4.7 Article

A common data environment for HVAC design and engineering

期刊

AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104500

关键词

Building information modeling; HVAC Object models; Common data environment; BIM level 3

资金

  1. Ramboll Foundation
  2. Innovation Fund Denmark [9065-00266A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces a cloud-based Common Data Environment (CDE) called Virtual Commissioning (VC) for HVAC system commissioning in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. The microservice architecture of the CDE is proven to be capable of running Modelica simulations. The robustness of the system architecture is tested using example models.
The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is transitioning toward using cloud-based Common Data Environments (CDEs) with interlinked BIM models. A CDE that engages all stakeholders of the building's design, construction, and operation phases represents the outset of BIM maturity level 3. This article introduces a CDE called Virtual Commissioning (VC), capable of commissioning an HVAC system before the physical commissioning of the HVAC system. The FSC diagram is introduced, to represent an HVAC BIM model within the VC CDE, and the Revit to FSC exporter, to serialize an HVAC object model from Revit to the FSC diagram. Three microservices were developed to exemplify the ease of developing independently scalable solutions for the VC CDE. Furthermore, the article proves that Modelica simulations can be run, using the microservice architecture of the CDE. To test the robustness of the system architecture for the CDE, two example models were introduced, one simple and one with a high level of complexity. Transferring the example models from Revit to the VC CDE was successful. Finally, in the roadmap for future development, it is proposed that future work should focus on using the CDE for advanced hydraulic simulations, using Modelica and Spawn-of-EnergyPlus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据