Heesom, D; Boden, P; Hatfield, A; Rooble, S; Andrews, K and Berwari, H (2021) Developing a collaborative HBIM to integrate tangible and intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 39(1), pp. 72-95. ISSN 23984708
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to report on the development of a collaborative Heritage Building Information Modelling (HBIM) of a 19th-century multi-building industrial site in the UK. The buildings were Grade II listed by Historic England for architectural and structural features. The buildings were also a key element of the industrial heritage and folklore of the surrounding area. As the site was due to undergo major renovation work, this project was initiated to develop a HBIM of the site that encapsulated both tangible and intangible heritage data. Design/methodology/approach: The design of the research in this study combined multiple research methods. Building on an analysis of secondary data surrounding HBIM, a community of practice was established to shape the development of an HBIM execution plan (HBEP) and underpin the collaborative BIM development. The tangible HBIM geometry was predominantly developed using a scan to BIM methodology, whereas intangible heritage data were undertaken using unstructured interviews and a focus group used to inform the presentation approach of the HBIM data. Findings: The project produced a collaboratively generated multi-building HBIM. The study identified the need for a dedicated HBEP that varies from prevailing BIM execution plans on construction projects. Tangible geometry of the buildings was modelled to LOD3 of the Historic England guidelines. Notably, the work identified the fluid nature of intangible data and the need to include this in an HBIM to fully support design, construction and operation of the building after renovation. A methodology was implemented to categorise intangible heritage data within a BIM context and an approach to interrogate these data from within existing BIM software tools. Originality/Value: The paper has presented an approach to the development of HBIM for large sites containing multiple buildings/assets. The framework implemented for an HBEP can be reproduced by future researchers and practitioners wishing to undertake similar projects. The method for identifying and categorising intangible heritage information through the developed level of intangible cultural heritage was presented as new knowledge. The development of HBIM to bring together tangible and intangible data has the potential to provide a model for future work in the field and augment existing BIM data sets used during the asset lifecycle.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; BIM; BIM execution plan; cultural; heritage; intangible; tangible |
| Index terms: | execution plan, secondary data, information modelling, England, geometry, renovation, lifecycle, interview, focus group, construction project, methodology, heritage building, practitioner |
| Subjects: | project delivery, practitioner, construction type, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, project controls, Geography, production management, digital design, renovation and retrofit, research methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Time Control, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here