A report based on the generation of clash detection
During the clash detection, different types of clash detection were experienced while running the combined model. These clashes can be categorized into two that is, hard and soft clashes. It was observed that these clashes were interfering with different elements such as architectural, MEP, and structural when they were overlapping. An example that came out from this experiment is that wall vs. pipes cannot overlap one another, but the provision of these pipes should be considered if they are needed. Another example is that during construction, beams and ceiling are detained together by bolt, but regardless of this, they should not cross or overlap one another.
Soft clash detection is another type we are going to discuss. It was observed that it is important that different elements of design should have spaces between them. If the space between the elements is narrow than required during the model design, a soft clash can be detected. It is attributed that soft clash detection depends on the user and his or her logical assumption, depending on the elements used. For example, during construction, pipes are usually placed on the ceiling at a distance. Soft clash detection is usually identified using an industry-standard or a rational interpretation. Hence, in the case of soft clash recognition, the user usually identifies it based on his logical ideas and the elements used.
It was observed that when using the same element in clash detection by the use of Solibri and Naviswork works, different number of detection was noticed. Hence to come up with a clear, rational number, tolerance was needed to be checked in every test. When one wants to set for the hard and soft clash acceptance, he or she must refer to Solibri works regarding some elements. There was an agreement among the team members in selecting most of the elements according to each member’s perspective, and tolerances were derived. In some experiments, where there was no agreement between the members, a common industry average was used. In summary, the reasoning of each member of the group brought about tolerance for both software.
Solibri Rules and tools:
According to solibri, one a person uploads a model, the software can create different tests automatically; from these tests, tolerance is defined for each. To come up with a clash report, we had to use Solibri tests since the Revit model is more precise in a construction site. We brought ideas from Solibri’s work and decided which arrangement in the subset should be used to create Naviworks.in Solibri, there are roles, and these roles have their rulesets. In our experiment, to do away with some tests, we run some roles based on the needs that were being provided by the software. BIM coordination was essential in our experiment as it helped in checking the stability of the model from different factors. To get an accurate result, we needed to separate our model into two. To check for the validity and accuracy of each model, we had to do away with structural and architectural mechanisms in Revit and then transfer them as different models and import them to solibri for checking. During our experiment, we did not consider some roles, such as energy, as we believe they didn’t add any significance.
Distribution of clashes and resolution plan:
After running both Naviswork and Solibri interference checks is was important that we come up with a summary result about the two. It was observed each software had some differences in the number of clashes detected even after some adjustments for tolerance were made. From this, we concluded that in the case of Naviswork, false positives were classified as clashes. an example in recognizing a clash detection is between a wall and a pipe that passes through it. Naviswork recorded more clashes count, which was unnecessary. When two pipes were going through the wall, Naviswork, measured one clash for the pipes and another one for the wall. And in the end, Naviswork gave out deceitful count hindering effective counts.
There was a need to come up with a measure to bypass these false results, and we used the rule parameter provided in Naviswork. Overlooking of some things in the same composite object was one of the rules that we used in running clash detection. Assets were regarded as comprehensive geometry and treated as compound items hence emitting clashes between them. To put this rule in practice, we used an example of walls vs. floors when we updated the test using this rule. There was a significant decrease in clashes observed from 1138 to 442.
Some rules in this experiment could not be ignored, such as overlooking clashes at the same level as it could have led to miscount of a majority of the clashes that were involved. Furthermore, we also overlooked the rule of ignoring objects in the same cell in some of the elements that we had used.
From this, we were able to come up and also understand the spreading of clashes that were filtered out by removing the false positives. To come up with a deductive number, each member of the team had an important role to play. Each member then would decide which of the clashes he or she think is critical.
Naviswork created a new group that comprised of all clashes that were needed to be determined. In this experiment of clash resolution, all the patterns about MEP VS structural, Architectural vs. structural were adhered to. An example of this is when some of the members were delegated the assignment of Architectural vs. structural. The team would give all the clashes reports. In the case of a resolution plan, a revisit file containing all the complex models was developed, and it contained resolution clashes for each set.
Comparison of two solutions in detecting clashes
It can be said that both of these two software give out the same results that are count and clash detection. One of the differences between them is that each software has a different way of giving results in the form of a report. The team that used Naviswork was able to give a detailed report in the form of HTML, pdf, HTML tabular, among others.
To get a comprehensive report from both software, the term needed to analyze the clash resolution. From this experiment, it was observed that Naviswork was better in giving clear and more detail than Solibri in a test like a wall vs. beams, among others. This information obtained is essential in analyzing big numbers of results by just a look. Solibri was also important and was used when we needed to analyze particular elements. Filtering of clashes was vital in Navisworks, and after this, there was a need for coming up with a report in Solibri to generate a report which comprised the vital clashes only. One major use of Solibri in the experiment was to generate a report which composed of the critical clashes. After this experiment, it was concluded that both of these software are powerful in their ways.
Navisworks
Pros
One of the advantages of Naviswork is that it gives a good report that is comprehensive and well organized. Naviswork can present a report clearly explaining the clashes for a better understanding, even to people who are not on the construction field better than Solibri.
Another advantage of Naviswork is that there is freedom in selecting the elements that you want.
With the use of this software, one can be able to come up with a report he or she wants. With the use of this software, one can create a subset for almost every element in the structural and architectural. With the use of this software, we have been able to run different aspects such as structural vs. structural, architectural vs. fundamental, among others. And from each test, we can be able to pick one item and then clashes with another one that we believe can be able to clash element during the construction stage.
Cons
Some of the disadvantages of using Naviswork include; it takes a lot of time. It needs one to dedicate their time to generating sets for every element that will be used in running a clash test.
Secondly, it doubles, and sometimes triple clashes are hence increasing the number of conflicts for analogous elements.
Solibri
Pros
Solibri can computerize tests generated. It is essential as it saves the user time. Automation helps the user understand the model better and by understanding which type of clash and what is the acceptance value needed.
Another advantage is Solibri can create a presentation depending on what a person wants. There is a lot of freedom associated with the use of Solibri software. The user is allowed to select his or her introduction to the summary report. By the use of Solibri, one can generate a particular story for maybe architects and have the figure that can improve the outcome.
Cons
It is challenging to present a report to a professional who is nit fair with stories in Solibri. It is because the data presented for the entire clashes lack supporting figures, and the model only tests for the integral role or specific selection of clashes. It was difficult to relate this report as compared to Naviswork.
After analyzing the pros and cons of each, it is essential to understand how this software works. Both of them put into consideration and uses a very influential tool to get the concept of clashing and also to helps them to do away with issues that may come up during displaying. If a user does not have enough knowledge regarding modeling, he or she can use Solibri. This software is compelling and can help a user visualize and understand the model more. This software can create roles and also rulesets hence helping the user understand the type of clashes and how he or she should respond.
On the other hand, Naviswork works differently. For one to use this software, he or she must be acquainted with the model so that he or she can be able to come up with reports that are founded on exact needs and understand which elements can overlap one another and which ones cannot. The advantage of using these soft wares is that the user can be able to make alterations and decide the type of clash, either hard or soft, and insert acceptable values. Secondly, it allows the user to reject or either accept the clash so that other teams can work together.
First and the last Agenda
In creating the Agenda, we based our approach on rational thinking of the relationship that existed between activities. We understood that some operations could not be done before finishing others. Example bearing wall cannot be erected before wall bases, and this is how we based our approach. Another style that we used was the following pyramid levels. The first schedule was made using a rational construction sequence example starting with the first floor then moving to the second. When we imported this list to both software, some mistakes were seen. These mistakes were recognized when we tried to integrate the activities into the studied simulation. After this, we delegated that each member to focus on a specific part of the model and to recognize the clash through the animation. After the team went through the model, some alterations were made to the last schedule. Example staircase rails were designed to be in the first schedule, but we decide to set it a different part, and we had to identify it in the simulation. Other activities that we decided to add to the final Agenda includes lighting, plumbing, among others. The changes were done to the last scheduleAgenda so that both software can give out a detailed simulation.
4D Simulation
Challenges, comparison, and lesson learned from the software
Naviswork:
Some formats are allowed in Naviswork, such as CVS, Microsoft Project, Primavera, among others. In our assignment, we used different methods in transferring and importing Agenda or schedule file. On this assignment, we moved the data in a worksheet, and then we had to change from Excel to CVS style then introduced it to the software. For importing, we used Synchro, we imported the file first to Synchro software and later transferred the file in CVS format, and from this, we were able to introduce to Naviswork.
After the importation of the record, the data was manually changed for every activity. Hence we had to create sets to link every action to the correct schedule. Some particular items were not counted in the sets. To address this, we needed to come up with new sets so that they can be collected in the schedule example of exterior polishes.
To include them in the game, we needed to come up with elements from the outer finishes of walls for every level. After completing and attaching all sets, we then run the model. But the unfortunate thing is that we didn’t get any results after much trial. After a while is when we discovered that we needed to pick contract selection in the duty type column so that we could be able to see objects in the simulation.
Using Naviswork was not easy at first; we encountered various challenges that we were able to learn from them later. One of the hurdles that we faced was, creating sets took a lot of our time as we had to create sets for every item in the Agenda. Another issue is that Naviswork does not automatically update and integrate sets. Hence we had to incorporate the sets ourselves, which was very tiresome, and after importing the last program, we had again to re-bond the sets. Besides the exhaustion, we were able to successfully visualize the model with the program, which was a satisfying experience.
Synchro:
One of the challenges that we experienced while using Synchro was during transferring of the model from Revit to it. We tried different formats that we being offered in Revit, and most of them did not work. DWF was the only format that encompassed the material used in building, and we used it to transfer to Synchro. Another challenge that we encountered was during assembling of elements and sets made by Revit. After moving the DWF file from Revit, we met a problem. After the transfer, instead of item assembling themselves as levels, they grouped themselves under the type. Hence we needed to choose items one by one grounding them on the bases of our knowledge on the building, which was tricky. The importation process in Synchro went on without issues after the schedule was prepared in p6, and then it was transferred in Primavera p6 XML.
After finishing assigning elements, the simulation vide was made. However, it was observed that after simulating the use of the first program, some problems came up. Some of the issues observed were some elements were not considered while the program was being made. Another issue was some activities did not have a rational relationship with their precursors and beneficiaries.
Teamwork and challenges
Within our team, we decided to delegate and assign everyone a part in this assignment. We exchanged contact, and we would often meet to share the schedule for submission and also to run clashes.
Challenges: one of the problems that we experienced was creating a 4D simulation as most of us experienced difficulties using the software, especially during the transferring and importing of files.
Solibri software: one, my team member, was in charge of providing a combined Revit file for architectural structural and also MEP and then transferred to Solibri. To come up with a clear report on clashes, we had to adjust the roles and also rulesets. Tolerance values that were to work for Naviswork were selected manually, and we used Solibri to help us come up with those values. Another use of Solibri was in recognition of clashes in the model, which were then transferred and imported again in Revisit to assist in solving clashes.
Challenges: To get an accurate number of conflicts (clashes), we had to separate the model to architectural and structural and then run clash recognition for both. The number that we arrived we had to compare it to the product we got from Naviswork. The challenge came when deciding which clashes needed to be adjusted.
NavisWorks Software: we did not know how to come up with sets in a model; hence we had to employ Solibri to guide us. In coming up with those sets, we came up with several concepts on how to address the issue. First, is that we needed to come up with tolerance values that could be used. After the creation of a set, we then had to run a test and the clash report. To simplify our work, we decide to come up with related clashes and others that needed to be adjusted.
Challenges: One of the problems that we experienced using this software was the creation of sets. For one to be able to create collection successfully, he or he needed to be conversant with the model and also recognize the different types of clashes required to be tested.
4D simulation
Schedule: to create a program, one needed to understand the rationale relationship that existed between activities. It was established in Primavera p6. One of our team members built a schedule and distributed it among us. Each one of us was required to work on simulation and give their opinion on the faults they found in the first schedule. After this, the last was recognized
Naviswork: in this software, files were transferred from Primavera p6 as a worksheet in excel and then later changed to CVS, which can be imported to the software. After that, selected dates physically, and the generation of the set was done depending on schedule.
Challenges in 4D simulation: it was tiresome to transfer and import files, also in choosing features in the model and connecting them to a specific activity.
Roles and responsibility for the team
During the last breakthrough, we decide that each member from our team should take a slight alteration for clash determination and also in the simulation of 4D.
Person #1 – Was in charge of creating different subset and also Separating clashes in both software and clash determination by the use of Revit. He was also tasked with coming up with 4D simulation to be used in the first schedule and finally aid in report writing.
Person #2- Was in charge of working together to distinguish clashes in Naviswork. Was to work on the first and the last schedule execution to Naviswork and to create a simulation video.
Person #3- person 3 was in charge of coming up with both the first and last schedule. They also worked on the simulation of 4Din Synchro so that they could make animated videos. Furthermore, they worked on Solibri to identify clashes and then repeat clash recognition.
To deliver our work on time, we ensured that we meet often and also communicated with each other on social media. In our meetings, we addressed several issues such as the resolution of clashes as we had a challenge in coming up with a clear one, 4D simulation, among others. We ensured that we cooperated with each other to ensure smooth operation.