REDUCTION OF DESIGN ERRORS USING CLASH DETECTION

A critical work process for any contractor is trade and system coordination. Using 2D drawings, clash detection is performed manually by overlaying individual system drawings on a light table to identify potential conflicts. Similarly, contractors use traditional 2D CAD tools to overlay CAD layers to visually and manually identify potential conflicts. These manual approaches are slow, costly, prone to error, and depend on the use of up-to-date drawings. To overcome these problems, some organizations use customwritten applications for automatically detecting clashes between drawing entities on different layers. Automatic detection of conflicts is an excellent method for identifying design errors, where objects either occupy the same space (a hard clash) or are too close (a soft clash) for adequate access, insulation, safety, maintenance, and so forth. In some publications, the term clearance clash is used instead of soft clash. The terms are synonymous. BIM-based clash detection provides many advantages over traditional 2D coordination methods like overlays on a light table or simple automated 3D checks. Use of a light table is time consuming, error prone and requires that all drawings be current. 3D clash detection relies on 3D geometry models for identifying geometric entities often return a large number of meaningless clashes. Second, if the 3D geometries are not solids, the clash detection tool cannot detect clashes between objects within other objects. It can only detect clashes between surfaces. Furthermore, qualification of clashes into meaningful categories for the contractor is greatly inhibited due to lack of semantic information embedded in the 3D geometry models. A clash between surfaces could be a wall abutting a wall or a pipe running through a wall. The contractor has to verify and review each of these potential clashes. In contrast, BIM-based clash detection tools allow automatic geometry based clash detection to be combined with semantic and rule-based clash analysis for identifying qualified and structured clashes. BIM-based clash detection tools allow contractors to selectively check clashes between specified systems, such as checking for clashes between mechanical and structural systems, because each component in the model is associated with a specific type of system. Consequently, the clash detection process can be performed at any level of detail and across any number of building systems and trades. A BIM based clash detection system can also use component classifications to more readily perform soft clash analyses. For example, the contractor can search for conditions in which the clearance or space between mechanical components and the subfloor is less than two feet. These types of clash detection analyses are only possible with well-defined and structured building models. Regardless of the models accuracy, the contractor must ensure that the building is modeled with an appropriate level of detail. It must have sufficient details for piping, ducts, structural steel (primary and secondary members) and attachments, and other components, so that clashes can be accurately detected. There are times when very small modeling errors cause clashes that would not be real problems during construction. These can easily be identified and ignored. However, if the detailing is inaccurate, a significant number of problems will not be found until the building is constructed, at which time they could be costly and time-consuming to resolve. Proper detailing of the model by subcontractors or other project team members responsible for the design of these systems is required. These subcontractors need to participate in the model development process as early as possible. Ideally, resolution would take place in a common project site office, where a large monitor can be used to display each problem area and each discipline can contribute their expertise to the solution. Agreed upon changes can then be entered into the appropriate design model prior to the next clash detection cycle. Experience has shown that there is no such thing as a minor change that does not require clash detection. Space conflicts are a significant source of construction site problems and can be largely eliminated with careful clash detection using an accurate and detailed model. There are two predominant types of clash-detection technologies available in the marketplace: (1) clash detection within BIM design tools and (2) separate BIM integration tools that perform clash detection. All major BIM design tools include some clash-detection features that allow the designer to check for clashes during the design phase. But the contractor often needs to integrate these models and may or may not be able to do so successfully within the BIM authoring tool due to poor interoperability or the number and complexity of objects.

The second class of clash-detection technologies can be found in BIM integration tools. These tools allow users to import 3D models from a wide variety of modeling applications and visualize the integrated model. Examples of this are Autodesks Navisworks Manage package (Navisworks 2008) and Solibri Model Checker v6 (Solibri 2010). The clash-detection analyses that these tools provide tend to be more sophisticated, and they are capable of identifying more types of soft and hard clashes. The drawback is that identified clashes cannot be fixed immediately because the integrated model is not directly associated with the original model. In other words, the information flow is one way and not bidirectional. An exception to this statement is the Solibri Model Checker and Issue Locator which has been extended and made publicly available as the OpenBIM Collaboration Format. This XML format allows feedback from clash detection or other issue identifying application in the originating building model to communicate to Architectural Desktop (from Autodesk), Tekla, and ArchiCAD (from Graphisoft) that identifies issues and action items, and provides a camera location for viewing. Revit and Digital Projects and Bentley have made commitments to support this new cross-platform communication method. These capabilities must be introduced into the originating systems or upstream modeling tools and also the receiving, downstream models. This new capability can be used to potentially provide two-way communication for any pair of clash detection or rule-checking tools, as part of a design tool or standalone checking tool.

Clash detection
Cash detection which can be checked even in the early stages of a project where there may be a need to coordinate building services systems with architectural elements or structure. Clash detection falls into several categories or types: a. errors of location (the responsibility of the discipline modeller) hard conflicts physical conflicts between components, or soft conflicts interferences between components and access spaces or violations of clearances b. design coordination (a shared responsibility) c. interdisciplinary design resolution (interdependent resolution of detailed design development to support another discipline) Instead of waiting for the builder to discover these errors on site, we now check and resolve the problem virtually before we start on site, ensuring lower RFIs, lower costs and a more predictable result. a. Errors of location In this type the clash is an error of location largely the result of poor model building.

Fig: A1.6 Element intersection checking example

The report identifies dissimilar material specifications for the two walls and calculates the intersection properties. The Parameters panel shows the rule settings. (Note you can alter these on the fly, but if you want to re-use it you must update or specify a new rule using the Rule SetManager).

The Info dialog reports the properties of the intersection i.e. a depth intersection in plan of 200 mm. The walls are in the basement storey and part ofthe external wall and stair structure. In this case it is an error and we can tag it (as we did in the previous example) with an instruction on how to fix it.

Fig: A1.7 Services modelling example This example has four sub-models, included above: architecture, structure, HVAC and sprinklers. The branches to the main duct do not match the elevation at the bifurcated duct bends, (lower centre) and this model building issue is found often with modellers new to 3D object modelling. Now that we can see the full 3D context it should be possible to reduce these errors to an absolute minimum if not completely.

b. Design coordination In this second type of clash, the clash cannot be resolved by the model owner alone; the respective parties have to agree on a solution that typically involves re-routing services networks, adjusting the size or proportions of components, or modifying the carcass building elements or the architectural layout.

Fig: A1.8 Services coordination example In this case study example we can verify if the design is fully coordinated. Figure A1.8 above is a multidisciplinary IFC model built by Project Services, Brisbane merging architecture (ArchiCAD), structure (Tekla), electrical (Revit MEP), and hydraulic and mechanical (DDS) services. SMCs rule checking highlights that a circular exhaust vent has interfered with Z purlins and penetrated the roof sheeting. The resolution of this clash requires design input from all parties including the architect to resolve it effectively. Experienced professionals know that in multidisciplinary work (in complex building types such as hospitals for example) a shared solution is required, as individual modifications often have a strong impact on the other systems. These last two clash types improve our modeling skills, clarify our understanding of object modelling, and greatly improve the quality of a single or multidisciplinary model.

c. Interdisciplinary model coordination In this final type of clash, the model checker identifies a point of interdependency between systems in the building. Fig: A1.9 Interdisciplinary design resolution

The example above shows a fire damper correctly located in a fire-rated wall, but SMC reports it as an error. In this case, the structural engineer needs to provide a penetration, meanwhile checking that it does not cause a structural or related problem. For services systems, penetrations are pervasive in the building carcass, and where these penetrations are located in structural elements and fire-rated walls, or become exposed, they need careful design resolution. The integrated model makes visible what is often very hard to see in traditional 2D documentation; plinths for plant, detailed structure to support other systems, outlets for serviced equipment (simply a toilet, or a more complex steam steriliser), boxing in for pipe runs etc. Auditing tools bring outstanding benefits in this area, and alone will justify making this tool and addition to a designers BIM toolset.