4.7 Article

Modelling building ownership boundaries within BIM environment: A case study in Victoria, Australia

Journal

COMPUTERS ENVIRONMENT AND URBAN SYSTEMS
Volume 61, Issue -, Pages 24-38

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.09.001

Keywords

Buildings; Building Information Model; Ownership boundary; Subdivision plan; IFC

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [LP110200178]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP110200178] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Australia, current practices for subdividing ownership spaces in buildings rely on two-dimensional (2D) analogue subdivision plans. As building subdivisions become more complex, these plans demonstrate limitations in communicating various boundaries that define complex ownership interests inside multi-storey buildings. With advances in three-dimensional (3D) digital information technologies, 3D digital models are increasingly being researched as a possible solution for improving the recording and representation of building ownership boundaries to overcome these communication challenges. This paper examines the feasibility of one such model - Building Information Models (BIM) - as it offers a collaborative, 3D, digital and semantically enriched data environment to support the integrated management of both physical and functional aspects of buildings over their lifecycle. Using a case study of current building subdivision practices in Victoria, this paper explores BIM's ability to model the boundaries of volumetric ownership spaces inside buildings. Through this process, relevant entities suitable for modelling building ownership boundaries are identified and proposed in the BIM standard. A prototype model is then implemented to showcase the practicality of the BIM environment for modelling building ownership boundaries. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available