Drafting, Modelling & Scan-to-BIM

1. We identify and organise field work requirements around safety and site-specific considerations.
2. We mobilise our field team to capture your data.
3. Your survey data is taken back to the office for processing.
4. We draft and/or model according to the defined scope and complete post-authoring QA processes.
5. We deliver your data.

It depends. Every project is unique with many variables when it comes to modelling. The primary factors to consider are:

* Required output and format
* Do you need a parametric 3D Object model (e.g. Revit) or “dumb” 3D element modelling, or 2D vector modelling?
* Is a feature survey required? Or plans, elevations, sections, heatmaps or something else?
* Of your requested output what features and level of detail do you need?
* What degree of accuracy or tolerance is required?
* What are the site conditions? Is the building modern or heritage? Is it artchitecturally complex with lots of embellishments and ornate features – or uniform and basic? Is the site occupied with people and/or furnishings, false floors, ceilings and boxing – or is it stripped out, empty and clear of items and furnishings?

Whatever your project demands, AAM have developed a modelling checklist to streamline the process and hone in on our clients’ requirements and to remove any ambiguity. We clearly define scope and expectations so we can deliver on them.

The main constraint to modelling is typically the availability of data. Until we have the processed survey data in our hands, we are unable to progress

Additionally, in some instances we may require further clarification from you in terms of model coordination or alternative contributing information. 

In a modelling context, accuracy is relative to the point cloud or input survey data. We can model exact to the point cloud, albeit limited by the relative spread/splash/noise of hte data. Typically we model to the most defined line, on average this is within +/-5mm. 

Please note that practical considerations should be taken into account. It is rare that real world elements like walls, floors and ceilings are uniform and regular. These will bend and bow, deflecting over time or subject to wear and tear. While these aspects can be modelled precisely it is impractical because it is time-consuming and expensive.

In a surveying context, Level of Detail only really addresses geometric – graphical – detail, not informational, which is limited to design. There is no specific global standard for defining LOD, so AAM have developed our own interpretation to prescribe it for survey-based modelling; a simplified amalgamation of the BIM Forum and NBS LOD standards, as two of the most widely utilised in design. Our LOD definitions have four incremental tiers – 100, 200, 300 and 400 – broken down into individual key element categories, for example; walls, floors, ceilings, etc.

Utilising our modelling checklist and a browser-based graphical model equivalent we have developed to compliment it, clients gain a better understanding of notional outputs. Understanding what information is relevant to their needs and what detail or tolerances are appropriate ensures a relevant and cost-effective solution

Anything and everything!

Yes, but this is constrained by the authoring software and deliverable format, as these can show different things. You should consider what you need to show and how, before determining the deliverables.

Yes if your software permits. Materials can be assigned directly to objects. If you want something simple and are working in 2D, materials can be assigned annotatively.

This depends on the size and scale of your project and the information required for extraction. We can assign one  team or several to meet your deadline. Tell us your required timeline in your initial brief/RFP and we will work out a suitable solution.

We natively author in software such as Autodesk AutoCAD, Civil3D, Revit, Bentley’s Micostation and R.M. & Associates’ Rhinoceros 3D. We can deliver in standard formats that include DWG, DGN, RVT, 3DM and IFC.

We can export into other formats not listed above. If your require a different format, let us know and we will work something out.

• XYZ
• PTS/PTX
• E57
• LAS/LAZ
• VPC
• POD
• IMP
• RCS/RCP

No. A model and a point cloud are natively two different formats and cannot be provided as a single file. Point clouds and models can however be loaded side-by-side within the model’s respective authoring software.

Some viewer packages like Autodesk’s Navisworks allow you to visualise both sets of information outside of the native authoring software. AAM’s Geocirrus web-based platform also allows for this.

Yes. Bespoke QA checklists are defined for each modelling platform and deliverable item. These address the key fetaures of each respective output in what aspects affect the quality of the output. We mandate completed QA checklists which are peer-reviewed by individuals who are not the main project author. If data has been misinterpreted, or if elements are misplaced or missing, this will be captured and reported within the QA process and amended prior to delivery.

Clash detection is possible but only realistically applicable to 3D object modelling. We use Autodesk’s Navisworks platform with set search and clash rule sets in place to semi-automate the process.

Given the nature of survey, clashes may be inherent between certain objects where physical interaction is unknown, for example structural elements obstructed by architectural boxing. All overlapping objects and erroneous clashes will be addressed within our standard QA processes, if not otherwise avoided in the first instance of authoring.

Yes, IFCs can be provided, if appropriate to the deliverable output.

Yes, though in the instance of Revit models specifically, it is advised that this is defined prior to model commencement, else there is a risk this will compromise the model fidelity and cause subsequent rework.

Model content is constrained by the coverage and quality of the input survey data because authoring is based on this. If elements are missing, we will advise you through admission of the survey limitations and limited capture at time of survey, for example we are unable to access a locked room or above a false ceiling.

If the level of detail does not meet your expectations this may be due to data quality. If insufficient data was captured during the survey process, we cannot
 fully define an element’s geometry in part or whole confidence. Where these limitations are present – depending on model format – annotations of these issues will be either displayed through documentation or embedded within element metadata, with set filtered views and schedules to highlight to a client in an instance the elements of uncertainty.

We will give you the format year and version that you request. If nothing is specified, we will suggest an output during the proposal stage so you can approve prior to accepting. While format and year are flexible, it is advised that these are determined before modelling begins, else changes may be subject to additional fees for later conversion.

ISO 19650 is a set of standards associated to BIM principles and processes, mostly oriented towards design. There are national annexes to the main parts which are country-specific and will vary from one place to the next.

In terms of survey, direct application of the standards is limited, though we can conform to relevant requirements if they are determined by an issued project BIM Execution Plan (BEP).

It is recognised that where projects are following BIM methodologies and processes as prescribed by ISO 19650, there is a need for establishing existing asset information in supporting development of a project brief, as well as an informed Asset Information Model, or as-built, at the end of a project. AAM supports both these survey activities.

Typical requirements that may be relevant to us as a survey company in conforming to a project BEP, may be in the delivery of information (such as through a Common Data Environment (CDE) platform) or of the content therein of the delivered information. Aspects such as classification, file and object naming, etc. bear the most significance, and are wholly welcomed by AAM.
As default, models issued by AAM’s BIM team follow File and Object naming convention as prescribed by the British Annex of the ISO 19650 Series (BS EN), given the current Australian Annex does not make direct specification on this. Uniclass2015 classification is further embedded within our Revit deliverables to support our clients in remaining compliant to the standard’s requirements for object classification.

At present, this is not a service we provide. This will typically be undertaken by the Project Design Lead or contracted supporting BIM Consultant. AAM are however happy to engage with the respective appointed author in developing the project BEP to document survey inputs and requirements.

This is asset information which is generally not accessible or evident through survey works. COBie information is determined at the point of design and embedded within model elements as appropriate.

This is asset information which is generally not accessible or evident through survey works. COBie information will be determined at point of design and embedded within model elements as appropriate.

We are able to support in the provision of COBie parameters within model elements of Revit deliverables, though the inherent nature of the information will require assignment by the appointed design specialist for valid documentation.