Conflict Impact Assessment between Objects in a BIM System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflict Impact Assessment between Objects in a BIM System Yi-Chun Lin, Shin-Hsun Chou, I-Chen Wu1 Pages 337-344 (2013 Proceedings of the 30th ISARC, Montréal, Canada, ISBN 978-1-62993-294-1, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Mechanical/Electrical/Piping (MEP) systems, due to their complexity and diversity, are the most intricate part of building construction. This being the case, Combined Services Drawings (CSD) and Structure, Electric and Mechanic(SEM) drawings can ensure that all coordination issues are resolved prior to construction. Construction companies attempt to apply Building Information Modeling (BIM) to manage and integrate engineering information and solutions efficiently into the CSD and SEM processes to enhance the accuracy of design and the efficiency of review. There are several powerful commercial tools, such as Bentley Navigator, Autodesk Navisworks, and Tekla BIMsight, that can review the integrated BIM model and detect conflicts in systems, and allow planners to correct the conflict issues one at a time. However, for increasing numbers of conflicts, this may be inefficient, and requires them to be arranged in a list according to impact and seriousness before solving them. For this reason, this research implements a module for conflict impact assessment based on rule-based reasoning to classify and weigh conflict impact and seriousness, and highlight the conflicted objects in the BIM system in different colors depending on their conflict type and seriousness during the analysis. This system not only detects and lists possible conflicts and errors, but also sorts them according to the severity of impact and conflict type. Planners can effectively modify the BIM models according to these conflicts as they are listed and visualized in the BIM system. If these conflicts, such as pipeline interference and problems of insufficient space, can be avoided in the early stages of planning, it facilitates the achievement of project objectives in quality, scheduling, and cost. Keywords: BIM, CSD, SEM, Conflict Detection, Impact Assessment DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2013/0037 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".