Chen, K; Lu, W; Wang, H; Niu, Y and Huang, G G (2017) Naming objects in BIM: A convention and a semiautomatic approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(7): 06017001, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A consistent and easily recognizable name is the primary identifier of an object in building information modeling (BIM). Existing naming conventions vary significantly and require extensive manual work that is often tedious and error-prone. This study (1) develops a standardized naming convention for BIM objects and (2) devises a semiautomatic naming approach for saving manual work. In the proposed naming convention, each segment is included by referencing BIM standards with a consideration of BIM users' actual needs, and the semiautomatic approach is formalized for both completed and ongoing BIM models. Validated by a control experiment and feedback from the project manager and BIM engineers of a real-life project, this research can be immediately applied to realize standardized BIM object names. This study also generates practical implications for BIM-based project management, where standardized BIM object names are required for supporting object identification and information incorporation throughout a project lifecycle.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modeling; data interoperability; information technologies; naming convention |
| Index terms: | project management, building information modelling, project manager, project lifecycle, data interoperability, engineer, information technology, experiment |
| Subjects: | computing systems, project completion, profession, data collection methods, information systems, project management theory and practice, data exchange |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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