4.6 Article

Compatibility of Sustainable Facility Management and Building Information Modeling Applications: The Role of Naming Conventions

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15021482

Keywords

building information modeling; sustainable facilities management; data integration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research focuses on data transfer from Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) to Building Information Modeling (BIM) applications, specifically BUILDER SMS to Autodesk Revit, for creating BIM models of existing buildings. Two methods, based on alphanumeric identifier and name, were compared for data compatibility and model completion time. The name method was faster in terms of data compatibility, while the identifier method resulted in shorter model completion times. The difference in total effort required by the methods was not large.
This research focuses on data transfer from Sustainable Facility Management (SFM) to Building Information Modeling (BIM) applications-specifically BUILDER SMS to Autodesk Revit-where the BIM models are created for existing buildings. BIM models were created for ten existing buildings to support initial data transfer based on different object parameters: (a) alphanumeric identifier (five buildings); and (b) name (five buildings). The identifier is randomly assigned by BUILDER SMS. The name is derived from the cardinal direction for exterior components and room names for interior components. The comparison of the methods was accomplished by observing times to ensure data compatibility, complete Revit models, and transfer data from BUILDER SMS to Revit. The name method was faster regarding data compatibility, but no statistical evaluation could be made. The identifier method resulted in shorter model completion times, but the difference was not statistically significant. It was also faster for first-time data transfer, but, again, no statistical evaluation could be made. The difference in total effort required by the methods was not large. Furthermore, the first data transfer for either method can transfer the other parameter, i.e., a name-based data transfer can add the identifier to the Revit model and an identifier-based transfer can add the name. The name method may be slightly better than the identifier method because object names follow an intuitive and logical standard naming convention (specified in the SFM application). The process of ensuring data compatibility by manually entering object names may be less error-prone compared to manually entering alphanumeric identifiers; however, that was not demonstrated here as all of the resulting models were error-free regarding data transfer. The methods described provide useful insights for other SFM/BIM transfer scenarios, such as other applications and models generated during the design phase.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available