The Machine Learning Roadmap for ClashMEP

15May17

by Brett Young

There’s a lot of hype around many of the current technology trends. At BuildingSP, we want to be sure that we stay above the hype when we’re talking about our technology roadmap. As we talk about our product with customers, we want to make sure that they understand our vision for future development. This is especially important because ClashMEP, our real-time clash detection solution, is priced using a subscription model where current users get the benefit of future upgrades. This post describes our thinking and near-term approach to development around clash management and machine learning. By describing it here, our current and future customers can understand future capabilities and how we are going to achieve them, cutting through the hype.

BuildingSP’s development roadmap is going to solve a big problem in the practice of clash detection: coordination meetings. We see three problems with the vast majority of clash coordination meetings.

1.    There is too much manual work that is required to prepare for a meeting. This includes combining files, reviewing clashes, comparing current clash results to previous clash results, and creating issue logs.

2.    There’s significant wasted time in coordination meetings. Coordination meetings are expensive meetings with many highly skilled, highly paid staff members participating. If you’re reviewing clashes in between two firms, the other firm at the meeting isn’t involved and is wasting time.

3.    The meetings are structured incorrectly. Coordination meetings for clash usually follow a summary of a series of clash tests from traditional clash detection software packages. For example, you’ll look at all the plumbing clashes with electrical, followed by all the plumbing clashes with fire sprinklers. This structure is illogical because it lacks focus and is pedantic.

BuildingSP will change clash coordination meetings by introducing the concept of clash prioritization. This is important because it will allow teams to focus on these high-priority issues during meetings without wasting effort sifting through unimportant clashes. At BuildingSP, we believe that the importance of clashes follows a normal distribution, as described by this graph:

On the left-hand side of the chart, you have clashes that are of low importance and that can be ignored. In the middle are the majority of clashes. These clashes are important, but are also fairly easy to correct. We characterize these as “procedural” clashes. They typically only involve one moving system type, don’t involve any cost issues, and don’t require design changes. The problem with current practice is that we often struggle to identify the clashes that are most important. These are the clashes on the upper end of the normal distribution. These clashes are complicated, involve cost issues, impact the functionality of the systems, and require meetings.

To prioritize clashes, BuildingSP is using three approaches – clash heuristics, computational BIM enabled by ClashMEP, and machine learning – all of which contribute to a clash priority “score.” We’ll tackle each of these elements as we describe how we score the priority of a clash.

Clash Heuristics

To start, let’s describe heuristics. Here’s a definition of heuristic:

heuristic technique (/hjᵿˈrɪstᵻk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, “find” or “discover”), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals.

When talking about a heuristic technique for clash prioritization, we simply mimic our intuition and experience to create a starting framework. For example, we know that a clash between a duct and piece of the structure of a building is a high-priority clash because the steel can’t be easily modified, ducts are a high-value system, and ducts take up a lot of building volume, which means that other systems are likely to be impacted. In a heuristic way, this clash would have a high score. The opposite of this would be a clash between two plumbing parts, such as a coupling on a pipe. The fact that they are clashing is unimportant and more than likely the result of an error in the plumbing part family. Therefore, this clash would have a low heuristic score. We can use our expertise to create rules and methods around all of our intuitive beliefs about clash priorities to come up with a scoring method that may not be optimal or perfect, but is somewhat reasonable.

Computational BIM

To the heuristic component, we add some computational BIM techniques that are enabled by ClashMEP. ClashMEP is integrated into the modeling environment, rather than as a separate platform. This means that ClashMEP has access to more metadata and information than a clash detection platform that relies on exported or uploaded files. One example of a computational BIM technique for scoring clash prioritization is the measurement of congestion. If a clash happens in an area of the building that is highly congested, it’s also likely to be high priority because congestion means it will be hard to fix. Using computational BIM approaches, we can measure the congestion around a clash in order to further refine our clash priority score. Congestion is one of only several computational BIM approaches we’re using at BuildingSP to inform our clash priorities.

Advertisements


No Responses Yet to “The Machine Learning Roadmap for ClashMEP”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: