The Johnson Estate Sculpture is the outcome of a bequest in the will of the late Ronald Johnson. The will directed that a substantial sum of money should be used to provide a work of sculpture to be placed on the Sydney Harbour foreshore. Following an international competition, the Trustees of the Estate selected Chris Booth, an internationally renowned sculptor from New Zealand, to develop the sculpture. The site chosen for the sculpture is close to Government House in the Royal Botanic Gardens.

We started the project working with Chris Booth’s 1:50 scale maquette in clay. This was the ‘contract document’ that defined the intent of the sculpture. To move the maquette to a digital model a 3D laser scan was made, with the resulting point cloud becoming the geometrical background for further model geometry to be created, which was done in Rhino3D.

The work comprises 2 separate components, the Quartz form and the Sandstone wave form and we used various 3D products to virtually construct and review the entire sculpture through interactive review meetings with all parties involved in the project.

The hollow quartz form is a skin made up of about 16,000 quartz pebbles threaded and woven together with stainless steel cable and wire that is supported by an invisible internal stainless steel structure. A very special Sydney Aboriginal shield design will be the feature of this weaving. It is woven into the quartz form using ochre coloured Nepean River pebbles. The original of this shield is in the Australian Museum and approval for its replication has been given by the Gadigal Aboriginal Community whose ancestors lived in this Sydney region.

The sandstone wave form appears as three undulating strata emerging from the ground. Their undulation and separation is reminiscent of strata that have been subjected to land movement due to tectonic forces. This form was constructed out of about 260 Hawkesbury sandstone blocks quarried from Gosford Quarries. These large blocks – up to 3 metres in length and half a metre thick are bolted together with stainless steel bolts drilled through them in such a way as to be invisible in the finished sculpture. Each block was cut to shape and drilled for the bolts from a detailed drawing generated from the 3D model.

Clash analysis software was used to prove bolting arrangements of the stone blocks was achievable. High dynamic range laser site surveys were used to measure installation tolerances against the digital model and 3D PDF’s were created and used by stone mason’s site team to understand the irregular shapes of the stone blocks and assisted in understanding of the installation sequences and propping locations.

The sculpture was opened on 9th March and has been named Wurrungwuri (‘This side of the Water’)

Arup
Jeff Casson, John Hewitt, Peter Jameson, Alex Edwards, Stuart Bull, Kai Nelson, Rick Benjamin, Chris Mawson & Bruce Moir

Traditional Stone contractors
James Ginter

Gosford Quarries (supplier of sandstone and fabricators)
Garry Boyce, Phil Brown & Greg Cook

This is the site of the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay in San Francisco. The contractors have been there for over a year and there’s not much to show for it on the ground. That is because since April 2009 the client, contractor, sub-contractors and consultants have been inside a room – a very big room – on the edge of the site creating a full digital pre-build of the hospital. The room’s title reveals its ambition -

This project came onto our radar during the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) research we did with the University of Melbourne. I took Digital Innovation on tour to three of our American offices in June and during my stay in San Francisco my itinerary included a day at Stanford University’s Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) Summer Program and a site visit to UCSF Mission Bay.

The two link nicely as much of the thinking about how IPD fits into the construction sector in California has been developed at CIFE with Martin Fischer and John Kunz. This year’s CIFE Summer Program was focussed on IPD in practice and Atul Khanzode and Dean Reed from DPR presented. DPR is the contractor for UCSF Mission Bay. Arup is the MEP services consultant on the project.

Its not a full IPD project, as it is not operating under a multi-party agreement. Rather, it is a full integrated design financed by the client in order to achieve some of the rewards on offer through shifting the design effort earlier in the project. There are similarities in operation with IPD. The contractors, sub-contractors and consultants are a multi-party network responsible for determining specific project targets in alignment with the client’s project goals.

There were early stage workshops at CIFE to develop what metrics were appropriate for this project, and they are broadcast to the team from displays all around the room. At a glance anyone can see what quantities of a particular wall type are on the job or how many clashes remain to be resolved.

I visited the site with Raj Daswani and Reid Senscu from our San Francisco office. We were talking with Chris, the plumbing sub (above), when the steel sub came up to discuss plumbing bracing and coordination with steel. The level of trust and immediacy to decision makers is the key to the current success of the process. In the early days, the ‘big room’ referred to three rooms that were set aside for regular review meetings however they are not used much now. People know each other and negotiate with other disciplines one on one.

Throughout our visit we were told there was scepticism when this process started, but uniformly people said they didn’t want to work another way from here on.

There is full commitment to the process. The architects, including the firm’s principals, are in the big room working on the architectural model and not far away the plumbing sub-contractors are modelling details right down to bolts in their own software. One of the architects told us they had lost their seats back in their office.

We’re going to hear more about this project. Already they are estimating considerable savings from this investment in integration. What more will they reap when they start construction?

Many thanks to John Griffiths, Raj Daswani and Reid Sensecu from Arup San Francisco.

MEP is the Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing systems in our buildings. We are now modelling these services and connecting with analysis so we can see how a building will operate. This means better communication and documentation as well as the ability to effectively test scenarios for the way we power and service our buildings before they are built.

This is a summary of a presentation I gave at this year’s Revit Technology Conference in Sydney. It has been well over a year since we moved to Revit MEP and to date, over 18 MEP projects have been documented and issued using Revit MEP in the Arup Melbourne office.

I am an Industrial Designer and when I joined Arup in 2003 the firm had already been doing structures in 3D using Bentley Triforma for a while. After a year or two we were using Autodesk Building Systems our first project being the Australian Synchrotron (above). The next significant project was the Alfred Hospital Intensive Care Unit (below). AutoCAD MEP became our base 3D software, and when we had opportunities we modelled 3D ductwork, pipe work, cable trays & major equipment.

I believe that our industry needs tools like Revit MEP to elevate our deliverables away from 2D black & white drawings. In my presentation outlined where I think we have had success, and where we could still improve for the benefit of the MEP community.

Following are some of the points I made -

What has worked for us as a team
A positive environment is fundamental. Everyone sits together so we can learn from each other. We have fostered a ‘can-do’ attitude and encourage experimentation, and new ways to tackle the old.

Is every project worth doing in Revit?
Yes. Every project you do will build experience & understanding into your team. The only projects I hesitate over are one week turnaround tenancy re-fits which are based on 2D CAD files.
On the other hand, it does not matter if the Architect & Structural Engineer are not using Revit or 3D at all. We have developed workflows where we spent a day or 2 modelling the architecture & structure so we could coordinate with it. We believe it is worth the effort.

Can I use the Revit Model for engineering?
Yes, we do. Don’t get too fussed with Autodesk’s “perfect world” linear design, i.e. using Ecotect, then once the heat loads are established, add ductwork, then flows, etc.etc. Its not realistic!
Typically, we model through Concept/Design Development/Tender/Construction.
At each stage, you can develop your Revit model to reflect the level of detailrequired, adding detail & data as the design matures.

What are some lessons learnt?
Each service gets modelled in its own central model.

Larger multi-storey models can be split into separate level models.

2D & 3D CAD models can be linked via ‘generic families’ into a model. This aids with visibility control & ability to cut sections.

Model, don’t just draw. The only 2D elements should be detail lines within families where a symbol is required.

Tag, don’t type. Use Keynotes for consistency.

Use 3D families for 2D symbols, so that data can be scheduled.

Don’t use worksets like layers; they are designed for sharing elements of a project, not controlling visibility/display of elements.

Do use ‘types’ and filter according to type to display correctly. Then you can also schedule according to types for quantities/cost. Tagging can also use this type data.

What about my lack of Content?
I used to believe Revit MEP’s lack of content was a big hold-up in the implementation of the software. Lesson Learnt:  This is not correct. It is a misunderstanding of the Revit modelling process to believe that all content needs to present and correct, before embarking on a project.

How will Revit impact my office and the design process?
Cooperation and collaboration don’t ‘just happen’ between Engineering & Modelling. Foster the relationship so the Engineers can trust the Revit MEP output and can rely on the data.

Revit MEP is not a CAD package. The Revit workflow becomes more interactive, using the gradually evolving Revit Model to inform the Engineers & Architect, in a collaborative way. Feedback is fast, almost instant, rather than waiting for big deadlines. The modeller is able to take more design responsibility, and the engineer works closely with the modeller, handing over design information early, – using rough sketches & discussion to develop the model, and further inform all parties.

The interesting thing is that the Revit Workflow involves TRUST. If your engineering & modelling teams don’t trust each other, trying to model in 3D won’t work that well.

And right now…
After a significant effort, both from the engineers and the modelling team, I feel like our delivery of Revit MEP based documentation is gaining momentum & acceptance as the standard. We have never had to flatten a Revit Model and finish in CAD, which I see as a significant achievement.

The real step forward is when the Revit data is being passed easily back and forth between the engineering & modelling teams, and the model is being developed simultaneously by engineers & modellers. In fact, the real success is when we start forgetting who is the engineer, and who is the modeller, and each team member contributes to the project moving forward.

Revit MEP provides the opportunity & environment for us all to interact internally & externally in such a different way to the past.

The challenge isn’t the modelling, but how we control & develop our data during the design process.

I was recently invited to present a short Implementation strategy for using Revit at an AutoDesk Award ceremony for the Building Construction Authority (BCA) here in Singapore. The award was in recognition of the BCA’s continued efforts in promoting the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) within the Singapore construction industry. This is something that has not been as easy as people first thought but the BCA have continued with their efforts and I think are well on the way to breaking new ground with BIM-based Government submissions.

At Arup in Singapore we have been adopting the process of BIM on all our projects for a fair number of years with many number of successes and only a few doubters (still !!). The support we receive at Arup from our leaders locally, regionally and on a global scale makes it a much easier prospect to implement new ideas and technology but what is clear from my time talking about and discussing BIM with others externally that story is not the norm. So when I get asked to do an implementation presentation I usually try to keep it simple and hopefully funny although I think my humour is lost on most and try and address the main things for people to think about, such as software choice versus project type, training, foresight and planning, support, hardware to name a few. However, the one thing I always stress is the need to start; I still fail to really understand why people do not see and take advantage to this approach to design and documentation.

OK so I am sold, in fact I was sold a long time ago but none the less it still seems blazingly obvious why this  PROCESS of leveraging INFORMATION is the way we all need to work together (forget software for now).  The only reason I can come up with otherwise is risk and responsibility and the way the fear of  it is ingrained into the industry and until we alleviate that mentality its gonna be a long old road for all us but as I say in my presentations, we at Arup are well on that road already.

On return to London in 1998 I built upon my skill in 3D and started looking into the many different software packages that would provide benefit to our projects, including Rhino, Solidworks, Tekla Structures and Studio Max. People started listening to me and understanding the problems that this software could help us identify and rectify before construction.

After a short stint in the Milan office I transferred to Sydney in 2003 where my skill and interest in BIM increased. Being involved in high profile projects such as the Sydney Opera House and Water Cube gave me a reputation as one of the leaders in this field and with this came the opportunity to travel, to give advice on and share my experience in 3D and BIM issues and activities. Recently I have been to the UK (Scotland, Wales, Midlands and London), the US (Washington, New York, San Francisco and LA), Asia (Hong Kong and Singapore) and around Australia, including Melbourne and Brisbane.

This whole BIM drive demonstrates that the industry is changing. In the early 90s I experienced the drawing board to CAD transition. Now that the CAD to 3D and BIM transition is happening we can all influence the direction Arup takes in achieving a better deliverable and service to our clients. With the support of the whole Arup Board there are many facets of BIM that CAD technicians and 3D modellers around the world can get involved in.