L E A N A N D G R E E N: R E S E A R C H I N I T I A T I V E

Conclusions
The automated rule-based constructability review process is
expected to produce significant potential benefits, in terms of
automational, informational, transformational, and visual effects
(based on Fox and Hietanen, 2007):

Visual: Unlike most of previous

constructability tools, BIM owns
strong capabilities of visualization.
With 3D graphic representations,
potential constructability issues can be
easily presented, understood, and
communicated
among
project
participants.

Informational: Integrated with 3D graphic representations,

the information embedded in BIM models can be extracted
and shared among different project parties. The
informational
effects
of
BIM
implementation allows designers to be
Process
aware of design-related construction
concerns at corresponding design stages,
resulting in proactive, instead of
reactive, design feedback, and better
decision-making.

Technology

People

Transformational:
As
the
proactive feedback is enabled in the
design process, the transformational effects will be through
the change in process. The proposed process is expected to
pull the constructability knowledge into the design process
and encourages designers to produce a more constructible
design.

Automational: Instead of a manual check of printed plans

with a checklist, an automatic review process can be
systematic and comprehensive, reducing the required time
and resources for simpler concerns and allowing the
construction team to focus on future impacts and planning.

Future Research
Future work can focus on three directions:

Further investigation of constructability knowledge.

Based on limited case studies, the current research merely
investigates the relationship between BIM contents and
structural design-related constructability issues. A comprehensive acquisition of constructability knowledge can
be achieved by looking at more case studies or different
design disciplines.
Further development of design-related constructability
rule-sets. Considering the existing technical difficulties
regarding the rule checking platform, the rule-sets

Virtual Prototyping for

Automated, Rule-based Constructability Review

developed and tested in the research are merely about formwork selection. Further investigation is needed to develop a
comprehensive set of reasoning rules of design-related constructability issues.

Further exploration of the proposed process. As existing

technical issues may be solved and the rule-sets become
complete, the process needs to be detailed mapped out
and documented for better practices and collaboration
among different project participants.

Li Jiang, PhD Candidate; Dr. Robert M. Leicht

Background
Constructability is defined as the optimum use of construction
knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement, and
field operation to achieve overall project objectives, (CII,
1986). Frequently, a review of constructability concepts is
adopted by using a checklist and a lessons-learned system after
the design reaches a certain design stage, 30%, 60%, or 95%
design (Hancher and Goodrum, 2007).

What process changes with the help from integrated design

methods and tools can help to improve the current
constructability review process?

Research Goal & Objectives

To improve consistency, efficiency, and value of existing
constructability review process, by proposing an automated rulebased constructability review with the implementation of
Building Information Modeling (BIM).

However, the large amount of required resources, time and

manpower, largely impedes constructability implementation
(Hancher and Goodrum, 2007); the rework in design caused by
the inefficient process (Arditi et al., 2002; Pulaski and Horman,
2005) cannot be ignored either.

To investigate the feasibility of using available BIM

contents to represent constructability knowledge required
for a constructability review.

To define and validate the method of rule-based checking to

automate constructability review process.

As the idea of implementing integrated design methods to

enhance productivity and value in the industry, this research
examines the existing constructability review process and
addresses
the
research
question:

To demonstrate the benefits of the proposed constructability

review process with the implementation of BIM, in terms of
automational, visual, informational, and transformational
effects.

Schematic
Design

Database of
Constructability
Rulesets

Design
Development

Construction
Documents

BIM Contents
Structural System
Superstructure
CIP Concrete
Seismic Applications
Non-Seismic Applications
Gravity Systems
Normal Reinforcing
2 Way Flat with Drop Panel
Location
Dimension (e.g. height, thickness, etc.)
Reinforcing
...
Others
Lateral Systems
Misc. Members and Items

Acknowledgements
Bob Grottenthaler
Barton Malow Company

Kurt Maldovan
Balfour Beatty Construction

Sub-structure
Architecture System
Technical Systems (i.e. mechnical, electrical, plumbing systems)

Figure 1: Implementing BIM for Automated Constructability Review

Capturing Constructability Knowledge for Reinforced Concrete Structure

The elicitation of constructability knowledge from construction experts is the first and important step for the research to analyze the
feasibility of using available BIM contents to interpret the constructability knowledge required for a constructability review. Multiple
case studies are being to collect and analyze the knowledge.
For additional information or questions regarding this research, contact:
Li Jiang, PhD Candidate
luj122@psu.edu
Dr. Robert M. Leicht, Director of PACE, Assistant Professor
rmleicht@engr.psu.edu

Focusing on reinforced concrete structure, one case study, shown in Figure 1, is the Turkish-American Community Center at
Lanham, Maryland. This project has 5 buildings interconnected via an underground parking facility, including a mosque. The
complex has a gross floor area of approximately 316,000 square feet, more than 95% of which is constructed with cast-in-place
concrete. One of the 5 buildings has a one-story steel structure, and thus is not considered in this study. Given cultural concerns, the
project design has incorporated traditional mosque features such as domes and minarets, resulting in a range of different formwork
systems used in the project.
As shown in Figure 1, the knowledge regarding formwork decisions captured from project team are compared with available BIM
contents accordingly, demonstrating the ability of using BIM to provide upfront feedback and facilitate early planning and decisionmaking.

Knowledge Representation

Rule Execution

The representation of knowledge involves analysis of how to

reason accurately and effectively and how to write and encode
the knowledge into a form that is understandable by humans and
behave like humans (Brachman and Levesque 2004).

As the reasoning rule-sets are defined by writing the acquired

constructability knowledge into machine-readable language, those
rules need to be executed in an appropriate rule checking
platform, in order to prove the validity of the innovative approach.

The method of rule checking is applied in this research to

represent the constructability knowledge and to model the ways
of thinking as construction experts in a constructability review.

This part of research will use a case study to test the rule-sets of
formwork selection, as a test case with validated logic to support
means and methods rules. Solibri Model Checker will be used as
the platform for rule execution.

Figure 2: Formwork used in Turkish-American Community Center

Figure 2 shows the formwork used in the case study project of

Turkish-American Community Center. In the form of decision
tree, Figure 3 represents the acquired knowledge for horizontal
formwork selection through an interview of project team. In
addition to design parameters such as slab slope and slab depth,
resource constraints such as crane, labor, and the layout density
have been considered in the decision-making of formwork use.
Based on the obtained knowledge, a set of design-related
constructability reasoning rules can be developed to represent the
knowledge and thereby to achieve an automated constructability
checking.

Figure 3: Case study interview: horizontal formwork selection

Application: Formwork selection rule testing

As an example, one case study

project, which is the Copping
State University Science &
Technology
Center
at
Baltimore, MD, is used here to
test the rule-set of Horizontal
Formwork Selection. Figure 7
shows
the
architectural
rendering and REVIT model of
the project. The rule execution
interface of Slab Formwork
Selection in Solibri is
displayed in Figure 8.

An example of reasoning rule is written as (Hanna and

Sanvido, 1989):
IF: Building size is small or medium (i.e. gross area
is no more than 25,000 sq. ft)

Figure 8: Rule execution for Horizontal Formwork Selection

Process Modeling

Figure 4: Formwork selection rule example

Building model preparation, where necessary information

required for the automated rule-based reasoning is prepared.
As design develops (e.g. from SD to DD and then to CD),
appropriate level of detail of BIM contents should be
embedded into the design model at each phase.

Rule execution, which brings together the prepared building

model with the rules that apply to it. At different project
phase, the BIM contents captured by the reasoning rules will
be at different level of detail.

Last, though far from least, a process protocol of an automated

constructability review with the implementation of BIM will be
developed. Based on Eastman et. al (2009), a typical rule-based
reasoning process has 4 stages (Figure 9):

AND: Building height is between 10 to 13 floors

THEN: Use conventional aluminum forming system.

The reasoning of conventional aluminum forming

system selection at Washington D.C. urban area
requires two different attributes- building size and
building height. As a results, the reasoning process can
be divided into 2 parts: reasoning about building gross
area, and building height. As long as both of them
meet the target value, the formwork selection can be
achieved.
Solibri Model Checker, as a world-leading model
review software based on rule-based checking, has
been applied as the platform to develop and run the
constructability reasoning rules. More detailed
information about Solibri can be found on http://
www.solibri.com/.

Figure 7: Case Study Project: Coppin State Sci. & Tech. Center

Rule interpretation, which aims to translate the construction

knowledge acquired from industry experts into computerreadable language, and to form logical structure of rules for
their application as human reasoning. Depending on different
project phase (i.e. SD, DD, CD, and Pre-Construction),
different level of detail of constructability knowledge are
interpreted into related rules and stored in the appropriate
rule checking platform.

SD

Figure 5: Rule parameters of Building Gross Area

Construction
Knowledge

DD

Construction
Knowledge

CD

Construction
Knowledge

EXPERT

Figure 4, 5 and 6 are snapshots from Solibri, showing

the constitution of the rule-set, parameters of the two
separated reasoning rules, and corresponding target
value of each parameter
respectively.

Constructability
Feedback

USER

Figure 6: Rule parameters of Building Height

BIM Model
Preparation

Database of
Rule-sets

Database of
Rule-sets

Database of
Rule-sets

Reporting the reasoning results (i.e. constructability

feedback) to designers. Depending on the timing of the
feedback, two types of constructability feedback are
expected to be obtained from the proposed process: reactive
and
proactive
feedback.
Pre-Con
Reactive feedback is provided
by reacting a situation; whereas
Notes:
proactive feedback is provided
in advance of a situation. For
SD: Schematic Design
Construction
Knowledge
example,
the
feedback
DD: Design Development
regarding the design changes
Rule
for fully developed concepts is
Interpretation
CD: Construction Document
reactive; the feedback that is
provided at the same phase but
Pre-Con: Pre-Construction/
mentions
constructability
Shop Drawing
concerns
for
future
design steps
Rule Execution
is considered as proactive.
Reactive feedback
The automated rule-based
reasoning process enables
consistent proactive feedback
Potential Proactive feedback
in the review process, adding
more value to the process.
Database of
Rule-sets

Figure 9: Overall process of automated rule-based constructability reasoning (based on Eastman et. al, 2009)