Research and Significance of BIM Application in Building Safety Management
Benjaoran, a research scholar at the Finnish Science and Technology Research Center, along with Bhokha, pioneered the exploration of using existing 4D BIM technology as a core tool for safety planning and management. Their research highlighted BIM as an excellent platform for safety planning and communication regarding labor tool safety.
4D BIM technology enables close integration of safety concerns with tool planning by proposing clear tool configurations and safety plans. It allows for real-time visualization of tool statuses to enhance effective management and can alert personnel in advance of potential safety hazards, thereby significantly reducing the risk of tool-related accidents on construction sites. However, their developed 4D BIM system had limitations: it did not consider enough design parameters, many were fixed values, which impaired its practical applicability. Moreover, safety regulation verification still relied heavily on the judgment of experienced engineers.
At the University of Florida, scholar Qietal proposed combining BIM Server with Solibri Model Checker to create a tool called “Design for Occupational Disaster Prevention (PtD).” This tool aims to fulfill three key functions:
- Provide prompts and alternative solutions to reduce unsafe designs;
- Perform automatic safety checks after design completion to identify unsafe tool conditions;
- Correct unsafe tool conditions.
The researchers compiled best practices for building safety—especially guidelines preventing falls from tools—into calculation rules for automatic safety verification within the PtD tool. This enables designers to consider construction tool safety during the design phase and allows construction personnel to conduct safety checks before using tools.
The study also found that the common IFC framework in BIM is expressed in Java, requiring personnel who write safety regulations into calculation rules to be familiar with both IFC architecture and Java programming. When using Solibri Model Checker (SMC), the software’s built-in “Ruleset Manager” must be utilized for writing safety rules. However, due to SMC’s high cost and limited flexibility from fixed parameters, its practicality in China’s construction industry is limited. Additionally, the PtD tool lacks progress tracking and 4D safety verification functions.
Professor Eastman’s research team at Georgia Institute of Technology built upon Qietal’s work by proposing a computer system architecture called the “Rule-Based Checking System.” This system extracts geometric relationships between object attributes from the original design model without altering the building model and performs automated computational verification.
The verification process in this rule library system includes four steps:
- Rule compilation;
- Model information extraction;
- Verification execution;
- Report submission.
In 2013, the team proposed a BIM Security verification system architecture incorporating current safety regulations, best practice guidelines, and safety data from health management agencies such as OSHA. They extract geometric correlations of relevant object attributes in 4D models for safety rule verification, aiming to reduce the risk of falls involving construction tools. Traditional BIM-FCRS systems typically extract correction suggestions from a safety tool rule library based on verification outcomes, providing valuable references for building safety planners.
The Eastman team plans to continue applying the BIM FSCRS system for fall risk identification in future research. Their technology primarily combines Tekla BIM modeling software with Solibri Model Checker as the foundation of the rule library system. However, their rule-based model checking approach has several limitations:
- Model construction must adhere strictly to specification standards. For example, openings must be modeled as “open objects”; otherwise, irregular shapes formed by cuts or curves cannot be recognized.
- The system only covers six types of fall scenarios involving permanent structural openings, limiting the breadth of risk scenarios it can identify.
- It cannot calculate the required quantity or cost of fall protection equipment, providing only information about existing safety facilities.
- It performs rule checking but does not optimize safety and defense planning models, meaning it cannot simultaneously consider multiple safety measures to suggest the best overall plan.
Professor Yu De and colleagues from Taiwan adapted Eastman’s rule library verification system architecture by using Autodesk Revit’s software development kit (SDK) and C# programming language to develop the “Automated Building Tool Safety Inspection Prototype System (BIM-AFS).” This system assists safety planners in preventing construction tool opening and fall risks.
The architecture of Yu De’s research team is similar to Eastman’s, with some differences:
- They use Revit’s SDK and open APIs, which lowers costs but limits the system’s compatibility to Revit software only, making it inapplicable to other BIM platforms.
- BIM-AFS includes nine fall detection rules and can identify nine fall risk scenarios—three more than Eastman’s system.
Nevertheless, BIM-AFS shares the same limitations as Eastman’s system: it requires model construction based on strict specifications, does not cover the most complex hypothetical tool scenarios, cannot calculate the amount or cost of fall protection equipment needed, and lacks an optimized safety planning model.
That concludes the overview of the Research and Significance of BIM Application in Building Safety Management. I hope this article provides useful insights for everyone interested in this field!
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up