Wayfinding and Building Information Modeling
by Mark Denton on May 4th, 2011
The principles of Building Information Modeling (BIM) are now being employed on almost all large, complex building construction and renovation projects, which means that the question of how BIM relates to the planning and design of wayfinding programs is coming up with increasing frequency these days.
Most wayfinding specialists, however, are still wrestling with the idea of what is practical, or even desirable, when it comes to incorporating wayfinding information into BIM. Because of this, we decided that it might be useful to talk briefly about what we see as the key limitations, and potential strengths, of BIM as it relates to wayfinding, and invite others to share their thoughts.
The Limitations
Design Constraints
Chief among the reasons for the slow implementation of BIM by wayfinding and environmental graphic design consultants are the design limitations of CAD-based BIM tools like Revit. While signage does have architectural characteristics (materials, mounting methods, support structures, etc.), it also has graphic design aspects, such as typography, symbols, and sometimes even placed imagery.
And CAD tools don’t even come close to providing the advanced typographic and layout capabilities offered by the software currently used by most designers. For this reason, designers still strongly prefer to use applications like Adobe Illustrator for the development and documentation of actual signage elements, and then export drawings to CAD files for incorporation into project bid documents and/or Revit as appropriate.
Database Limitations
In addition to necessitating the ability to fine-tune the design, the content-heavy nature of building signage also creates a need for message schedules that can be easily sorted and filtered. While Revit does include database functions, it doesn’t provide as much power or flexibility as applications like FileMaker Pro, which allows designers to create highly customized message schedules and then quickly sort and output the data to meet the needs of everyone from proofreaders to fabricators.
The Overkill Factor
When it comes to simple sign types, like room identification elements, placing them using Revit means a lot more work with very little additional benefit. While larger or more complex signage elements may involve other building systems (particularly power), the small signs that make up the bulk of a building’s signage program are fairly repetitive and self-contained. This means that taking the substantial amount of extra time required to place them in three dimensions, as opposed to just showing them as dots on a plan, adds little value to the documentation.
Learning Curve and Costs
Compounding the above factors are issues related to the resources required to get up and running on a BIM system like Revit. While most wayfinding/EGD firms now have at least one person who is well versed in AutoCAD, and a couple of dedicated CAD workstations, it still isn’t fully integrated into the daily workflow. That means that extensive use of BIM principles on more projects will require additional staff training and the purchase of additional Revit licenses.
There are also costly hardware issues, since most firms focused on wayfinding strategy and design still work primarily in a Mac environment, and Revit is a PC-only application.
The Benefits
In addition to the obvious convenience of integrating wayfinding components into the overall project documentation, there are some other promising benefits that offer hints of how BIM can actually benefit the practice of environmental graphic design.
Object Tracking
While the actual design and documentation of individual sign types in the BIM/Revit environment is unlikely to become commonplace anytime soon, the documentation of locations and messages is much easier to envision, particularly if some of the shortcomings mentioned above can be addressed.
BIM is already being used to track items such as fixtures, doors, etc., and tracking signage components is a natural extension of this. And three-dimensional sign locations, while being time consuming to document, do help to ensure that this information is available to all of the consultants and tradespeople involved with a project, which can help to limit last-minute installation issues.
And while Revit’s database capabilities are currently less robust than a standalone database application like Filemaker Pro, it does have some of these capabilities built in, and it is easy to see some benefit in creating an integrated database if these were expanded.
3D Presentations
While BIM does not by definition have to include three-dimensional documentation, it does seem to be the norm, particularly when Revit is the tool being used. And Revit backgrounds have proven to be a great tool for creating compelling presentations of wayfinding concepts, allowing us to show SketchUp models of signage elements applied to three-dimensional renderings of the latest project architecture.
Understandable Building Documents
Clearer documents are another benefit of the three-dimensional nature of most BIM projects. Because signage elements are mounted in a variety of different locations and at varying heights (including from ceilings) depending on sign type, it is important for designers to understand the surrounding architectural conditions when specifying locations and mounting methods.
While this information is available in traditional CAD drawings, it is often subject to misinterpretation, and the three-dimensional nature of Revit documentation does help to clarify these conditions and minimize the need for last-minute changes during the installation process.
The Future
We are continuing to expand the way we incorporate BIM principles into our own projects. This includes working with architects to find ways to balance the team’s desire to have everything documented in Revit with what is practical from a budget and schedule standpoint, and also conducting independent research into ways that BIM can be used to meet the unique needs of wayfinding system documentation and management.
At the moment, our belief is that BIM and wayfinding will primarily find compatibility on very large institutional projects, but with further enhancements to BIM software tools there is the potential for this to expand to a wider spectrum of project sizes and types.
Does anyone else have different attitudes about, or approaches to, integrating wayfinding and BIM? And are there other tools in the works that could impact this process, such as a wayfinding-specific Revit extension?
Please share your thoughts in the comments.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Nice to see an article on this topic, though I think it’s quite a shallow investigation. Revit alone does not equal BIM for starters.
Sketchup too, has a world of similar features.
I can’t speak for Revit entirely (though I’ve had some experience with it) but it’s a shame other tools were not discussed that DO manage sign design & scheduling within a BIM context. ArchiCAD is brilliant with this sort of thing, and yes, it works wonderfully with typography, images, textures etc. and schedules are dynamic – so changes to the type of sign, fixings, locations, elevations etc are all real time – and you can view perspectives in 3D – real time too
Designing within a data-rich 3D context is normal for a lot of folk now, and not very difficult to learn.
It really is very easy to sit around a table with your clients and walk through the site, presenting different design options in a 3D model with accurate textures and sun shadowing. Compared to story boards, plans & elevations (which can also be produce with a few mouse clicks in a BIM application BTW ).
I suggest take a little time to explore what BIM is about. I used to to spend hours in Adobe land, working in 2D on scaled plans & elevations of buildings. Now I spend my time with clients exploring the actual buildings, and after all, isn’t that what we are employed to do…?
May 13th, 2011 at 8:57 am
And another thing… or two.
ArchiCAD & Sketch up are both cross platform compatible – yes, work on Mac & PC.
And, models exported in IFC format can be used across various software.
And, last I placed a sign in ArchiCad it went something like this… select object / enter content / place object. Done.
Not “taking the substantial amount of extra time required to place them in three dimensions” as obviously it’s already in 3D..with the database attached.
I think ’nuff said
May 17th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Hey Murray. Thanks for the comments.
Agreed that Revit and BIM aren’t the same thing. I think I referred to Revit as a BIM tool early in the post and then stopped making that distinction. The reason that the discussion is so Revit-heavy is because, as an Autodesk poduct, Revit (along with, increasingly, Autodesk Navisworks) seems to be the default BIM app in the North American A/E community.
ArchiCAD is a tool that we have experimented with in the past, but it just hasn’t caught on here in the US, and one of the challenges with these large projects is that architects and/or project managers want everyone to use the same system.
Good point about Sketchup. We use it extensively, and I mention its capabilities as one of the benefits of working in a BIM environment.
Thanks again for reading, and for contributing to the discussion.
September 13th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
fantastic post!
we have cut hundreds of CD hours from a current $1.2B medical facility by using Revit for automated location plans and messaging. it has been incredibly beneficial to our design process to reroute those hours toward strong SD and DD phases.
it is a system that will evolve, but we currently use the following ‘wares for larger projects:
1) AI or Corel for graphic design, type and image composition (Corel seems to be consistently better for import into CAD programs)
2) 3D Studio Max (also made by Autodesk) for form studies and visualization – 3DS Max is much more robust and is more compatible with BIM process than other 3D programs that we have tried, however the learning curve and cost per seat is a little daunting for some. Revit can also X-reference native 3DS Max (no need to import), which architects and interior designers love because they can see updates to key pieces in real time.
3) Revit (provided the project is a BIM project) for partially automated location and messaging, as well as pulling plans, sections, elevations and perspectives as needs (which can be brought losslessly back into 3DS Max for iterative visualization without loss of information).
4) InDesign or Corel for assembly and deliverable packaging.
We are honing the process, but I hope that this helps.
September 20th, 2011 at 2:08 am
A topical post. We are currently endeavouring to integrate the wayfinding and environmental graphic design components of a project into the architectural workflow.
With Revit as the architectural app of choice in the studio, the inclusion of signage and graphic elements is necessary. While there are limitations with Revit, as noted by others, the upside is the integration with the architectural design. The benefit is that with signage included in the Revit model, should an architect decide to move a wall or door that has a sign on it, then it will be flagged and can be dealt with right then, not later on (like once the wall is built).
Additionally, the capacity to extract schedules from the Revit model really reduces time as well as errors.
Perhaps the biggest change, is that the architects are now aware of signage and considering it when designing. And that can only be good for delivering a better result.