake in strips, you would be rightly annoyed. Instinctively you blame the waiter, but it could have been a problem with the ordering software, a misreading in the kitchen or just the wrong dish being picked up.  Whatever, you would send it back – it is not what you ordered.   In new buildings, this happens all the time.  Poor communication during the briefing, design and construction process, and poor handover and operation leads to a building that doesn’t deliver the performance the client thought they had ordered in the first place.  Unlike a dinner, it’s not practical to send a building back and wait for the one you asked for to be delivered.  Instead extensive snagging lists, expensive defect resolution and defensive “best we can do” fixes by the facilities team are often used to try and get the building closer to its intended performance – and “closer” is usually the best that can be achieved. The owner and occupier end up with a disappointing building, and the designers and construction company are left with a disappointed client.  The blame chain spreads, and it’s hard to pin down the fault.

The impacts run way beyond disappointment.  Occupier discomfort impacts staff retention, and the increased societal focus on wellbeing indicates that employees will expect higher standards from their place of work.  Poor commissioning or confusing controls mean building systems that don’t work properly and need constant attention or premature replacement, as the uncomfortable working conditions impact on worker productivity.  Inefficient buildings use more energy requiring more cash and causing more carbon emissions.  In fact buildings contribute 37% of UK green house gas emissions from gas heating, and consume 67% of the electricity used in the country.  It’s no wonder that larger investors are taking much more of an interest in the sustainability and performance of buildings rather than just the upfront capital cost.  Good buildings are an asset, poor buildings become an expensive liability in terms of operating costs and void periods. Competitive property markets compound this situation.

With a typical building having a life expectancy of at least 60 years, we are building in problems for this generation and the next.  We’re not great at mass retrofitting, (and the high demand for additional building stock means a capital, skills and material shortage) so we need to get it right first time.  Effective management tools with this aim abound in other sectors, for example DRIFT, (Doing it Right First Time), Six Sigma, LEAN and Zero Defects.  We see the approach being used in food manufacture, car making, pilot training, and patient healthcare, to name but a few sectors.  So what about construction?

Soft Landings is the equivalent tool for the construction sector.  This tried and tested process was developed to help to produce better performing buildings – not necessarily exceptional in performance, but buildings that deliver in operation what they were designed to do in the first place.  Getting a building right requires a shared focus on operational performance of the building right from the start, and throughout the design, construction and commissioning process.  The use of Soft Landings delivers this shared focus, improving communication and collaboration between all parties in the building delivery chain.  It helps everyone to avoid the pitfalls that diminish operational building performance. It fits with RIBA stages, integrates into existing construction processes, and does not require a specific building procurement model.  You can download Soft Landings guidance from the BSRIA website .

However it is always helpful to find out about real world experiences, and to talk to others who are using Soft Landings to help them to produce better buildings.  With this in mind, BSRIA have organised the 2017 Soft Landings Conference (June 16th 2017 at RIBA, Portland Place, London W1B 1AD). You will hear from a range of speakers from different parts of the construction process – including clients – who will explain how they have used Soft Landings in their projects, and the value that it has delivered for their buildings.  You will also hear their hints and tips, and there will be plenty of time to ask questions and take part in discussion both in conference and over lunch.

It’s time for the construction industry to catch up with other industries in terms of quality, to produce buildings that perform as expected, through a delivery process that gets it right first time.  Soft Landings is a process that helps the delivery chain to do this.  For more information on the conference please contact our Events Manager, Tracey Tilbry.

 

Filed under BSRIA, building engineers, Building Handover, Building services, buildings, Design, operation and maintenance, POE, Post Occupancy Evaluation, Reality Checking, Soft Landings Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

BSRIA’s Model Format for Building Services Specifications and UniClass 2015

September 27, 2016 by Leave a comment

bg-56-2016-model-format-specificationTo reflect the importance of specifications in the construction process, in 2015 BSRIA published its guide BG 56 Model Format for Building Services Specifications.  The guide stressed the need to present specifications in an effective and consistent format, and working groups representing designers and installers co-operated to produce a model format for specification content.

The format developed consisted of the following five parts:

  • A Preliminaries
  • B Project specific requirements
  • C Project specific materials and equipment
  • D Common workmanship and materials requirements
  • E Tender deliverables

Within the project specific parts, the content indexes have been arranged to present the correct level of information in the order it will be required by the specification user.

Classification has been used in construction for many years as a way of grouping similar information together, and identifying content about a particular topic.  This has been particularly effective within the building services sector with the use of CAWS (Common Arrangement of Work Sections), resulting in recognisable codes such as T31(low temperature hot water heating) being used as a form of shorthand to describe particular engineering systems in specifications, design reports and on drawings.

BG 56 has now been updated to include references to the recently resolved classification system for use in BIM Level 2 applications – UniClass 2015.  For most specification instances, the two main UniClass 2015 tables to be used will be Systems (Ss) and Products (Pr).

Additional appendices have been included to provide examples of how UniClass 2015 may be used in specifications to identify particular engineering systems or equipment.  Appendix F shows UniClass 2015 codes for a selection of typical equipment items found in workmanship and materials sections of engineering specifications.  Appendix G contains an example of a complete specification index using the model format, with UniClass 2015 codes included where appropriate.

Filed under BIM, Building information modelling, classification, Design, model, uniclass Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Contractors can’t build well without clients that lead

May 18, 2016 by 2 Comments

Did anyone see the recent news story on the Edinburgh PFI schools with structural failures? In 2016 we shouldn’t be constructing buildings with feeble brickwork. We have Victorian and Edwardian schools that have been standing for over 100 years without these problems. More ironically we have 1960s CLASP schools – built on a budget with the flimsiest of constructions – still standing and performing their role well after their sell-by date. OK, they’re usually freezing in winter and boiling in summer, with asbestos in places a power drill shouldn’t reach, but at least they’re still standing.

The reasons for these high profile failures are easy to park at the door of the PFI process. One can blame cost-cutting, absence of site inspections, and lack of quality control. Some even say that the ceding of Building Control checks to the design and build contractor is a root cause: site labour can’t be trusted to mark their own exam paper when their primary interest is to finish on time and under budget.

Some commentators blame the design process, and bemoan the loss of days of the Building Schools for the Future programme when design quality was overseen by the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE). The erstwhile CABE may have tried to be a force for good, but project lead times become ridiculously long and expensive. And would it have prevented structural failures? Hardly likely.

The one cause of these failures that doesn’t get enough press coverage is the important client leadership and quality championing. It can be argued that clients get what clients are willing to pay for, and there’s no industry like the construction industry for delivering something on the cheap. The cost-cutting, the emphasis on time and cost at the expense of quality control – all this can be pinned on a client base that does not lead, demand, oversee, and articulate what it wants well enough to prevent the desired product being delivered at the wrong level of quality at the wrong price.

Which means that clients have to a) get wiser on what can go wrong, b) get smarter with their project management, and c) articulate what they want in terms of performance outcomes. Truly professional designers recognise this, and are prepared to guide their clients through the shark-infested waters of writing their employers requirements. But once that is done the client’s job is not over. They can’t simply hand the job over to the main contractor and turn their back until the job is complete. They need to be closely involved every step of the way – and keep key parties involved beyond practical completion and into the all-importance aftercare phase.

Soft Landings provides a chassis on which focus on performance outcomes can be built. The chassis provides the client with a driving seat to ensure that standards are maintained, along with a shared construction team responsibility to make sure the building is fit for purpose.  The forthcoming BSRIA conference Soft Landings in London on 23 June is a good opportunity to learn how this can be done. It will focus on workshops where problems can be aired and solutions worked through. It will be led by experts in the field who can suggest practical solutions for real-world projects. Why not book a place for you and a client? For more information visit the BSRIA website. 

Filed under BPE, BSRIA, Building Performance Evaluation, buildings, Design, human comfort, Performance, performance gap, Reality Checking, Soft Landings Tagged with , , , ,

The practicalities of classification in a BIM Level 2 environment

January 18, 2016 by 2 Comments

I first raised the issue of classification in the BSRIA blog back in March 2014 – my, how time flies.  As you would expect (or at least hope) things have moved on and there are some issues within the general world of classification which are worth raising, particularly in the context of BIM Level 2 with the UK Government’s mandate almost with us.

Current classification systems commonly used in construction typically work at ‘system’ level.  The highest level of classification is for a group of system types eg in CAWS (Common Arrangement of Work Sections).  This level is represented by a single letter: ‘S’ represents Piped Services, a category including systems such as Cold Water, Natural Gas, etc.

However, most classification systems available have an inherent flaw – they are not capable of classifying at a multi-services level, something that is common in the world of MEP.  In CAWS language, there needs to be a way of combining mechanical systems and electrical systems under a single heading, as the various mechanical systems are combined under the Piped Services ‘S’.

The success of information management depends heavily on the ability to retrieve a piece of information once generated.  BS 1192:2007+A1:2015 details a method for naming information files, and consists of a number of mandatory and optional fields.  The following extract from BS 1192 shows all the fields, together with their obligation – ‘Required’ or ‘Optional’.

John Sands Jan blog

Using this process would result in a file name (a similar process can be used for drawing numbers) as follows.  I have ignored the last two fields – Suitability and Revision – for the moment, and I’ll explain why later:

PROJ1-BSRIA-00-ZZ-RP-H-T31-00001

In this example, the CAWS classification system has been used, giving T31 for Low temperature hot water heating system.  And this is my point (finally, I hear you say) – the classification field is the only part of the file string which tells the recipient what the subject of the file is.  In future, when searching for information about a particular aspect of a project in the information repository, this classification code is the best way to identify relevant content.  Therefore, I feel it is vital that the classification field is used for all file names in order to make the information available for future use.  This reuse of information is where efficiency increases are realised and errors reduced by not having to reproduce information over and again.

Now, suppose that the report in the above example was the building services scheme design report, covering all mechanical, electrical and public health systems.  Which classification could be applied for that topic?  This takes us back to the point I made at the start of this article – for any classification system to work effectively it needs to be able to represent multi-services applications.

The classification system chosen for use in the UK Government Level 2 BIM requirements is Uniclass 2015, a development of Uniclass 2 which was produced by CPIC (Construction Projects Information Committee).  Uniclass 2015 has been prepared by NBS as part of an Innovate UK research competition won by their parent company RIBA Enterprises, and consists of a number of individual classification tables.   Although this is the classification system chosen to take us into Level 2 and beyond, it does not appear to be capable of meeting at least one fundamental requirement – the ability to deal with multi-services applications.

Don’t get me wrong.  This issue is not new and is certainly not confined to Unicalss 2015.  CAWS couldn’t handle multi-services classification either, but it was hoped that a new system, developed specifically for BIM, would provide the answer.  BSRIA has been raising this issue, both in its own name and as part of CIBSE initiatives, since Uniclass 2 was released.  Throughout the development of Uniclass 2015 we have raised a number of queries about the arrangement and capability of the format, but on this particular point we are still waiting for a meaningful response.

Whilst I’m at it, here’s another thing to think about.

As I mentioned earlier, the success of an information management system – for that’s what BIM is – is the ability to retrieve information once created.  The file naming convention described in BS 1192:2007+A1:2015 described above goes a long way in enabling this but there are some points of concern with its approach.

A document or file may be superseded a number of times in its life, and BS 1192 describes the process for moving that superseded file into the ‘Archive’ area of the information store.  This ensures that the complete history of the project is retained for future reference.  However, the way the successive versions are named is causing a little concern in practice as more people start to use these methods on live projects.  This is where those last two fields I conveniently ignored above come into play.

Historically, we have managed revised and superseded documents by using revision codes – in most cases a single letter after the final number (PROJ1-BSRIA-00-ZZ-RP-H-T31-00001A using the previous example).  This additional letter distinguishes each version of the same base document, and also has the added benefit of changing the file name to allow it to be saved whilst remaining recognisable.   The two remaining fields in the BS 1192 extract above appear to provide this facility within the BS 1192 approach.

However, the guide to BS 1192 (Building Information Management – A Standard Framework and Guide to BS 1192) states that:

Recommendation: status and revision should not be included as part of the file name as this will produce a new file each time those elements are updated, and an audit trail will not be maintained.

This doesn’t appear to be a very sensible approach to me.  You cannot save multiple versions of a file with the same name, so the addition of the revision letter to the file name is a simple and workable solution.  This might seem like a small or trivial issue in the big world of BIM, but it’s the sort of thing that could stop the widespread uptake of an otherwise very worthwhile file naming approach.

BSRIA has posted several blogs on the topic of BIM that can be read here.

Filed under BIM, BS 1192, Building information modelling, classification, Design, Digital, Digital Plan of Work, documentation, PAS 1192, uniclass Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goodbye BIM… Hello digital

December 15, 2015 by Leave a comment

This blog was written by Ben Roberts, Associate and BIM Delivery Leader at Hoare Lea

This blog was written by Ben Roberts, Associate and BIM Delivery Leader at Hoare Lea

When BIM first reached the masses in about 2010 it was exciting: finally the construction industry wakes up to the 21st century and embraces the ability of computers to take on our more mundane tasks and improve communication! A data-centric approach to managing projects meant that appointments would be clearer, design computation could yield instant feedback, models would feed directly into fabrication robots and building operators could simply and efficiently access all the information about their assets at the click of a button.

However in 2015 there seems to be a wide spread consensus that BIM is just an expensive, less flexible way of delivering projects, and sadly the acronym is often a sure fire way of clearing a room.

So beyond the UK government’s level 2 BIM deadline in April 2016 there is no “level 3 BIM”; instead it is “digital built Britain”. And the industry is following suit; let’s remove this acronym with too much baggage and stigma and get down to what it really means: sensible data management, better quality communication of design intent, easier and more effective collaboration, and many opportunities to do things more quickly and accurately.

When thinking about “digital” rather than “BIM”, we find ourselves asking a more straight forward question: what can computers and data do for us?

Firstly, computers are capable of recording vast amounts of data and processing it very quickly, but to date they’re not so good at the more creative stuff; that’s what people are for. So it follows that we can “outsource” a lot of our thinking time to a processor by offloading the more mundane, repetitive tasks, leaving our creative minds to focus on the more interesting things. Good technology should allow people to spend less time alone staring at a computer!

As an example, BREEAM is a way of addressing a very important aspect of our building design (environmental impact) but is often seen as a time-consuming form filling exercise. This is a terribly boring thing for a human to do, but provides essential information in a usable common structure. This is exactly what computers are good at, so let’s automate this important but boring compliance process so that humans can get on with doing the interesting important tasks.

Ben Roberts blogWe are now also capable of doing things that were previously impossible or impractical. Virtual reality and augmented reality are now becoming cheaper and easier; anyone with a smartphone has a choice of free apps to upload your 3D models, and if oculus rift is outside your budget, try google cardboard for just £6! The MX3D Amsterdam bridge project is proving that 3D printing is not just for small objects; perhaps entire pipework systems could be printed on site too? Many other emerging technologies are presenting completely new options: reality capture, the internet of things, cloud computing, wearable technology and visual scripting are just a few examples.

Secondly, data can be very informative if you know what to do with it. Buildings can potentially generate enormous amounts of data, and in the right hands that can quickly be used to assess energy performance, make comparisons of different technologies, or identify faults in building systems, for example.  Raw data is daunting, but visualisation of that data is easy and provides a more immediate form of interpretation. As 2 examples, graphs and infographics are clear methods of showing key statistics and are easily generated in Excel, and 3D models give an intuitive interface to accessing associated data at various stages in a project lifecycle.

Finally, you don’t have to be a computer scientist to use a computer these days – my grandad is 95 years old and controls his heating remotely using his iPad. Much of the software available for design, construction and operation of buildings is going this way too. Virtual reality is a good starting point for the technologically averse, but there are plenty of other technologies that offer simple solutions for anyone.

So I encourage you all, upon hearing the acronym “BIM”, not to run for the hills but to simply consider what computers and data can do to help you.

Ben is a chartered mechanical engineer and holds the position of BIM Delivery Leader for Hoare Lea, a role which involves pushing the boundaries of software tools and enabling teams to deliver BIM projects as efficiently and effectively as possible around the practice in the UK and Middle East. He specialises in using BIM models for design calculations. Ben is an active member of the CIBSE BIM steering group, the BSRIA BIM Network, and is involved in developing many industry standards for MEP BIM delivery. He has written articles for a variety of construction industry journals on the subject of BIM, and regularly presents and lectures on the subject around the world.

Filed under big data, BIM, Building information modelling, buildings, Design, Digital Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Building Services/Engineering ‘BIM Readiness’ Survey

September 4, 2015 by Leave a comment

BECA_strapSRIA is delighted to be supporting a sector-wide BIM survey which has been launched by the Electrical Contractors’ Association (ECA), alongside the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and Building, the UK’s leading magazine for construction professionals.

The new study will explore the readiness of the building services sector to engage with BIM within the next six to 12 months. The survey is also supported by other leading players in the sector, including the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers’ Association (BEAMA).

The investigation is expected to reveal crucial information about how prepared the sector is to adopt ‘BIM Level 2’ practice, noting the government requirement for BIM Level 2 engagement with centrally procured contracts during 2016.

BSRIA’s Principal Consultant and BIM specialist, John Sands, commented:

“With the implementation of the UK Government’s Level 2 BIM mandate just a few months away, the building services industry should be in a position to make the most of the opportunities it will present. This survey will help us all to identify where we are in the BIM journey, and to enable us to plan the way forward to BIM maturity.”

ECA Director of Business Services, Paul Reeve, said:

“This sector-wide survey will provide much needed and very timely information on how ready the building services sector is to engage with BIM as we approach the 2016 government deadline.

We urge all building services companies to take part in the new survey, and we will be sharing the data with the industry, the Government and other stakeholders when the results are in during September 2015.”

CIBSE Technical Director, Hywel Davies, added:

“Government is committed to using BIM to improve its management and operation of buildings and infrastructure. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing services are all critical to the effective operation of buildings. Our sector is involved in the operational life and performance of built assets, not just the design and delivery. This survey is important for our sector to understand how well prepared we are for BIM.”

The BIM study will run until September 15. 

Notes to readers:

More information about BIM (Building Information Modelling)

• ‘Level 2 BIM’ is the process of working with digital building information, including data-rich objects, which can be effectively shared between those who are building and/or maintaining the building and its services. This is ‘collaborative 3D BIM’ and it involves using tools such as COBie, BS/PAS 1192, ‘Soft Landings’ and various BIM Protocols.

• The Government aims to require collaborative 3D BIM on its centrally procured projects by spring 2016 (BIM Level 2), in order to unlock innovation and benefits throughout the building project life-cycle, including cost savings.

About the Electrical Contractors’ Association (ECA):

The Electrical Contractors’ Association (ECA) is the UK’s largest trade association representing electrical, electrotechnical and other engineering contractors, at regional, national and European level. ECA member-companies are rigorously assessed before membership is approved.

Filed under BIM, BSRIA, Building information modelling, Building services, CIBSE, Design, ECA, Government Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

%d