SHARE

The technique of 3D printing has been around since the first days of inkjet printers. Architects in Amsterdam are planning to have the world’s first 3D-printed house completed before the end of the year! Check out how quickly this technology is developing.

The technology can now print in over 26 different materials including concrete, glass and even human skin cells (watch this astonishing TED talk
on how surgeons ‘printed’ a working human bladder!) . Designs and
modeling are changing and the 3D information at the front end is
critical to their success.

This post follows on from my recent presentation at the UDIA Brisbane conference – you can watch the full length webinar video HERE. 3D printing has two applications for construction; on site and off site. In this presentation I not only explored the concept of on site and off site 3D printing for prefabrication and construction, but also robotics. Could agile swarming robots be the future for construction projects? As explained in the video, parametric models and algorithms are used by the robots to then build structures autonomously. However, construction is not the only application for these small agile swarming robots. A flying robot can enter an unknown building to collect information and populate a 3D model from that information.

Again, this is not new technology – the camera that is used on these flying robots is based on technology created for Microsoft’s Kinect computer gaming experience. The interesting thing is how these technologies are being applied, especially in the construction industry and what it will mean for construction costs.

Mitchell Brandtman are proud to sponsor the Property Council October Division Lunch on Friday 11^th October at the Westin Hotel Grand Ballroom in Sydney.

The æPost-Election Resurrection’ û A roadmap to economic recovery for the new Government, luncheon includes speakers Bill Evans, Global Head of Economics from Westpac Institutional Bank, Saul Eslake, Chief Economist (Australia and New Zealand) from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Paul Bloxham, Chief Economist (Australia and New Zealand) from HSBC Bank and moderated by Michael Pascoe, Finance Journalist.

For more information and to book your place now please visit the Property Council website here or view the event flyer at the link below.

NSW PCA Lunch flyer, 11th Oct Sydney

Scott Beazley discusses current initiatives on defining 5D technology workflows and guidelines to support BIM.

There is no denying that the construction industry is rapidly advancing in the area of BIM and integrated project delivery. We see progression of the technology in the space at a pace that far exceeds our ability to adapt our more traditional approach to design and construction. Change is happening within weeks and months and everyone within the industry faces the challenge of bringing technology best practice together to benchmark standards in project delivery for leaner, better buildings.

My belief in the current capabilities of the technology stems firstly from my QUT research and development of the ôNational Digital Modelling Guidelinesö in 2008. Seconded to the then, CRC Construction Innovation, now the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc), I was tasked to investigate the multi-disciplinary use and collaboration issues in the construction of integrated models, under the leadership of Tom Fussell and Robin Drogemuller.

My research reviewed current overseas initiatives and projects along-side six major Australian projects where BIM technologies had been applied. In addition to the project analysis the research was supported by consultations with project partners and industry forums in five capital cities to help formulate a document that provides a ground breaking understanding of the implications of these new technologies.

What’s important to note here is that more than four years ago the research pointed to the applicability of digital modelling to the whole lifecycle of buildings and the greatest possibility to integrate data at the earliest stages of design and development through to off-site fabrications and finally the operation and management of the building.

Game Changers:

It is certainly clear that governments have a critical role as the game changer in the take up of BIM. We have already seen examples of this in Norway, Finland, Denmark, USA and now in the UK, where the Government’s intention to require collaborative 3D BIM has resulted in significant progress being made in a very short time.

As governments own assets and invest in buildings over much longer periods, the motivation to extract greater value and longevity is of far greater importance. In order to move an initiative forward the business case for industry needs to be very clear. Governments can make the case for change and industry will listen. In addition we can also see the shift coming from other building custodians, such as superannuation funds who want assets within their portfolios that perform better and cost less to maintain. The evidence of lifecycle costing for the better maintenance and management over the full life of the asset equates to a strong business case to invest in the BIM process.

The Federal Government and buildingSMART released the National Building Information Modelling Initiative (NBI) Report late in 2012, which champions the ôstrategy for the focussed adoption of building information modelling, and related digital technologies and processes, for the Australian built environment sector.”

As the Queensland Department of Public Works representative and visiting lecturer for QUT over the last 12 months I have been able to work as a domain expert on the research team developing a National Object Library (NOL) for the SBEnrc. The main objective of the development of the NOL is to bridge a significant gap in BIM adoption in Australia, as identified by the NBI Report, by providing high quality, reliable, data rich product information from manufacturers to industry.

The work in this area has ensured that property set definitions and object classifications, IFC Schema compatibility, local metadata requirements and the creation of BIM objects in a non-proprietary format, can be loaded directly into authoring BIM software. This means we don’t need multiple versions of every object to accommodate different software formats or versions. This will result in significant cost reductions for manufacturers when creating library objects and reduces the on-going maintenance of these objects. The NOL is also able to support the upgrading of the properties and the values of existing BIM objects to suit project requirements and ensure consistent quality data for downstream use ie. they apply throughout the building’s design, construction, operation and management.

NOL addresses the two elements û the geometry of the object and the properties of the object. Connecting both into a single source file within the NOL will save manufacturers as well as the supply chain throughout the entire life of a building and not just at design and development phase. The difficulty at present is that object properties are not well defined in Australia, requiring local customisation to varying standards. The NOL project is to address this lack of standards.

Stage 2 of the QUT project is about to commence with the aim to install local implementations of the NOL interface for project partners, and develop the content to include both the geometry and data properties of the objects. Product manufacturers will be involved in the engagement of their information to generate the geometry and populate the data parameters.

Validation and Round-Tripping

Joining Mitchell Brandtman allows me the opportunity to work from within and focus on streamlining the process of coding and making the concept of ôround-trippingö data a daily routine.

Currently, software limitations and disparate workflow processes across different project partners often form barriers to sharing common data. To overcome this Mitchell Brandtman has developed model validation techniques within its 5D workflow that allows data to become an integrated part of the designer’s model and is round-tripped to the native files and added to the BIM. This is achieved by working with incomplete models in the early phase of design û the round-tripping continually improves the BIM. This unique methodology also alleviates the need for the designer to input codes like QSID. In my role I am automating and strengthening these systems so that as the model reliance increases during design the 5DQS is confident of the completeness and correctness of each model.

For Mitchell Brandtman’s clients and project partners this will create more robust efficiencies when running models through functional benchmarking, continual revisioning and quantity take-off at tender and for subcontractor pricing.

Greater integration and transparency of the data as a model develops can be achieved through collaborative workflows and preservation of the coding. Initially it will depend on the scale and type of project and the stage of development of the model. Ultimately it should be the objective at the outset if the goal is to build better and save costs throughout the project as well as the life of the asset.

Fast Forward

Collaboration across government and private sector construction will ensure a fast forward and efficient approach to lean construction and effective lifecycle costing. The objectives continue to focus on clarity around project delivery. The development of national standards and guidelines, effective workflows for defined technologies and processes will greatly contribute to the success of BIM adoption and advancement.

All stakeholders in the industry need to invest in the development of the technologies that support our services and how they can be improved to generate greater savings and efficiencies in design and construction. My work with Mitchell Brandtman and continuing research with government and university sectors will focus keenly on these opportunities and delivering greater confidence and better outcomes within the digital context.

For more information contact Scott Beazley, Mitchell Brandtman, 07 3327 5000.

BIM promises and it is mostly accepted that it delivers significant costs savings even though it’s not understood how these savings will eventuate, who owns these cost savings today and who will benefit in the future.

In order to create certainty and generate cost savings through collaboration we need to understand who has the most to gain and involve them at the right stage of design and Virtual Design and Construction (VDC).

For different types of projects the people you need to engage, changes. We need to acknowledge that the savings arising out of a building project differs significantly to those of a civil or resource project.

There also needs to be an appreciation of when a construction contract or subcontract is formed as well as the type of construction contract that has been entered into. These aspects need to be kept in mind when considering the supply chain from owner, to head contractor, to subcontractor, to plant hire and materials suppliers. Prior to entering into a construction contract all savings that eventuate from lean and efficient design will return to the owner. After formation of the head contract; and then the various subcontracts, it is the terms of those contracts that will determine who owns time and cost efficiencies.

If we take a commercial scale building project; the indirect costs of preliminaries, head office overheads and margin amounts to about 17% of the construction cost with the remaining 83% being formed by subcontract prices. So, on a building project that is made more efficient by VDC it is the subcontractors that have most to gain particularly when you also recognise that subcontract margins are up to seven times that of a head contractor. It makes sense really because it is the subcontractor that is actually doing the construction work.

By comparison, a civil project like a subdivision is the opposite with only about 17% of the cost being controlled by subcontractors. So the benefit here lies largely with the head contractor.

In the resource sector the type of project also plays a large part in determining who has the most to gain from efficiencies. If we take a pipeline project, for example, the relationship between direct and indirect costs is much higher than any other construction type. The head contractor’s indirect costs are about 45% of the project. Additionally the head contractor owns the plant and employs the labour that will construct approximately 83% of the remaining 55% of direct costs. If a pipeline project is made more efficient after award of the EPC contract he stands to gain significantly in terms of profitability on delivery.

Processing plants within the resources sector typically contain a similar level of indirect costs (45%) but the bulk of the direct costs (88%) are constructed by subcontractors. So it becomes very evident that the head contractor and subcontractors need to be engaged equally in providing advice on the construction of a plant to determine the savings that can be achieved.

In applying BIM in order to quantify savings it is therefore critical to understand who directly owns the costs of the project at each stage as they are the people who must be involved in the early stages of design to realise the efficiencies.

Who Benefits from the Savings Generated?

It’s not necessarily the owner who directly benefits monetarily from improved construction efficiency. By way of example the cost per square metre of a partition wall will not change until that subcontract market learns that construction projects as a whole have become more reliable. Owners will ultimately benefit from the efficiencies that come out of BIM but the value of these efficiencies won’t be realised until the market adjusts and we see reductions in allowances by subcontractors for delay, disruption and rework currently due to poor documentation and site management.

While it will be some years, perhaps five to ten, before market prices show downward pressure there are still a number of savings strategies that can be put into action.

Savings ownership generated through BIM

Additionally there is an expectation that designers need to be able to produce designs that can actually be built in order to generate efficiencies. This belief is deep ceded in our industry history but in modern, specialised times perhaps we should question whether this belief is properly founded. It’s important to recognise that designers aren’t builders and also that different builders have different preferences on construction methodologies. Realistically the building design should be produced, coordinated from a design perspective and then handed to the builder or key subcontractors to be improved while still maintaining the designer’s oversight.

Evolving Our Industry Methodology

Historically, the way construction projects are priced is to allow high contingencies at the outset and to expect redesign, delays, disruption, rework and variation claims. BIM is about being able to reduce the need for contingencies as the gap between project development, modeling and the build narrows.

If we can create a standard methodology that ensures project teams are involved in the BIM at the right stages of design and development, we can bring about leaner building design and construction that will ensure subcontractor costs are more predictable, negotiations are transparent and variations and extension of time are reduced. Ultimately markets will adjust and we will realise reductions in contingencies and savings at the outset of projects and collectively achieve greater savings and cost certainty for the industry as whole.

For more information contact David Mitchell, Mitchell Brandtman, 07 3327 5000.

David Mitchell advances discussions on the importance of integrating 4D and 5D information within the individual models to create richer federated BIM that can deliver significant value at all levels of development.

Designers have learnt a lot about the challenges for BIM implementation and how to fine-tune processes and coordinate workflows between different disciplines. To date, a lot of the focus on BIM implementation, however, has been about design practitioners learning how parametric modeling can work for them and how to coordinate their workflows with other designers.

While this has been extremely encouraging for 3D, very little open discussion has happened in the fields of 4D – linking time; and 5D – linking costs.

Often 4D and 5D are reduced to the simple words ôSchedulingö and ôQuantity Take Offö, which dramatically understates the exercise. If it’s just the calculation of a schedule and quantities then we won’t know the total time and cost of the project until the models are complete. Additionally, the process is not transparent because the programmer and estimator are not at the same table as the designers and owner.

An alternative and better approach available to project teams now is for the 4D Programmer and 5D QS to pull information from the model and push back accurate data at the right time for the team to receive it. This means that:

• the efficiency of the design is tested at an early stage when the models aren’t complete and when there is the biggest opportunity to influence time and cost;
• an integrated programme and estimate is created that can be rerun endlessly, over and over giving instant cost and time feedback to the project team throughout all levels of development.

For BIM to be truly successful it needs to deliver on all of the D’s. The result is a better project because money and effort is targeted at the most important features and work fronts. This is done in a transparent way that builds trust amongst all project partners.

How do you integrate Time and Cost?

The answer is in how the technology is used rather than the software itself because out of the box it will do very little.

Mitchell Brandtman has invested and made significant in-roads in developing the technology to:

• construct estimate templates and recipes that contain links between the model, the estimate calculation sheets and our rate library.
• develop rate libraries for use in concept and detailed design.
• improve skills to allow estimates to be calculated and recalculated easily and quickly every time the model information is revised.

Through the use of the technology, we can now see a figure or an estimate, and then flick back to the costing. The power of developing the technology in this way coupled with the skills of the 4D programmer and 5DQS is that we can visualise the programme and costs in the same way we are able to visualise design.

Early lessons learned in integrating 4D and 5D

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) refers to prototyping construction û making construction more efficient. Construction currently suffers because it is not efficient.

Mitchell Brandtman, in conjunction with engineers, ADG, has developed a workflow for 4D and 5D planning and a contract framework to apply VDC to construction projects. Our work in this area and application to real projects contributes to advancing discussions on these issues with the view to developing a cross industry process which can be implemented into BIM execution plans.

As a collaborative team, we looked at the federated BIM and combined the different disciplines and then more importantly put the detail of the construction within the individual models.

What’s easy to do is to link a 3D model to a 4D timeframe. This technique is often used for enhancing tenders but then the visualisation is forgotten. We have developed a tool that can be updated as programmes change and the model changes.

It is also easy to link 5D information to a 3D model.

What’s difficult is getting 4D and 5D to talk to each other as they have a different make up and the processes are not the same.

By way of example, estimating a concrete structure might need 5 or 6 different rates to build up that item. In contrast, programming often requires just one duration ôform, reinforce and pourö. There is a lot of work in being able to make these different pieces of information fit together easily. But putting the time into this can be very beneficial to all project members.

Our project collaborations with ADG have resulted in delivering a updatable VDC û as the model changes the visualization changes; as the programme changes the costs change. It is fully interactive.

Through the application of the technological enhancements for recent projects we have been able to visualize how time and cost relate to each other. At the early stages of development we can easily pull information from the model and push back additional information. At later stages the type of design is more critically focused on prototyping the construction.

At Level of Development (LOD) 300 we can now integrate 4D and 5D so that we can see the money calculating as the time line progresses and visualise the programme, cost and virtual construction. More importantly we can work with the builder to revise materials, labour and other parameters and be able to fully understand the time and cost implications of unlimited alternatives. We are now also able to provide tools for builders and subcontractors to forecast their costs to complete, calculate progress payments and variations using actual cost rates. This means that we can roll the time line forward or backward and know exactly how much money would be spent within any given time.

As we progress design and build simulation toward LOD 400 we can see how the actual construction can take shape. At LOD 400 VDC can be used as a tool to explain to subcontractors and others involved in the project, exactly how it will be built. We can see all of the construction equipment, materials handling, and how the sequencing works. We are even able to prototype and visualise how and where prefabricated reinforcement is going to done. We can see the hit and miss excavation being completed, the piles being placed in the foundations, cranes being erected and how they move around, the slabs coming up and the pour sequence across the slab. We can see the temporary structures like scaffolding and safety equipment.

The difference with Mitchell Brandtman and ADG’s collaborative workflow is that the VDC is not discarded after tender. The VDC is continually updated and can be used as a management tool during construction because the dynamic links between 3D, 4D and 5D mean that the VDC is kept current easily and the critical path is maintained. Our objective is to practice the construction so that when we arrive on site it is operating almost like a factory and the critical activities are very well planned and properly thought through.

Include all the D’s in the team

The power of VDC is only just being understood now. Whilst often virtual design animation is used at tender time as a sales tool, the investment in developing it to integrate 4D and 5D brings about the real value when this is linked to a model that is updated. When our programme is updating, our cash flow is updating and we can see how these different construction sequences deliver a far more efficient construction process.

The 4D Programmer and 5D QS have developed new specialist skills that complement the traditional planning techniques. Now instead of spending 90% of our time calculating, we spend the majority of our time generating savings and efficiencies that produce better projects.

4D and 5D BIM are here, the technology is reliable and can be learnt quite easily but on its own it will not generate the certainty that is desired. This requires the wisdom and intelligence of experienced 4D Programmers and 5D Quantity Surveyors being included in the project team at all levels of development. It’s critical to collaborate and work with people who know what they are doing and how to leverage the technology to get the best results for the project.

For more information please feel free to email me director contact me at Mitchell Brandtman, 61 7 3327 5000,

Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG), is one of Australia’s largest capital infrastructure projects. Recently work began on the Western Downs section, burying the 42 inch diameter steel pipeline which will stretch for more than 540 km to take gas from Chinchilla to Gladstone.

QCG estimates that more than 5000 jobs will be directly linked to the construction of the pipeline which is likely to generate up to $A32 billion in value added activity in Queensland from 2014 û 2021.

QCLNG forms part of the 98 projects currently at advanced stages of development and which as at April 2012, the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) reported make up the $260.8 billion in committed capital expenditure in the sector, 60% of which is accounted for by seven LNG projects. Queensland made up 29% of the $260.8 billion committed in capital expenditure at that time and has been further lifted by the Federal Government’s environmental approval for GVK-Hancock’s $6 billion Alpha coal mine and rail project in the Galilee Basin in August.

Whilst there is much talk of the softening of the resources sector, of greater concern is the number of large scale projects such as these already in progress, with a dependant and sizable subcontracted market and the latent skills shortage facing construction project management in the next two years.

Difficult to Recruit

It is very true that in recent months Queensland mining companies have been shedding jobs due to economic pressures. However new projects coming on stream are providing continuing opportunities. What is still most evident is the skills shortage, particularly at a management or control level, and the pressure this brings to current projects.

The Queensland Resources Council, in its Workforce Accommodation Survey released in May 2012 estimates that the number of people likely to be employed by the sector will nearly double by 2020 in Queensland. Yet a number of commentators and government statistics point to the continuing skills shortage that has been ever present since 2002. Industry analyst heavy weights PWC and KPMG have both separately reported concerns regarding the chronic shortage of key skills in professions and trades that will undermine the success of resource sector projects and potentially artificially inflate wages.

The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) has recently published its Skill Shortage List for those national occupation shortages which are widespread. A majority of the key professions fall within the mining and resources sector, as outlined in Figure 1.

Ten years on from the issues initially flagged at the outset of the resources boom, there is still a real lack of public sector ownership of the investment required and the accountability for skilled labour to support what is becoming an ever increasing juggernaut towards potential claims and litigation.

Situation Normal?

Out of all the rhetoric and boom and doom stories, what is being overlooked is the compounding pressure on project management to deal with variations and claims effectively.

We can see that two years out, due to the high volume of constraints on projects in relation to workforce and infrastructure gaps, there is a likelihood for huge delays, disruptions and variations which cascade through the subcontractor and supplier chains resulting in a greater amount of pressure on management to administer claims under the complexity of contracts.

With the squeeze on project managers daily and skills shortage in construction managers and estimators specifically in the mining sector, companies need to address the accountability of their contract administration more effectively in order to minimise delays and budget blowouts.

Typically what we are seeing in the mining and resources sector is that because of the nature of contracts being often large and lengthy and whilst weighted generally towards the principal, contracts are still quite loose. The tender value is based on a significant portion of provisional documentation. This in part seems to have resulted in the sense that the work has to commence quickly which can mean contract negotiations and scopes of work are rushed.

As a project progresses it becomes apparent that the realities differ from what was initially expected and disputes begin to fester as each party considers what they are required to do in comparison to the original intent. Due to a number of issues ranging from design changes to gaining planning approvals, the project runs extremely late, the costs spiral up and the targeted profit levels are not achieved.

The problem is often compounded by either; the level of knowledge required by the project managers not being present, or the more experienced managers are so thinly spread that basic fundamental errors are being made. As a result, progress payments are not being made or have been severely reduced, the contractors are not happy with this and are responding aggressively, threatening to suspend works and make claims through legal channels including under BCIPA, although BCIPA is increasingly seen as a last resort method.

Accountability in Claims Administration

We have seen isolated attempts to resolve disputes by engaging firms like Mitchell Brandtman to provide independent opinions.

What seems to be overlooked by principals and contractors in this sector is structured contract administration at the outset and a long term plan to run the project through to completion in relation to variations and claims. This is a function which can successfully be outsourced and can effectively support the internal project team by engaging an advocate for either the principal or the contractor.

Whilst a construction expert can provide a review of the practical day to day administration of the contract and any concerns in this regard, a dedicated contract administrator can assist at commencement with advice on systems, processes and documentation for contract administration. This service can also prove cost effective for the ongoing review and management of variations and claims throughout the project to keep disputes to a minimum and resolve them at the source wherever possible.

Regardless of whether the resources sector continues to grow at the same pace of the last 10 years, the need for support to contractors and principals will accelerate over the next two years. As these billion dollar projects progress and where claims management is stretched in-house or poorly executed, the risk of delay and increased costs is great unless proper claims management is recognised, funded and diligently applied.

For more information contact Gary Thompson, Director, Mitchell Brandtman, Tel. 07 3327 5000