The state of practice within structural engineering

Building information modeling—commonly referred to as BIM—is receiving some much-deserved attention recently. If you have not heard of the trend or do not understand the concept, rest assured; you are not alone, and you still have time to catch up. To determine the awareness, understanding, and use of BIM within the structural engineering industry, the editors of Structural Engineer independently surveyed subscribers to reveal what is "the state of practice" within the profession. In doing so, we defined terms, documented the use and extent of BIM, identified benefits and challenges, and collected opinions.

The survey

The online survey included 35 questions and was open to Structural Engineer subscribers during the first two weeks of May 2006. The results presented here are based on 1,266 completed surveys.

The survey used "skip logic," therefore, how respondents answered the questions determined their progression through the survey. In other words, a "yes" response on some questions led to a different path of questions than a "no" response. Therefore, even though 1,266 response records were analyzed, several questions drew from a smaller pool of respondents.

Definitions

To comprehend the awareness, understanding, and use of BIM within the structural engineering industry, we started with the basics. The first few questions of the survey dealt with terms and established definitions.

As you can see from Figure 1, only 29 percent of structural engineers are aware of the term building information modeling, and fewer are familiar with virtual building and e-construction. Remarkably, the majority of the respondents (64 percent) are not familiar with any of these terms.

Respondents who were not familiar with any of the technology terms presented skipped to the demographics questions at the end of the survey. Therefore, the remaining 36 percent (or 450 respondents) who continued with the survey were familiar with one or more of these terms. These 450 respondents are the core group of this study.

Next, we queried how people defined building information modeling in their own words, so that we could ascertain the depth of structural engineers’ understanding of the term BIM. The spectrum of responses includes the following:

• A computer modeling program
• The different trades each make a 3-D model of their work before the job is built, then the models are combined to make sure they all work together
• To model the operation lifecycle costs of building systems
• Collaboration between parties in the chain of delivery from architect to contractor and then owner. The same basic 3-D or 4-D model is used by all and information is added to it at each step.

After the respondents defined BIM in their own words, they were asked to choose the best definition from a list of possibilities. As is evident from Figure 2, the majority of the respondents define BIM as "using 3-D, intelligent, computable data for project collaboration."

Clearly, there are a variety of definitions of BIM, and currently it is defined differently depending upon who is providing the definition. Experts expect that this array of definitions will converge as the industry discusses and debates the meaning of BIM, but for now, the simple definition is often subject to debate.

Recognizing the potential for a full spectrum of BIM definitions—and respecting that structural engineers have been creating computable, 3-D data for analysis and design for decades—we specified a definition of BIM to ensure more accurate results. Therefore, for the remainder of the survey, respondents based their answers to survey questions on the following definition for BIM: The combination of creating an intelligent and computable 3-D data set and sharing the data among multiple disciplines within the building design and/or construction team in order to improve collaboration.

Furthermore, for the purposes of this study, survey takers were told, "Building information modeling is not defined by simply creating a 3-D data set for internal analysis."

This clarification was important to differentiate the process of creating 3-D data for internal analysis—which has been commonplace within the structural engineering industry for many years—from BIM. The specified definition reinforces BIM as a process, not just a data set.

Use and extent

Based on a common definition, the use and extent of BIM among the 450 respondents who are familiar with the technology terms were revealed.

Analysis shows that BIM has not been used by the majority (70 percent) of these respondents’ firms or organizations. Twenty-three percent of these respondents’ firms have used BIM, and 7 percent don’t know if it has been used or not. Projecting all of these findings to the entire industry—based on all 1,266 survey responses—Structural Engineer estimates that 8 percent of structural engineering firms or organizations have used BIM on a project.

Of the respondents whose firms have used BIM on projects, the highest percentage of use occurs in architecture/ engineering (A/E) firms. Seventeen percent of respondents whose firms used BIM work for A/E firms, 11 percent work for design-build companies, 9 percent work for full service consulting firms, and 9 percent work for structural consulting firms.

Wanting to understand why so many respondents’ firms don’t use BIM, our research determined that most firms have not had the opportunity to use BIM. Refer to Figure 3 for the breakdown of reasons firms don’t use BIM. "Other" reasons include "BIM is not required by client," "Our projects are too small," and "BIM is too expensive," among others.

The 4 percent of respondents (14 people) who chose, "Firm has decided not to implement BIM for specific reasons," were considered an important pool of respondents, since they could offer insight on why some firm leaders have decided not to implement BIM. Out of 11 possibilities, our results show that the following are the primary reasons firm leaders are not implementing BIM:

• The benefits do not outweigh the costs to implement it
• BIM does not offer enough of a financial gain to warrant its use
• Firm lacks the capital to invest in getting started with hardware and software
• The benefits are not tangible enough to warrant its use

Other respondents indicated a reluctance to initiate new workflows, to change client communication, or to train staff.

It is significant to note that no respondents chose the following reasons for deciding not to use BIM:

• BIM is too risky from a liability standpoint to warrant its use, or
• BIM is just a short-term trend, not the way of the future

Further analysis focused on those respondents who have personal experience with BIM, which accounts for 20 percent (88 respondents) of the core group of 450 respondents. Again, projecting this finding to the entire industry, Structural Engineer estimates that about 7 percent of structural engineers have used BIM on a project.

Most structural engineers in this elite pool are located in California, Texas, or Colorado; have the job title of principal or senior design engineer; and have 16 to 20 years of experience in the profession.

BIM users collaborate with a wide-range of professionals, especially other consultants (58 percent), in addition to clients (39 percent), fabricators (35 percent), and contractors (31 percent).

An important finding is what inspired this group to use BIM. The majority (64 percent) indicated that using BIM was an internal decision, rather than a client or owner requirement. However, a fair number of respondents implemented it because of an external requirement by a client or by a project owner. Data also revealed that several respondents leveraged BIM to provide additional services to their clients or to fabricators; see Figure 4.

Richard Oehmcke, S.E., a principal at PCS Structural Solutions in Seattle, shared how his firm broached BIM and what it learned from its investigation when he participated in the Structural Engineer’s Roundtable "Building Information Modeling: Status and Concerns" (see August 2006 issue): "We organized an in-house group to evaluate BIM. We had a managers, engineers, and drafters together in the group. Through our research, we were able to learn enough to ask questions of our clients about their involvement in BIM. What we learned was surprising. It really didn’t make any difference what size the firm was or what kind of work they did. Some [of our clients] are just diving into it—they’ve gone 100 percent to BIM. Others are just not the least bit interested in getting started right now. They want to wait and see where it develops and goes. There’s an incredible spectrum. As a structural consultant...we need to be able to come in and support our clients at whatever level is expected."

On what types of projects do structural engineers use BIM? Research shows they are using it in nearly every sector of construction in which structural engineers practice, including low- and mid-rise buildings and industrial projects. However, the most common types of projects on which structural engineers are using BIM include high-rise buildings, museum/performing arts centers, stadiums, and medical facilities. If you consider that these types of projects are very complex—with large numbers of designers and contractors requiring a tremendous need for collaboration—then this data is not at all surprising.

Douglas Fitzpatrick, P.E., LEED AP, managing member of Fitzpatrick Engineering Group commented on this subject at the Roundtable, "I don’t know how you’d design and build a medical facility today without using BIM. The need for collaboration among the disciplines is tremendous."

Further investigating the extent to which structural engineers are using BIM, we delved into the ability of structural engineers to offer clients additional services with BIM. Figure 5 shows that BIM users offer clients third party integration consulting, shop drawing production, construction management services, and more.

Benefits and challenges

The survey data further revealed helpful information about the benefits that BIM users observe. Seventy-seven percent of respondents who have used BIM on a project report that they have realized benefits, including the following: schedule/workflow benefits (59 percent), benefits to internal production costs (36 percent), and overall project cost benefits (29 percent).

They appreciate most BIM’s ability to help them do the following:

• coordinate with other disciplines and the contractor, which leads to reduced construction management issues, especially a decrease in the contractor’s request-for-information (RFI) submittals;
• produce consistent documentation, which can leverage real-time availability of up-to-date information; and
• see conflict or potential problems early in the design process, which leads to a significant improvement in design collaboration

Other reported benefits include improved ability to help owners or clients visualize designs; increased client satisfaction; and improved internal efficiency.

The president of the Design Build Institute of America, Walker Lee Evey, is enthusiastic about the benefits of BIM. Evey said, "The fundamental advantage of BIM is its ability to integrate a team. BIM breaks down silos of the A, E, C, and O. You are all on the same design team, and you must consider all needs."

Since many factors are involved in implementing new work processes for structural engineers, respondents whose firms or organizations have used BIM rated how challenging various tasks were when they implemented the process using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being unchallenging and 5 being challenging.

Fifty percent of respondents rated training staff as challenging when getting started with BIM. Interestingly, only 19 percent of respondents rated purchasing software as challenging, indicating that it is a much easier hurdle to overcome than training for most firms. The rated tasks are below, along with the percentage of respondents who rated the task as challenging:

• Training staff on new process/workflow (50%)
• Training staff on new software/technology (47%)
• Effectively implementing the new process/workflow (46%)
• Establishing the new process/workflow and defining expectations with your client (26%)
• Understanding BIM enough to implement it (31%)
• Understanding and mitigating liability (21%)
• Purchasing software/technology (20%)
• Realizing the value from a financial perspective (19%)

In fact, while speaking at the recent "Building Information Modeling: An Introduction for Practicing Structural Engineers" seminar in Chicago, Walter P Moore’s Principal and Chief Information Officer Jim Jacobi, P.E., shared that he believes that "for every dollar that you will spend on software, you will spend two to three dollars on implementing the process and training your staff."

Opinions

Another goal for this study was to understand structural engineers’ perceptions about BIM. For example, we asked the core pool of 450 respondents who were familiar with the term building information modeling (but who had not necessarily used it), if BIM is beneficial. Figure 6 reveals that respondents overwhelmingly believe that benefits result from using BIM (68 percent), despite the fact that the majority of them have not used BIM on a project.

When asked to estimate the percentage of firms currently using BIM on any of their projects, the majority (39 percent) of respondents indicated that they believe the amount to be fewer than 5 percent; see Figure 7. However, Structural Engineer estimates that 8 percent of structural engineering firms or organizations have used BIM on a project—an estimate with which 31 percent of respondents agree. Furthermore, 29 percent of respondents believe that BIM is currently being used by 11 to 50 percent of firms. Therefore, this analysis reveals that misconceptions abound about the extent to which BIM is being used.

Many structural engineers who haven’t started to use BIM may be wondering when it will become mainstream, so that they can gauge when to adopt the process at their firms. Data shows that most respondents opine that it will be 5 to 10 years before 50 percent of the AEC industry uses BIM on a regular basis; see Figure 8.

Speculation about when 90 percent of the AEC industry will use BIM on a regular basis was less definitive (see Figure 9), but most respondents guessed it would happen within 10 to 15 years.

Interesting finds

Looking at the accumulation of data generated from this survey, several findings stand out and deserve comment. First, it is surprising that nearly two-thirds of respondents are unfamiliar with the term building information modeling.

Perhaps it is the familiarity of the terminology that is lacking within the structural engineering profession, rather than a deficiency of knowledge regarding the process. After all, structural engineers have been creating and sharing 3-D computable data for decades without referring to the process as BIM. It has only been recently that conventional software products have enabled the data-centric process to be adopted more easily, and perhaps the software vendors coined the term building information modeling.

Also of interest is the fact that of the one-third of respondents who are familiar with the term, the majority (63 percent) defined BIM as "using 3-D, intelligent, computable data for project collaboration"—which is the definition most consistent with the one Structural Engineer specified for this survey. This shows that the industry is converging on a standard definition.

Additionally, and this is significant, most of the respondents (68 percent) that were familiar with the term building information modeling—regardless of whether they have used BIM on a project or not—believe that benefits result from using BIM.

Another key finding is that, of those who have used BIM on a project, the decision to do so was an internal one (64 percent), rather than a requirement from the outside. This indicates that firms that are choosing to use BIM are doing so as a strategic, conscience decision, rather than being forced into it.

Also worth noting is that Structural Engineer estimates that 8 percent of firms are using BIM, but the majority of respondents (39 percent) believe that the percentage of firms currently using BIM is fewer than 5 percent. Perhaps BIM use is more prevalent than most would guess.

The most telling finding is that the majority of the respondents (43 percent) expect that half of the industry will be using BIM on a regular basis 5 to 10 years from now. This forecast begs the questions: Will the industry’s adoption of the BIM process grow steadily during the next decade? Or will the growth be exponential within a narrow period of time? Furthermore, such expectations should lead structural engineers to ask themselves how their firm will engage in the progression, if at all. Structural Engineer projects the rate of BIM adoption in the graph below.

Nicholas Docous, AIA, LEED, a principal at Lionakis Beaumont Design Group Inc. in Sacramento, Calif., said at the Structural Engineer BIM Roundtable that he believes that "BIM is really and truly a paradigm shift in terms of how we are going to do projects in the future. BIM allows architects and engineers to think in three dimensions and put things together relationally. When people realize that, then they’ll get on the wagon and they’ll get on quickly. If they’re not quick to get on this, then they’re going to miss out on opportunities."

Conclusion

Charles H. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E., chairman of Charles H. Thornton & Company LLC and founding principal of the Thornton-Tomasetti Group, is chairing the Structural Engineers Buildings Conference, which will include sessions about BIM during the Nov. 29-30 event in Washington, D.C. Thornton recently said, "The technological changes in the virtual building process—including the improved interoperability of 3-D modeling and the move toward the more seamless nature of design-build projects—presents structural engineers with a unique opportunity to assume a leadership role in the future of the industry."

In summary, BIM—when it is understood—is perceived as beneficial and is expected to be adopted relatively soon. The BIM ideology could offer great promise for those structural engineering firms that choose to participate.

Jennifer Goupil, P.E., is the editor of Structural Engineer magazine. Prior to joining the magazine in 2002, she practiced structural engineering at Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle; Jirsa Hedrick & Associates in Denver; and Skidmore Owings Merrill LLP in Chicago. She earned a master’s of civil engineering from Cornell University and a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. She can be reached at 1-206-547-1548 or via e-mail at editor@gostructural.com.

Sidebar: Who responded?

Considering demographic information about who responded to the Structural Engineer BIM survey will enable you to decipher the results most accurately.

Respondents work in every state in the nation. The highest numbers of respondents are from California (10 percent), Texas (8 percent), Florida (6 percent), and New York (6 percent). Other states with high response rates include Illinois (5 percent) and Pennsylvania (5 percent).

The majority of participants practice in the private sector (81 percent) versus the public sector (19 percent).

Respondents most commonly describe their employer as either a structural engineering consulting firm (27 percent) or a full-service consulting firm (25 percent)—which was defined in the survey as a firm that includes many disciplines such as architecture, engineering, interior design, planning, and/or land surveying. Other types of employers with a high response rate include government (11 percent) and engineering/architecture (E/A) firms (8 percent).

The respondents have considerable experience in the industry, yet the response rate has an even distribution among the experience ranges. Respondents with four or fewer years of experience account for 8 percent of those surveyed, yet practitioners with more than 30 years of experience comprise the highest response rate with 22 percent; see Figure A.

We asked respondents to indicate what types of projects they are involved with, and the most common type of projects were low- and mid-rise buildings in the commercial sector, see Figures B and C.

Figure B: Considering your personal professional experience, what type of projects are you involved with the majority of the time?
— Low-rise buildings, 1-4 stories (64%)
— Mid-rise buildings, 4-20 stories (30%)
— Industrial (35%)
— Bridges and transportation infrastructure (26%)

Figure C: Considering your personal professional experience, in which sector of construction are most of your projects?
— Commercial (54%)
— Residential (38%)
— Government (37%)
— Industrial (33%)