Modeling and coordinating building systems in three dimensions: a case study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a case study that investigated a building system coordination process used three-dimensional (3-D) models during design and construction of a complex research facility. We modeled and coordinated a variety of building systems in three dimensions, including architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. We documented the 3-D modeling and coordination process, evaluated existing software tools support of this process, documented the resources required to execute this process, and assessed the impact of the 3-D models on the coordination process. We also identified the design and construction knowledge used to create a coordinated and constructible design. We classified this knowledge in a framework instantiated by examples and concepts found in this study. The framework associates the design and construction constraints that govern the modeling and coordination process with the knowledge domain, the domain context, and the specific modeling and coordination task. The main contributions of the paper are the evaluation of the 3-D coordination process and the identification and classification of building system coordination knowledge.Key words: 3-D modeling, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) coordination, building systems, knowledge framework, product and process modeling, constructability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it