How can model sharing and data exchange be achieved between design BIM and construction BIM, given that there is no inherent exclusivity between them? Design BIM primarily focuses on visualizing building effects and addressing visualization challenges, while construction BIM handles fundamental data issues, providing essential information on project quantities and costs. The key lies in enabling seamless information exchange and circulation between the two.
In Russian and other international drawings, quantity statistics tables are often included, covering areas such as civil engineering, steel reinforcement, and installations. Whether design institute BIM should provide basic engineering quantity data is a topic worth exploring. First, does the design institute have the capability to deliver such data? Second, does this data meet the professional standards required? Third, is the data comprehensive and accurate? In my opinion, either accurate data should be provided, or none at all. Providing incorrect data only leads to confusion. If design institutes can supply comprehensive and accurate engineering quantities, it could bring significant changes to the industry. Accurate data can reduce repetitive work downstream, lower societal transaction costs, and increase transparency, which in turn helps reduce corruption. This is because all project phases rely on the engineering quantities provided by design, which serve as the foundation for bidding, budgeting, cost control, and settlements. Any changes in engineering quantities require formal design amendments.
Revit allows editing and generation of component documentation information. If the quantities calculated by Revit are professional, comprehensive, and accurate, there would be no need for third-party quantity calculation software. By integrating pricing software with the building information model, a cost file can be generated through an application programming interface (API). The pricing software could be directly linked to Revit, facilitating data exchange between the pricing software and the building information model. Another approach is to use Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) to access building information model attributes and reorganize this data within pricing software. A third method is exporting data to Excel and then importing it into cost analysis software. The goal of open BIM is to enhance interoperability between IFC-based software built on ISO international standards and promote reuse of building information. Although IFC provides a data structure for building information exchange, it cannot capture all necessary information across various specialized fields.
If BIM software like Revit could generate engineering quantity data that meets pricing requirements, then the design BIM could be used throughout the building’s entire lifecycle, potentially rendering domestic quantity calculation software obsolete. However, this is currently unattainable because Revit’s quantity statistics remain relatively basic and lack refinement. It can only calculate fundamental quantities such as building area, component volume, doors, and windows, but falls short in other areas. Considering the numerous calculation rules in China, how can Revit adapt and localize accordingly? How can it meet detailed local quota rules one by one? Steel bar calculation is highly specialized—how can Revit accurately handle such tasks? Therefore, specialized construction BIM software remains necessary for the foreseeable future, and design BIM cannot replace construction BIM.
Does this mean we need to rebuild the entire building BIM system? I don’t think so. We can design BIM models using software like Revit and then deepen, refine, and expand them. Even if design BIM and construction BIM cannot be fully integrated into a single system, their interoperability should be improved. Alternatively, a dynamic association library linking the two could be established. Any changes made in design BIM should update construction BIM data in real time, and any design errors encountered during construction should be promptly fed back to design BIM. BIM has the potential to serve as a collaborative platform for future designers and engineers. The last thing I want to see is for these systems to become isolated, self-contained silos that do not communicate—aging and dying without interaction. BIM should foster connection and collaboration.
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up