University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation

FROM HABS TO HBIM: THE USE OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECTS

MARLA AMBY HOLDEN

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2014

To my husband, Wesley Holden, without whose love and support this work would have not been possible and to my best friend, Kevin Bennett, who challenged, encouraged and prodded me along to success

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. R. Raymond Issa, who has been a fountain of wisdom, knowledge and encouragement. Thank you for believing in me even when I could not believe in myself. I would also like to thank Dr. Svetlana Olbina for introducing me to the exciting medium of 3D modeling and for encouraging me to pursue my curiosity beyond the limits of the classroom. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Linda Stevenson, who expanded my knowledge and passion for historic preservation and with whom I have enjoyed many spirited conversations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 8

ABSTRACT ...... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13

Research Need ...... 14 Research Objectives ...... 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 16

Overview ...... 16 History of Cultural Heritage Documentation ...... 16 Early Preservation Documentation Efforts in the United States ...... 18 Historic American Building Survey ...... 19 Development of Heritage Documentation Technique ...... 19 Early Documentation Technique ...... 20 Codifying Documentation Methods ...... 21 Introduction of Technology ...... 22 Computer Aided Design ...... 25 Defining BIM and the Advantages of BIM for Modern Buildings ...... 25 Defining HBIM and its Applications for Historic Preservation ...... 28 Summary ...... 30

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 32

Survey Instrument ...... 33 Demographics ...... 34 Building Information Modeling ...... 35 Documentation Methods...... 35 Analysis Methods ...... 36

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 37

Descriptive Statistics ...... 37 Demographics ...... 38 Respondent’s Organization Demographics ...... 38 Respondent Demographics ...... 46

BIM ...... 47 Respondent’s Use of BIM ...... 47 Respondent’s Organization’s Use of BIM ...... 49 Documentation Methods...... 51 Cross Tabulation Analysis ...... 55 Demographics ...... 56 Respondent’s Organization Demographics ...... 56 Respondent Demographics ...... 64 BIM ...... 65 Respondent’s Use of BIM ...... 65 Respondent’s Organization’s Use of BIM ...... 67 Documentation Methods...... 69 Correlation Analysis ...... 73

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 76

Summary and Conclusions ...... 76 Recommendations for Improvements to the Survey ...... 77 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 78

APPENDIX

A SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE ...... 79

B INTERNATIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER ...... 84

C EXCERPT FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ...... 85

D EXCERPT FROM THE NATIONAL BIM STANDARD ...... 92

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 93

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 97

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 95% CI test output from Minitab ...... 74

4-2 BIM usage for historic preservation correlation matrix ...... 75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 The evolution of historic preservation documentation technique...... 31

4-1 Number of respondents involved in historic preservation projects...... 37

4-2 Organization types represented by survey respondents...... 38

4-3 Geographic regions of the US of survey respondents...... 40

4-4 Survey respondent’s geographic area of the US...... 41

4-5 Years in operation of respondent’s organizations...... 41

4-6 Annual revenue or operating budget of respondent’s organization...... 42

4-7 Percentage of historic preservation work of respondent’s organization...... 43

4-8 Historic preservation projects of respondent’s organization annually...... 44

4-9 Project types completed by respondent’s organization...... 44

4-10 Project classifications of work by respondent’s organization...... 45

4-11 Role of respondent in their organization...... 46

4-12 Age ranges of respondents...... 47

4-13 Respondent exposure to BIM...... 48

4-14 Respondent involvement in projects using BIM...... 48

4-15 Respondents with virtual design or BIM departments in their organization...... 49

4-16 BIM software used by respondent’s organizations...... 50

4-17 BIM usage for project management or document coordination...... 50

4-18 BIM usage for historic preservation projects...... 51

4-19 Respondent’s organization’s documentation method...... 52

4-20 Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation...... 52

4-21 Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation for historic preservation...... 53

4-22 Respondent’s organization’s documentation acquisition technology...... 54

4-23 Respondent’s organization’s software preference for 3D modeling...... 55

4-24 Organization type of respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP. .. 57

4-25 Geographic regions of the United States of survey respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 58

4-26 Years in operation of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 59

4-27 Annual revenue or operating budget of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 60

4-28 Percentage of historic preservation work of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 61

4-29 Historic preservation projects of respondent’s organization annually cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 61

4-30 Project types completed by respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 62

4-31 Project classifications of work by respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 63

4-32 Role of respondent in their organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 64

4-33 Age ranges of respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 65

4-34 Respondent exposure to BIM cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP. .... 66

4-35 Respondent involvement in projects using BIM cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP...... 67

4-36 Respondents with virtual design or BIM departments in their organization cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP...... 68

4-37 BIM software used by respondent’s organizations cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP...... 68

4-38 BIM usage for project management or document coordination cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP...... 69

4-39 Respondent’s organization’s documentation method cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP...... 70

4-40 Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP...... 71

4-41 Respondent organization’s use of digital documentation for historic preservation cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP...... 71

4-42 Respondent organization’s documentation acquisition technology cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP...... 72

4-43 Respondent’s organization’s software preference for 3D modeling cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP...... 73

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of a Master of Science in Construction Management

FROM HABS TO HBIM: THE USE OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECTS

Marla Amby Holden

December 2014

Chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Construction Management

Building Information Modeling (BIM) has become a vital component in the toolkit of many progressive designers and building professionals. The benefits of BIM for these industry professionals have been numerous including; enhanced project visualization, the ability to reference specification data within the 3D model, the ability to detect potential clashes between building components and the ability to access cost and schedule information. Many of these benefits would be useful to historic preservation

(HP) practitioners in the documentation of cultural heritage resources and an industry specific offshoot coined Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) has begun to be developed. As was the case in the early days of BIM, it appears that HP practitioners have been slow to embrace this new technology as a tool for many reasons.

A literature review was performed to provide a history and review of traditional

HP documentation methods, the advancements of the practice with the integration of technologies and the introduction of HBIM. The development of HP methods has progressed with the integration of technology in much the same way building construction methods have. It therefore seems reasonable to imagine that the adaptation of BIM into HBIM will follow the same path and face similar obstacles.

The objectives of this research were to determine the extent in which BIM has been adopted into the HP community and to identify if there are reasons that it has not been readily accepted. A survey was developed and posted to online forums whose members are historic preservation practitioners. The survey collected data from practitioners regarding the degree of implementation of BIM into current HP projects, the types of new technologies used for documentation, and the software programs utilized for BIM and 3D modeling.

Results of the survey show that BIM is being adopted into the workflow practices of HP practitioners. Similarly to the adoption of BIM by constructors of modern buildings,

HP practitioners are becoming familiar with the advantages the use of BIM can provide.

The survey data was analyzed to determine if there was a correlation between demographic information such as respondent age, company role, or geographic location and the use of BIM for historic preservation projects. No correlation was identified using demographic information. There were however, two indicators that showed a strong correlation to the use of BIM. The survey data showed that HP practitioners that had been exposed to the use of BIM and those that had actually used BIM were much more likely to use BIM on future HP projects. Therefore, in the same way BIM became so fully developed and integrated into modern construction, the usage of BIM for HP has the same potential growth.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The introduction of Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) into the arsenal of tools available to historic preservationists brings cultural heritage documentation into the 21st century. The use of building information modeling (BIM) has been widely integrated into the standard practices of many progressive construction companies and design firms are beginning to adopt it for new building projects. BIM is a natural

progression for modern constructors who build with the luxury of multi-disciplined teams of professionals, technologically advanced design and construction machinery and manufactured building components which provide modular consistency. Historic preservation (HP) projects however, are rife with unknown variables, hidden problems

requiring large contingencies and unique building components constructed during the

eras when the architect was planner, designer and constructor. Up until the time when

the building process was divided into specialized disciplines, buildings were begun with

a master plan which served as a basis to begin construction. Building details were

developed on site as were components requiring skilled tradesmen such as stone

masonry elements, detailed fine carpentry moldings and mechanical systems. These

site developed details were rarely incorporated back into the original plans to create

what modern constructors label as-builts. Therefore, most preservation projects are

begun with a deficit of knowledge about the building. Extensive discovery must take

place through a complete documentation of the existing structure before an intervention

plan can begin. While modern digital documentation began in the 1970s with 3D laser

scanning and digital close-range photogrammetry, the traditional manual method of

documenting historic buildings has been around since the Italian Renaissance. In the

United States (US), the introduction of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) in the 1930’s began codifying the documentation process. The HABS collection has evolved into a comprehensive compilation of documents which reflects the vibrant and diverse built cultural heritage of the US. However, HABS, much like the historic preservation community in general, is firmly attached to traditional substantiated methods of documentation practice. To realize the advantages of BIM, which modern constructors have begun to experience, HP practitioners and HABS should embrace modern documentation practices and guide the development of HBIM. By applying the type of standardization technique that was implemented for traditional documentation,

HP practitioners have the opportunity to influence the development of HBIM and gain from the many benefits BIM has to offer.

Research Need

The degree to which BIM has been integrated into the workflow process of modern historic preservationists has not yet been entirely ascertained. This information could be useful, as the specialized field of HBIM is developed, as a guide in overcoming barriers to acceptance by emphasizing the positive aspects that a fully developed model brings to a project.

Research Objectives

The objective of this research was to determine the extent to which historic preservation practitioners have adopted BIM into their documentation processes. This research sought to identify the types, sizes and disciplines of the organizations that are beginning to implement a BIM strategy into their workflow processes. This research endeavored to determine the level of familiarity of current industry practitioners with The

Secretary of Interiors treatment standards for historic preservation, The National

Building Information Modeling (NBIM) standard and documentation guidelines of The

Historic American Building Survey (HABS). This research was also aimed at determining what technologies were being used for field documentation and 3D modeling. In summary, this research would provide indicators to guide the development of HBIM into a fully integrated process that would overcome many of the inherent barriers and meet the specialized challenges imposed on practitioners undertaking the preservation of an historic project.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This literature review presents the development of technology for cultural

heritage documentation in four sections. The first section of this literature review briefly

discusses the history of cultural heritage documentation and the methods of

documentation adopted by pioneer preservationists in the United States. The second

section presents the development of heritage documentation technique and the introduction of technological advances to the preservationist’s documentation workflow.

The third section defines Building Information Modeling (BIM), discusses the advantages of BIM to owners, architects, engineers and contractors and how BIM can contribute to heritage documentation. The fourth section describes the emerging discipline coined Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) and the impact and advantages of this new technology for cultural heritage documentation.

History of Cultural Heritage Documentation

The history of architectural conservation can be divided into pre-modern and modern phases, roughly demarcated by the Industrial Revolution, which began in

England in the mid-18th century (Stubbs 2009). While there is tangible evidence of the

Northern Song dynasty (960 to 1127 CE) documenting and preserving artistic creations from the distant past in China, it is customary to attribute the beginnings of Western preservation consciousness for built heritage to a particularly famous letter written by

Raffaello Santi (1483-1520), later popularly known as Raphael, to Pope Leo X around

1519, lamenting the loss of precious antiquities in the Roman building boom of the 15th century (Sax 1990). Raphael realized that the ravaging of materials from historic

buildings in Rome to construct new buildings was quickly erasing not only the physical

buildings but the cultural heritage that had created the splendor of the ancient Roman

Empire as well. In an effort to at least document for posterity purposes, Raphael

completed a grueling multi-year commission which documented the ancient Rome of his

time. In correspondence to his benefactor, Raphael detailed his methodology, which

has gone almost unchanged into 20th century preservation efforts, as follows:

Now I have given much study to these ancient edifices: I have taken no small effort to look them over with care and to measure them with diligence. I have read the best authors of that age and compared what they had written with the works which they described, and I can therefore say that I have acquired at least some knowledge of the ancient architecture. (Holt 1957)

To document the increasingly vanishing buildings of ancient Rome, Raphael developed a method of measuring with a magnetic compass type device which would later be superseded by the sextant. He hired artists to prepare measured drawings of ancient monuments and he personally made detailed drawings of the Pantheon.

Raphael’s method of measurement and research was perhaps modeled on the teachings of Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472). Alberti, the first and one of the most influential writers concerning architecture during the Renaissance, advised architects to carefully survey good buildings, prepare measured drawings, examine their proportions and build models for further study (Jokilehto 1999). The preservation methods of

Raphael’s time would come to be known as archival documentation. In contrast to documentation aimed at preserving the physical building for continued use, which includes anything from minor stabilization to major restoration, archival documentation is done for the sake of historical record, education and other related pursuits not

necessarily linked to the goal of preserving the physical building itself (Komas 2005).

This method of archival documentation would be used with slight modifications throughout the next five centuries and become the basis of modern day heritage documentation.

Early Preservation Documentation Efforts in the United States

During the 19th and early 20th century, historic preservation movements across the United States (U.S.) galvanized private citizens to safeguard the heritage of the fledgling nation. In 1813, Philadelphia’s Old State House, later called Independence

Hall, was spared by the outcry of community activists who opposed the city’s plan to demolish the structure and subdivide the land it sat on into building lots (Stipe 2003).

Forty years later (1853) another plan to preserve part of the revolutionary heritage was begun. Woman, from every state in the union, rallied together under the leadership of

Ann Pamela Cunningham to form the Mount Vernon Ladies Association (MVLA). The

MVLA succeeded in raising $200,000 and thwarted the efforts of local developers to obtain Mount Vernon and its 200 acre site. By 1858 this national organization had secured a charter to hold and manage George Washington’s ancestral home and much of its original plantation setting (Stipe 2003). These two examples of early preservation efforts employed the hand measured drawing documentation techniques brought to this country from England and Europe. European conservation and restoration practices were spread to the U.S. by lecturers and writers. In the centuries since the

Renaissance, preservation theories and ideals had been reinvented many times.

However, the documentation process of hand measured drawings had remained constant. This classic traditional process, enhanced only by the advent of a new

technology then, known today as photography, was employed in the early days of preservation efforts in the U.S.

Historic American Building Survey

Formal efforts to preserve our nation’s cultural history have been developed following the grassroots organic beginnings of the MVLA. The Historic American

Building Survey (HABS) created in 1933 by Charles Peterson of the National Parks

Service, was part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Peterson was vehement about the need to preserve the buildings that had begun to shape the collective heritage of the U.S. He was single-minded in his belief about the need to record historic buildings saying,

Our architectural heritage of buildings from the last four centuries diminishes daily at an alarming rate. The ravages of fire and the natural elements together with the demolition and alterations caused by real estate ‘improvements’ form an inexorable tide of destruction destined to wipe out the great majority of the buildings which knew the beginning and first flourish of the nation. (Peterson 1957)

HABS remains the only program implemented in the New Deal that continues uninterrupted to the present. What began as an effort to employ the nations’ out of work architects, engineers and builders during the Great Depression has become the standard by which cultural heritage documentation is performed.

Development of Heritage Documentation Technique

All documentation efforts consist of two separate tasks, acquisition and output.

Advances were made in both tasks over time beginning with the traditional hand survey of Raphael’s time to modern digital 3D models and animations. Transitions from hand production to machine production made during the Industrial Revolution (1760-1830)

began to appear in documentation methods of preservationists worldwide. World War II

(1939-1945) was a threshold for the expanding role of technological instrumentation in the study and preservation of works of art and architecture. The practice of preservation, which had been embedded in traditional working class artisanship and empirical knowledge, shifted to intense scientific work and technological instrumentation

(Philippot 1996). Discoveries and inventions that came from warfare (radar technologies, electronic computational devices, photogrammetry, etc.) became part of historic preservation practice. In fact, photogrammetry was even used for architectural documentation during WWII. The Germans made stereo-photographic recordings of their valuable buildings before the great destruction of the war. Their careful architectural documentation was ruined when the invading Russians discovered the plates, cleaned off the emulsion, and used the plates for window glass (Peterson 1957).

Understanding the physical fabric of a site is an important first step in finding the right conservation strategy, and documentation is the first step in understanding (Eppich

2007). Documentation can take many forms and may range from high-level aerial photographs to microscopic analysis of paint chips. In between there is a wide range of other techniques: photogrammetry, 3D laser scanning, video, hand sketching and drawing, Computer Aided Design (CAD) and 3D modeling. Many modern practitioners are stalwart proponents of traditional salon style ink drawings on Mylar and others are pioneering the next generation of digitally acquired, computer drawn documents and 3D models.

Early Documentation Technique

Hand surveys were the earliest form of documentation. The practice, which began as early as the Renaissance, necessitates direct access to the object. Hand

measuring requires basic tools such as graph paper, pencils and pens, a clipboard, a steel tape, a folding carpenter’s rule, a large 30°-60° -90° drafting triangle, a molding comb/profile gauge, a plumb bob with string, flashlights, ladders and a directional compass (Davidson et al. 2013). With these basic tools and the knowledge of geometry, accurate dimensions were transferred to field notes. These notes became the basis of a hand measured drawing. This type of documentation allowed the documenter to become intimately familiar with the subject and the discovery of subtle aspects became possible. The requirement of few tools, minimal training and rapid data acquisition were the principal advantages of this traditional documentation technique. The documentation practice of hand surveys and hand measured drawings, continued with little change until preservationists began adopting the use of photography in the mid-20th century and the invention of computer aided design (CAD) in the 1980s. The use of photography augmented the hand survey side of the documentation technique by adding information about materials and context and CAD changed the drawing side of the technique by generating printed drawings.

Codifying Documentation Methods

It is the responsibility of the American people that if the great number of our antique buildings must disappear through economic causes, they should not pass into unrecorded oblivion. —Charles E. Peterson American Notes: The Historic American Building Survey Continued

The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) was created in the 1930s as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. This program, which put many architects, engineers and builders back to work during the Great Depression, began the practice of the standardized documentation process. Hand measured drawings and site

photos were preferred documentation methods by preservationists prior to HABS, there were however, wide variations as to the delivered products. HABS began the codification process by implementing guidelines for each step in the documentation process. Standards were established and implemented for traditional hand survey methods and technique as well as hand drawing with ink on Mylar. Specifications for the types and uses of photographs and other historic artifacts were written. A guideline was also developed for the final submission process to the Library of Congress, which became the primary depository of all HABS documentation.

HABS drawings are considered “as-built” drawings. As such, they illustrate the existing condition of a building at the time of documentation, including additions, alterations, and demolitions which have occurred since the building was first constructed. HABS drawings typically serve multiple purposes. At their most basic, they provide a simple documentary record of a building, in standardized format, which is placed in the public domain at the Library of Congress, where it is made available to the general public and specialized researchers alike (Schara 2008). HABS enjoys the distinction of being the last program in continuous operation left from Roosevelt’s New

Deal. The longevity of the program is a testament to its viability to safeguard our national cultural heritage.

Introduction of Technology

In the mid-19th century large format photographical processes added to the documentation process for visualization purposes. At that time photographs were not used for technical specifications, they were used only to document the appearance of the building. The information provided by the photographs informed the viewer in

regards to the visual aspects of the building at a given point in time. Artifacts, building geometry changes, and materiality differences could be documented from photographs.

Until the introduction of photogrammetry in the mid-20th century, large format view cameras were the preferred instrument. Large format cameras have front and back standards with bellows in between. The manipulation of the bellows allows the photographer to influence the depth of field and correct for distortions. This distortion correction shows the resource in its true perspective (Akboy 2011). After Kodak’s

Brownie camera was popularized in the 1950s and photography became mainstream, preservationists began to use smaller consumer model cameras for documentation purposes. These documentary type images were referred to as pictorial imagery. Since there was not a mechanism for distortion control on these types of cameras, documenters were required to introduce a scale into the image. This began a change in the way photography was used for documentation. However, the documenter must interpret these types of images with care as scaling on pictorial imagery is difficult to achieve (Eppich, Chabbi 2007).

The limitations of photography inspired preservationists to seek another solution that would allow the use of imagery for documentation purposes. Photogrammetry was this solution. Photogrammetry is the art and science of acquiring measurements from photographs. It began being widely used by preservationists in the late 1930s. The traditional process requires a special instrument called a metric camera and a photogrammetric plotter to generate usable output. The advances made in digital photography have been paralleled in the field of photogrammetry so that documenters can now use any type of digital camera coupled with computer software to produce

digital output such as line drawings, contour plots, orthophotographs, digital surface models (DSM) and 3D animations (Bryan 2010).

Technology began to change the way documentation was done in the field by introducing survey instruments that were initially used in other fields. Much like the introduction of photography and its evolution into the science of photogrammetry, the introduction of surveying technology altered the workflow of field documentation for preservationists. The use of survey instruments increased the accuracy of field documentation and began creating efficiency in the documentation process. The theodolite was the first survey instrument introduced into the documentation process.

The first theodolites were used to measure vertical and horizontal angles and the readings had to be manually recorded. In time the theodolite was improved with electronics and eventually the readings could be made and stored in digital form at the touch of a button. The theodolite is an instrument that is still used by many preservationist for field documentation. It is usually used in combination with the latest method of field documentation which is 3D laser scanning.

Time of flight laser scanning evolved directly from the total station theodolite. A time of flight laser scanner works by sending out thousands of pulses of light per second and then calculating the three dimensional coordinates of the points to define a surface.

The product of a 3D laser scanner is referred to as a point cloud. Modern preservationist take advantage of the rapid data collection achievable with a 3D laser scanner and its ability to input data directly into the computer to save time and improve the accuracy of field documentation (Eppich, Chabbi 2007).

Computer Aided Design

Computer Aided Design (CAD) changed the architectural and engineering professions in 15 years (Neeley 2010).The utilization of CAD shifted the mindset of designers from the hand drawing era to the technology era. A CAD program allows spatial data collected from various sources and drawings to be created and manipulated in a digital environment. For preservationist, CAD revolutionized the creation of documentation output. The final documentation drawings were developed in a digital environment and printed on large scale printers. Creating archival documents with CAD lieu of the traditional labor intensive hand drawing technique resulted in both time saving and the creation of efficiency in the reproduction process.

Defining BIM and the Advantages of BIM for Modern Buildings

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a natural next progression for preservation practitioners and is being investigated as a tool for documentation and document coordination amongst project teams. To appreciate how BIM and its many advantages can be translated to the specialized field of historic preservation an understanding of its development and uses in modern construction is necessary.

According to Dennis Neeley, an American architect pioneering the usage of BIM,

“2010 to 2020 will be the most exciting and transitional decade in the history of [the] building industry. BIM provides the foundation for the organization and linking of graphics and data”. Similar to other pioneers of BIM, Neeley embraced the potential that this emerging concept holds for the building industry. BIM has come a long way in the short time since its inception. Proponents remark on the unprecedented speed in which

BIM is being adopted by industry stakeholders. In comparison to other paradigm shifting concepts such as air travel, which took 50 years (2.5 generations) between the first

flight in 1903 and the beginning of the modern era of air travel, BIM has the potential to progress from conception to full integration in one generation or less (Neeley 2010).

Neeley’s statement was predicated on a study done in 2009 by Reed Construction Data which studied the adoption rate of BIM in comparison with CAD, its industry changing predecessor.

BIM has had many hurdles to overcome since it began in the early 2000s and its unprecedented rise did not begin until near the end of the decade. In the early years architectural firms began using BIM to generate 2D paper drawings. Designers were utilizing the parametric qualities of BIM to generate savings in time as well as to reduce errors and omissions (Neeley 2010). Unfortunately, the fragmented state of early BIM processes required contractors to redraw architectural and engineering designs into

BIM to apply its inherent clash detection benefits and eliminate construction conflicts.

This post design application created savings for contractors and owners by reducing change orders and construction rework. Eventually however, the interpretation of the original design documents into the post design 3D model began raising contractual concerns amongst project stakeholders.

Legal issues began diminishing the enthusiasm of project stakeholders for the adoption of BIM. Issues such as the model and data ownership and the allocation of risks began undermining the collaborative potential. The long-held industry principles regarding privity of contract, third party reliance, professional design responsibility, standard of care, the Spearin doctrine and the economic loss rule became highly contestable issues which threatened to unravel the progress of early BIM proponents

(Simonian 2009). However, during the past five years most of the legal obstacles have

been resolved through revised contract language between project stakeholders. The

latest American Institute of Architects (AIA) contracts include optional agreements to

specify project team roles and responsibilities with regard to BIMs (Shapiro 2014) thus

clearing the legal hurdles impeding the implementation of BIM.

Another hurdle which has been resolved over time regards a clear definition of

what BIM actually is and is not. Many industry professionals consider BIM synonymous

with a 3D computer-rendered model of a building. This limited interpretation may have been correct in the early days of BIM but over time the definition has evolved along with the process it defines. Currently BIM has become much more than the geometric

architectural information supplied in a 3D model. A fully realized BIM contains the

entirety of a buildings information. Semantic information imbedded into the building

components transforms a 3D model into a shared knowledge resource that begins with

design, continues with construction and ultimately becomes a facilities management tool

that, when implemented post-construction, contributes to the building’s performance. A

completed BIM used and updated during construction contains information regarding all

building systems, equipment, and finishes and becomes part of valuable as-built

documents that continue to influence countless future decisions regarding the building.

When a master specification system is integrated into a model, construction

workmanship quality and material performance is provided and can be verified and

maintained (Hamil, 2011). In contrast to a simple 3D visualization, a BIM has the

capability to produce building component schedules, and building component quantity

surveys (Carmona, Irwin 2007). Moreover, a 4D and 5D BIM compiles information

regarding construction schedule and phasing, cost estimating and value engineering.

Intelligent elements incorporated into a true BIM allow for virtual simulations of the building to understand its behavior before construction begins. Information regarding different engineering disciplines and sustainability information incorporated into the BIM allows facilities managers to utilize the BIM to perform many post construction tasks such as the analysis of energy use, the collection of sensor data, and the procurement of replacement parts.

The last looming issue and the one which was holding the United States behind in global BIM adoption was a national BIM standard. Successful utilization of BIM requires an open exchange of information between all parties across all software platforms. To achieve this there must be definition and implementation of common protocols and standards (Shapiro 2014). In 2007 the National BIM Standard – United

States (NBIMS-US) was introduced by the Building Smart Alliance, a council of the nonprofit, non-governmental National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).

NBIMS-US defines BIM as, a digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility, forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life cycle, existing from earliest conception to demolitions.

The standard has evolved since it was defined, with the most recent Version 3 beginning to address the issues of interoperability. With the inclusion of Industry

Foundation Classes (IFC) as the most common open BIM protocol, the national standard is becoming a valuable consensus-based set of technical and practice specifications that could be adopted by all project stakeholders.

Defining HBIM and its Applications for Historic Preservation

A specialized type of BIM known as historic building information modeling (HBIM) has emerged to allow historic preservationists to realize the benefits of BIM that

constructors of modern buildings have begun to see. Thus far, very little work has been done in relation to modelling historic buildings, instead researchers have been concentrating on the problems associated with combining laser scanning and BIM through plotting generic library objects onto a laser scanned survey in a BIM environment (Murphy et al. 2013). While this approach does create a 3D visualization of an historic building, the semantic information required for a true BIM is lacking. One of the key challenges in using BIM for older buildings is how to best reconcile between traditional methods of construction and the family based (component based) approach of BIM (Attar et al. 2010). The creation of a parametric library containing historic building components began in 2011 at the Dublin Institute of Technology, in Dublin Ireland. The library objects were designed using historic architectural manuscripts and 18th century pattern books. The development of this library allows for the placement of historically accurate objects onto the scanned point clouds from the survey then imported to a 3D modeling or BIM software. Although this library has begun to address the issues of unique historic building components however, the issue of traditional construction technique remains a challenge.

While the struggle towards standardization is taking place in the modern applications of BIM, researchers of historic preservation have been adapting BIM by using documentation from varied sources such as terrestrial laser scanning, photogrammetry and measured field drawings to compile models that contain accurate semantic information (Dore, Murphy 2012). While these models can be effective to apply the BIM process to their respective projects, they fail to utilize the parametric advantages that BIM offers. Researchers in Canada have been working to develop a

modeling strategy that capitalizes on the advantages of BIM by applying an appropriate

level of detail (LoD) to the model based on end use requirements (Fai, Rafeiro 2014).

This research approaches the goal of utilizing the benefits of BIM by creating a model

that is rich in semantic information by using parametric components which have a lower

LoD. This allows processes such as life cycle analysis and energy consumption

analysis to take place thus garnering those benefits of the BIM process.

Summary

This literature review attempted to reveal the history and evolution of cultural heritage documentation from its pre-modern beginnings in renaissance Italy to the emergence of progressive technological tools employed by modern preservationists.

Preservationists have utilized traditional manual methods of documentation data collection and production. The hand measuring, sketching and artistic rendering processes developed by Raphael in the 15th century remained the principle tools of

preservationists well into the 19th century. The dawning of the industrial age and

advancements gleaned from warfare expanded the tools available to preservationists.

Data collection in the field evolved with the introduction of technologies such as

photography and photogrammetry and survey instruments such as theodolites and laser

scanners. Hand drawn gallery quality drawing output has yielded to the modern

technologies of CAD, 3D modeling and BIM (Figure 2-1). Modern preservationists are

striving to produce documentation of our collective cultural heritage utilizing methods

Raphael could never have imagined. The goal of preserving heritage for future

generations however, has remained intact.

RAPHAEL'S BUILDING LETTER TO INFORMATION HISTORIC POPE LEO X MODELING BUILDING MT. VERNON (BIM) INFORMATION LADIES WORLD WAR MODELING ENGLAND'S ASSOCIATION II PHOTOGRAPHY (HBIM) INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

1519 1760 - 1813 1853 1933 1939 - 1930s 1940s 1970s 2000 2004 2011 1830 1945

INDEPENDENCE HALL PHOTOGRAMMETRY PHILADELPHIA HISTORIC 3D AMERICAN SCANNING BUILDING COMPUTER SURVEY AIDED (HABS) DESIGN (CAD)

Figure 2-1. The evolution of historic preservation documentation technique.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A survey to analyze the extent to which historic preservation (HP) practitioners were implementing Building Information Modeling (BIM) into their practices was developed. Practitioners of various disciplines were invited to take the survey. The survey collected data from participants regardless of nationality, practicing role or discipline. A disqualifying question was placed in the beginning of the survey and asked simply if the survey participant was or was not involved in HP projects. A link to the survey was uploaded to two locked professional group forums, the Association for

Preservation Technology International (APTI) and the Heritage Conservation/Historic

Preservation of the Built Environment Network (HC/HPBEN). The groups had a combined total of 8,619 members. The survey was made available to all members, even though the published profiles indicated international members. Any data from international members was then excluded during the statistical analysis to keep the data relevant to the U.S. alone. Data produced by international respondents was revealed by the answer given to question number three which asked the respondent to choose the region of the United States in which their organization was located.

The published group profile for the APTI stated that the composition of the group included members from more than 30 countries who are preservationists, architects, engineers, conservators, contractors, crafts persons, curators, developers, educators, historians, landscape architects, students, technicians, and other persons directly involved in the application of methods and materials to maintain, conserve, and protect historic structures and sites for future use and appreciation. APTI was established in

2009, was managed by multi-disciplinary team and had 2,621 members at the time of the survey.

The published group profile for the HC/HPBEN stated that the composition of the group was a network of individuals, non-profit organizations, government-agencies and for profit companies involved in any aspect or issue directly related to the preservation of the built environment. The group was established in 2008, was managed by an

historic preservation planner and a projects/grants manager and had 5,997 members at

the time of the survey. The approach of engaging these two LinkedIn groups in the

survey was taken to obtain data from the widest segment of practitioners possible. The

survey was responded to favorably by both groups and sparked discussion from a

diverse assemblage of members. Responses to the survey were received from 54

members.

Survey Instrument

A survey was developed using the online survey tool, Survey Monkey

(https://www.surveymonkey.com). The questionnaire solicited both quantitative and

qualitative information from the respondents. The survey consisted of three distinct

sections. The first section contained questions regarding the demographics of both the

respondents and the respondent’s organizations. The questions in the second section pertained to the respondent’s knowledge and usage of BIM and BIM software. The third

section of the survey asked the respondents about documentation methods,

technologies used to acquire documentation and software used for 3D modeling. There

were a total of 22 questions in the survey. The first question in the survey was designed

as a disqualifying question. The question asked the respondent if they were or were not

involved in any type of preservation projects. If the respondent answered affirmatively,

they were asked to continue the survey. If the respondent answered negatively, they were thanked for their effort and asked to submit the form with only the single question answered. As the objective of the study was to determine the usage of BIM within the

HP community, the purpose of the disqualifying question was to eliminate participants that might use or have knowledge of BIM thus being able to answer the subsequent questions appropriately but were not in the community of interest.

Demographics

The first section of the survey which asked for demographic information began with questions pertaining to the respondent’s organization. The type of organization the respondent represented was solicited in order to determine whether building information modeling (BIM) was applied more heavily in one sector over another. The region of the

US in which the respondent worked was asked to determine whether BIM usage was geographically sensitive. Questions regarding the number of years that the respondent’s organization had been in business, the yearly revenues of the organization, the percentage of work related to historic preservation (HP) and the number of yearly projects, were asked to determine if experience or market penetration had an impact on

BIM usage. Lastly, the type of projects and level of treatment standards the organization was engaged in was asked to determine whether project type and treatment standard influenced the decision to use BIM.

The next set of questions asked for demographic information about the survey respondent. The respondent’s role in their organization was asked to determine if vocation or seniority had an impact on BIM usage. The respondent’s age, whether they had been exposed to BIM or the national BIM standard, and whether they were involved

in projects using BIM, were asked to ascertain if practitioners were responding to the

evolution of the industry by renewing skills or holding fast to traditional methods.

Building Information Modeling

In the second section of the survey which pertained to BIM, questions were asked about the practices within the respondent’s organization. A link to the National

BIM Standard was provided and the question was asked about the respondent’s

knowledge of BIM in general. An excerpt from the NBIMS can be found in Appendix D.

Some questions asked for information regarding the respondent’s organization’s use of

BIM and BIM software for general business practice as well as the usage of BIM for HP

projects specifically. The question concerning BIM usage specifically for HP projects

served as the primary question and was used for cross tabulation analysis and for

correlation testing.

Documentation Methods

The third and final section of the survey asked questions which concerned the

practices of the respondent’s organization regarding their documentation methods in

general and for historic preservation projects. The Historic Building Survey (HABS)

documentation guidelines were provided to the survey participants via a hyperlink. An

excerpt of the HABS guidelines pertaining to documentation methods can be found in

Appendix C. The respondents were asked for information about their organization’s use

of the HABS documentation method guidelines, whether digital or traditional manual

documentation was performed and when digital documentation was performed the

technological method in which it was acquired. The final questions of the survey

pertained to the use of digital documentation for HP projects and if the organization of

the respondent used 3D modeling software and if so which software package specifically. The complete survey form can be found in Appendix A.

Analysis Methods

The survey data was coded and analyzed using frequency count analysis, cross tabulation analysis and correlation analysis.

Frequency count analysis was performed for each survey question. This analysis was performed to reveal patterns in the data which could then be further analyzed using cross tabulation and correlation analysis. Each survey question was analyzed using cross tabulation with a single survey question. This primary question was the principle focus of the survey and the results of the cross tabulation analysis revealed relationships between the primary question and the other questions of the survey.

Correlation analysis was also done with the survey results of the primary question and five other survey questions that had revealed interesting data.

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Descriptive Statistics

This chapter provides an analysis of survey data collected including information about both the respondent’s organization and the respondent, the knowledge and usage of the National Building Information Standard (NBIMS) and building information modeling (BIM) by the respondent and the respondent’s organization, the knowledge and usage of the Historic American Survey (HABS) documentation guidelines, the usage of digital documentation in general and specifically for historic preservation (HP), and the usage of 3D modeling software. The first question of the survey was a disqualifying question which was used to isolate the respondents to those that were actively involved in HP projects. There were 54 respondents to the survey. Of the 54 respondents, 53 (99%) responded yes to the disqualifying question and one (1%) responded no (Figure 4-1).

60 53 50 (99%) n = 54 40

Number of Respondents of Number 10 1 (1%) 0 Response

Yes No

Figure 4-1. Number of respondents involved in historic preservation projects.

Demographics

The first section of the survey contained question numbers two through eleven

which were related to the demographics of both the respondent and the respondent’s

organization.

Respondent’s Organization Demographics

The respondents were asked what type of organization they represented, what

geographical region of the United States (US) their organization was located, the

number of years their organization had been in business, the yearly revenues of the

their organization, the percentage of work related to historic preservation and the

number of historic preservation projects done yearly by their organization.

To reveal whether the type of organization the respondent worked for had any

influence on the usage of BIM, the survey asked respondents to select what type of

organization they represented (Figure 4-2).

Respondents (%) 0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Government Entity (i.e. Federal, State, City etc.) 9.4%

Civic Group (i.e. Historic Preservation Board/Society, Friends of __, etc.) 1.9%

Institution (i.e. Public or Private University, Religious Group, etc.) 1.9%

Private Enterprise (i.e. Architectural Firm, Organization Type Organization Construction Company, Developer, etc.) 83.0%

Other 3.7%

Figure 4-2. Organization types represented by survey respondents.

The majority (44, 83%) of respondents selected private enterprise (i.e.

Architectural Firm, Construction Company, Developer, etc.). Five respondents (9.4%)

selected Government Entity (i.e. Federal, State, City, etc.), one (1.9%) selected Civic

Group (i.e. Historic Preservation Board/Society, Friends of __, etc.), one (1.9%) selected Institution (i.e. Public or Private University, Religious Group, etc.) and two

(3.7%) selected Other. When the option of Other was selected, the respondent was asked to specify an answer. Of the two respondents who chose Other, one specified they were part of a foundation that maintained an historic estate and the other specified that they maintained an historic site.

To determine if BIM usage was geographically sensitive, respondents were asked to select the geographic region of the US where their organization was located

(Figure 4-3). Region options were delineated as:

• New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut)

• Mid Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

• East North Central (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin)

• West North Central (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas)

• South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida)

• East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi)

• West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)

• Mountain (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada)

• Pacific (Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii)

Pacific 14% Mountain 4% West South Central 2% East South Central 0% South Atlantic 34% West North Central 10% East North Central 4% U.S. Geographic Region Middle Atlantic 20% New England 12%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Survey Respondents (%)

Figure 4-3. Geographic regions of the US of survey respondents.

Six (12%) of the respondents selected New England, 10 (20%) selected Mid

Atlantic, two (4%) selected East North Central, five (10%) selected West North Central,

17 (34%) selected South Atlantic, none of the respondents chose East South Central, one (2%) chose West South Central, two (4%) selected Mountain and lastly, seven

(14%) selected Pacific.

The responses pertaining to geographic region where re-distributed in regard to geographic area of the US. The country was divided into three areas representing the eastern U.S., the middle US and the western US. The respondents answers clustered by area indicates the majority of respondents (33, 66%) were located in the eastern portion of the country, while (9, 18%) were located in the western portion and the remaining respondents (8, 16%) selected regions located in the middle of the country

(Figure 4-4).

Western U.S., 18%

Middle U.S., 16% Eastern U.S., 66%

Figure 4-4. Survey respondent’s geographic area of the US.

To determine if experience or company maturity had any influence on BIM usage, the number of years their organization had been in operation was asked of the respondents (Figure 4-5). The majority (28, 53.8%) selected More than 30 Years. Nine respondents (17.3%) selected 20-29 years, eight (15.4%) selected 10-19 years, three

(5.8%) selected 5-9 years, and four (7.7%) selected less than 1-4 years.

60% 53.8%

50%

40%

30%

17.3% 20% 15.4% Respondents (%) Respondents 7.7% 10% 5.8%

0% Less than 1 - 4 5 - 9 Years 10 - 19 Years 20 - 29 Years More than 30 Years Years Years in Operation

Figure 4-5. Years in operation of respondent’s organizations.

A question regarding the yearly revenues or operating budget was asked to

determine if the up-front expenses incurred for transitioning to BIM was a barrier.

Ranges indicating the yearly revenues or operating budget of the respondent’s

organization or department were given to the respondents to make a selection (Figure

4-6). Most (17, 36.2%) of respondents selected More than $5,000,001. Eight

respondents (17.0%) selected $1,000,001-$5,000,000, four (8.5%) selected $500,001-

$1,000,000, two (4.3%) selected $250,001-$500,000, four (8.5%) selected $100,001-

$250,000, nine (19.1%) selected $50,001-$100,000, and three (6.4%) selected less

than $50,000.

More than $5,000,001 36.2%

$1,000,001 - $5,000,000 17.0%

$500,001 - $1,000,000 8.5%

$250,001 - $500,000 4.3%

$100,001 - $250,000 8.5%

$50,001 - $100,000 19.1%

Less than $50,000 6.4% Annual Revenue or Operating Budget Operating or Revenue Annual

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Respondents (%)

Figure 4-6. Annual revenue or operating budget of respondent’s organization.

To determine market penetration, which may indicate the level of experience an

organization has with a particular market, respondents were asked to provide the

percentage amount of work done by their organization which pertained to historic

preservation (Figure 4-7). This question required the participant to type in the

percentage amount. There were 52 responses to this question totaling 19 unique

percentages. Eleven respondents entered 100%, one respondent entered 99%, one

respondent entered 98%, six respondents entered 95%, three respondents entered

90%, two respondents entered 80%, three respondents entered 75%, two respondents

entered 70%, one respondent entered 65%, one respondent entered 50%, one

respondent entered 40%, two respondents entered 30%, three respondents entered

25%, four respondents entered 20%, one respondent entered 15%, five respondents

entered 10%, one respondent entered 9%, three respondents entered 5%, and one respondent entered 1%.

12 11

10 n = 52

8 6 6 5 4 Respondents 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Percentage of Work Related to Historic Preservation

Figure 4-7. Percentage of historic preservation work of respondent’s organization.

Respondents were asked to provide the number of projects related to historic preservation performed by their organization in an average year (Figure 4-8). This

question required the participant to type in a whole number indicating the number of

projects. There were 50 responses totaling 16 unique numbers. Three respondents

entered 100, one respondent entered 60, two respondents entered 50, two respondents

entered 40, three respondents entered 30, one respondent entered 25, three

respondents entered 20, three respondents entered 15, seven respondents entered 10,

two respondents entered 8, one respondent entered 6, seven respondents entered 5,

four respondents entered 4, eight respondents entered 3, one respondent entered 2, and two respondents entered 1.

9 8 8 7 7 7 6 n = 50 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 Respondents 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 100 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Historic Preservation Related Jobs Per Year

Figure 4-8. Historic preservation projects of respondent’s organization annually.

Because BIM has been developed to work seamlessly with new building construction projects, a question about the type of projects completed by a respondent’s organization was asked (Figure 4-9).

60%

49.0% 50%

40%

30% 24.0% 20.2% 20% Respondents (%) Respondents

10% 6.7%

0% New Buildings Existing Buildings Monuments Other Project Types

Figure 4-9. Project types completed by respondent’s organization.

Almost half (51 responses, 49.0%) of respondents selected Existing Buildings.

Twenty-five respondents (24.0%) selected New Buildings, 21 (20.2%) selected

Monuments, and seven (6.7%) selected Other. Respondents were asked to specify, if they made the choice of other. Of the seven that chose other, two specified infrastructure, two specified historic landscapes, one specified cemeteries, one specified civil structures, and one specified heritage site elements. Note that respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Based on the Secretary of Interiors treatment standards for historic preservation

(Appendix C) respondents were asked to choose a classification that best described the preservation work done by their organization (Figure 4-10).

90% 82.4% 80.4% 80% 74.5% (42) (41) 70% (38) 60% 50% 39.2% 40% (20) 30% Percentage of Work 20% 10% 0% Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Reconstruction Secretary of Interiors Treatment Classifications

Figure 4-10. Project classifications of work by respondent’s organization.

Preservation was chosen the most representing (82.4%) of the respondent’s choices. However, rehabilitation and restoration were similar with 80.4% and 74.5% respectively. Reconstruction was not as predominant with 39.2% representation. Note that respondents were asked to select all that apply.

Respondent Demographics

The business decision to use or not use BIM might be made by members of an organization that are not directly impacted by that decision. Respondents were asked to

make a selection that best described their role in their organization (Figure 4-11).

Twenty-four (46.2%) of the respondents were designers, eight (15.4%) were

constructors, 20 (38.5%) were owners or owner’s representatives, one (1.9%) was an

activist, six (11.5%) were administrators, and seven respondents (13.5%) identified as

other. Respondents were asked to specify if they made the choice of other and of the

seven that chose other, one specified educator, two specified architectural historian,

one specified historic preservation specialist, one specified historic building conservator,

one specified consultant, and one indicated the role of Intern.

Respondents (%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Designer 46.2%

Constructor 15.4%

Owner or Owner's Representative 38.5%

Activist 1.9%

Organizational Role Administrative 11.5%

Other 13.5%

Figure 4-11. Role of respondent in their organization.

Survey question six pertained to the respondent’s age. Respondents were asked

to select a range that represented their age range (Figure 4-12). The age ranges 30-39

years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years were fairly evenly distributed at 26.9% for 30-39,

23.1% for 40-49, and 25.0% for 50-59. The age range 21-29 years was chosen by 5.8%

of respondents and the 60 years or older age range was chosen by 19.2% of respondents

30% 26.9% 25.0% n = 52 25% (14) 23.1% (13) (12) 19.2% 20% (10) 15%

10% Respondents (%) Respondents 5.8% 5% (3)

0% 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Respondent's Age Range (Years)

Figure 4-12. Age ranges of respondents.

BIM

The second section of the survey contained question numbers 12 through 16 which were related to the knowledge of the NBIMS and usage of BIM by both the respondent and the respondent’s organization.

Respondent’s Use of BIM

Respondents were given the NBIMS developed by the National Institute of

Building Sciences (NIBS) (Appendix D). The survey question 12 then asked if they had ever been exposed to the concept of BIM either informally or with the formal standard

(Figure 4-13). There were 52 responses to the question. Thirty-one (59.6%) responded yes, 17 (32.7%) respondents selected I had heard of it but do not know much about it option, and four (7.7%) respondents chose no.

No, I had never heard of it (4) 7.7% n = 52

I had heard of it but do not know much (17) 32.7% about it Exposure Catagory Exposure

Yes (31) 59.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Respondents (%)

Figure 4-13. Respondent exposure to BIM.

Respondents were asked if they had been involved with any projects that used

BIM as a tool (Figure 4-14). There were 52 responses to the question. The majority of respondents 29 (55.8%) chose yes, and 23 (44.2%) respondents chose no. The respondents were asked to leave a comment reflecting what type of project they were involved in if they answered yes. Sixteen comments were made which were general in

nature with only one respondent citing specific projects by name.

60% 55.8%

50% (29) 44.2%

40% (23)

30%

20%

10% Respondents (%) Respondents

0% Yes No Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-14. Respondent involvement in projects using BIM.

Respondent’s Organization’s Use of BIM

Respondents were asked if their organization had a virtual design or BIM department (Figure 4-15). There were 51 responses to the question. The majority selected no with 27 responses (52.9%) and 24 (47.1%) responded yes.

54% 52.9% 53% (27) 52% n = 52 51% 50% 49% 48% 47.1%

Respondents (%) Respondents 47% (24) 46% 45% 44% Yes No Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-15. Respondents with virtual design or BIM departments in their organization.

The respondents were asked to select the name of the software package used by their organization (Figure 4-16). There were 33 responses to the question and some of the respondents made more than one selection. The overwhelming majority (87.9%)

of respondents chose AutoDesk Revit, 6.1% selected Bentley (Architecture, Structural,

Mechanical or ConstrucSIM), 12.1% selected Graphisoft ArchiCAD, 6.1% selected

Gehry Technologies Digital Project Designer, 12.1% selected RhinoBIM, 3.0% selected

Vico Office Suite, 3.0% selected Vela Field BIM, 6.1% selected Synchro Professional,

zero respondents selected Vintocon ArchiFM, 3.0% selected EcoDomus, 3.0% selected

the I do not know response, and 15.2% selected other. Of the four selections of the

other response, one specified Arch GIS and Webscene, one specified AutoDesk

Navisworks, SketchUp, Solibri and Assemble, one specified Esri and the last

respondent specified Trimble SketchUp only. Respondents were asked to select all that apply.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Respondents (%) Respondents 10% 0%

BIM Software

Figure 4-16. BIM software used by respondent’s organizations.

Respondents were asked if their organization used BIM for project management or documentation coordination (Figure 4-17). There were 52 responses to the question.

Twenty-nine (55.8%) responded no, 20 (38.5%) responded yes, and three (5.8%) chose the “I do not know” response.”

60% 55.8%

50% (29)

38.5% 40% (20) n = 52 30%

20% Respondents (%) Respondents

10% 5.8% (3) 0% Yes No I do not know Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-17. BIM usage for project management or document coordination.

Respondents were asked if their organization used BIM for management of

historic preservation projects (Figure 4-18). There were 52 responses to the question.

The majority selected no with 28 responses (53.8%), 20 (38.5%) responded yes, and

four (7.7%) chose the “I do not know” response.”

60% 53.8%

50% (28)

38.5% 40% n = 52 (20) 30%

20% Respondents (%) Respondents

10% 7.7% (4) 0% Yes No I do not know Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-18. BIM usage for historic preservation projects.

Documentation Methods

The last section of the survey contained question numbers 18 through 22 which were related to the knowledge of the HABS documentation guidelines, the usage of

digital documentation methods by the respondent’s organization and the 3D modeling

software used by the respondent’s organization.

Respondents were given a link to the HABS documentation guidelines and asked

if their organization used or required documentation methods based on the HABS

guidelines. There were 52 responses to the question. The majority with 30 responses

(57.7%) selected yes, 17 (32.7%) responded no, and five (9.6%) chose the “I do not

know” response (Figure 4-19).

70%

60% 57.7% (30) 50%

40% 32.7% 30% (17)

Respondents (%) Respondents 20% 9.6% 10% (5) 0% Yes No I do not know Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-19. Respondent’s organization’s documentation method.

Respondents were asked if their organization used or required the use of digital documentation (Figure 4-20). There were 52 responses to the question. Eleven (21.2%) of respondents chose yes, 6 (11.5%) of respondents chose no and the majority (67.3%) of respondents chose the “We do both digital and traditional manual documentation”.

80% 67.3% 70% 60% (35) 50% 40% 30% 21.2% Respondents (%) Respondents 20% (11) 11.5% 10% (6) 0% Yes, we do only digital No, we do only traditional We do both digital and documentation manual forms of traditional manual documentation documentation Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-20. Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation.

Respondents were asked if their organization used or required the use of digital documentation for historic preservation projects (Figure 4-21). There were 52 responses

to the question. Thirty-nine (75.0%) of respondents chose yes, 12 (23.1%) of

respondents chose no and one (1.9%) chose the “I do not know” response.”

80% 75.0%

70% (39) 60%

50%

40%

30% 23.1% Respondents (%) Respondents 20% (12) 10% 1.9% (1) 0% Yes No I do not know Respondent's Choice

Figure 4-21. Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation for historic preservation.

Respondents were asked to indicate their organizations digital documentation method (Figure 4-22). There were 46 responses to the question and some of the respondents made more than one selection. The majority (67.4%) of respondents chose

3D laser scanning, 50.0% selected digital photogrammetry, and just as many 50.0% selected other. Of the 23 selections of the other response, specified comments included:

• GPS, field notes, architectural photography, Total Station • Energy modeling, ground penetrating radar, etc. • Drawing or modeling from historic drawings and/or field measurements. • Highly project specific • Photography, hand drawing, digital and hand-marked mapping, research, etc. • Digital photography • CAD drawings • Perspective corrected photography • LiDAR • GPR • IR Camera

• Thermography • Rectified photography, record photography • Structured light • Trimble SketchUp 80%

70% (31) 60%

50% (23) (23) 40%

30% Respondents (%) Respondents 20%

10%

0% 3D Laser Scanning Digital Photogrammetry Other (please specify) Technology Type

Figure 4-22. Respondent’s organization’s documentation acquisition technology.

The respondents were asked to select the name of the software package used

by their organization for 3D modeling (Figure 4-23). There were 43 responses to the

question. The majority (67.4%) of respondents chose AutoDesk Revit, 11.6% selected

Graphisoft ArchiCAD, 18.6% selected AutoDesk 3D Studio Max, 4.7% selected

ViewPoint 3D, 62.8% selected SketchUp, 16.3% selected Rhinoceros 3D, 4.7%

selected CityEngine, 9.3% selected the I do not know response, and 23.3% selected

other. Of the eight selections of the other response, two specified AutoCAD, one

specified IES-VE, Ecotect, and Vasari, one specified Faro Scene, Bentley Pointools and

Agisoft Photoscan, one specified Bentley Microstation and Blender, one specified

Solidworks and one specified Grasshopper. The respondents were asked to select all

that apply.

Other (please specify) I do not know CityEngine Rhinoceros 3D Sketchup ViewPoint 3D AutoDesk 3D Studio Max 3D Modeling Software AutoDesk Revit Graphisoft ArchiCAD

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Respondents (%)

Figure 4-23. Respondent’s organization’s software preference for 3D modeling.

Cross Tabulation Analysis

The primary question of the survey asked the respondents if their organization used or required the use of BIM for HP projects. The primary question and the disqualifying question served separate purposes in the survey. The purpose of the disqualifying question was to determine if the respondent was involved in HP projects of any type, thus ensuring that the respondent group were categorically HP practitioners.

On the other hand, the purpose of the primary question was to determine the extent to which the respondent group actually used BIM specifically for HP and then to analyze all of the remaining data against it to ascertain if any associations could be discovered.

The cross tabulation analysis was performed in the same sequence of question order as the frequency count analysis in the prior section of this chapter with each question cross tabulated to the primary question. Similar to the frequency count analysis, the survey questions were analyzed in groups corresponding to the survey section in which the question was asked. Survey Questions 2-11, which pertained to demographic information, as well as Questions 12-16, which asked about BIM usage

and knowledge, and Questions 18-22, which concerned documentation methods and

3D modeling were all cross tabulated with survey Question 17 which asked the primary question of whether the respondent’s organization used or required the use of BIM for

HP projects.

Demographics

The first section of the survey contained question numbers two through eleven which were related to the demographics of both the respondent and the respondent’s organization. The responses to these questions were cross tabulated with Question 17 which pertained to the respondent’s use of BIM for HP.

Respondent’s Organization Demographics

Responses pertaining to the respondent’s organization type, the region the respondents were from, the role that the respondents held in their organization, the respondent’s age range and the yearly revenues of the respondent’s organization were analyzed against the primary question concerning the usage of BIM for HP.

The responses related to the respondent’s organization type (Question 2) were cross tabulated with the responses concerning the usage of BIM for HP (Question 17).

The majority (90%) of the respondents that used BIM for HP, were from private enterprise. The remaining were an educator and a manager of a private historic site. Of the respondents that did not use BIM for HP, the majority (83%) were from private enterprise, followed by (11%) from a government entity with the remaining from a civic group and a manager of a private historic site (Figure 4-24).

Private Enterprise

Government Entity

Civic Group

Other (Education)

Organization Type Organization Other (Private Historic Site)

0 5 10 15 20 25 Respondents

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-24. Organization type of respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

To determine whether BIM usage was geographically sensitive, the respondent’s selection of the geographic region of the United States where their organization was located was cross tabulated with the respondents who indicated if they did or did not use BIM for HP (Figure 4-25). Region options were delineated as.

• New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut)

• Mid Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

• East North Central (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin)

• West North Central (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas)

• South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida)

• East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi)

• West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)

• Mountain (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada)

• Pacific (Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii)

South Atlantic Middle Atlantic Pacific New England West North Central No Region Chosen Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Mountain No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for East North Central HP West South Central I Do Not Know East South Central

0 2 4 6 8 10 Respondents

Figure 4-25. Geographic regions of the United States of survey respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

The majority of practitioners that responded positively to using BIM for HP indicated that they were geographically located in the South Atlantic region of the U.S.

(7). The other regions selected by practitioners that use BIM for HP were the Pacific region (4), the New England region (3), The West North Central region (2), the Mountain region (2) and the East North Central region (1).

The respondents who indicated that they did not use BIM for HP were similarly distributed across the regions of the U.S. with the majority indicating that they were also geographically located in the South Atlantic region of the U.S. (9). The other regions selected by respondents that did not use BIM for HP were the Middle Atlantic region (7), the Pacific region (3), the New England region (3), the West North Central region (2), and the West South Central region (1).

When the survey Question 3 concerning geographic location was cross tabulated

with the survey Question 17 pertaining to the use of BIM for HP, there was no indication

that geographic location influenced the decision to use BIM or not to use BIM for HP.

To determine if experience or company maturity had any influence on BIM usage, the respondents were asked about the number of years their organization had been in operation and these responses were cross tabulated with the respondents’ indications of whether they did or did not use BIM for HP (Figure 4-26).

Less than 1 - 4 Years

5 - 9 Years

10 - 19 Years

20 - 29 Years

in Operation More than 30 Years Organization's Years Years Organization's 0 5 10 15 Respondents Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-26. Years in operation of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

Of the practitioners that responded yes to using BIM for HP, most (13) of them indicated that their companies had been in operation for more than 30 years. Similarly, of the respondents that indicated that they do not use BIM for HP, the majority of them

(12) also indicated that their companies had been in operation for more than 30 years.

The almost even distribution between respondents who used BIM for HP and those that

did not implies that the number of years an organization has been in business does not

have a relationship with that organization’s usage of BIM for HP.

Survey Question 7 regarding the yearly revenues or operating budget was asked to determine whether the up-front expenses incurred for transitioning to BIM was a barrier. Responses to the ranges indicating the yearly revenues or operating budget of the respondent’s organization or department were analyzed with the responses to the question regarding the usage of BIM for HP (Figure 4-27).

Less than $50,000 $50,001 - $100,000 $100,001 - $250,000 $250,001 - $500,000 $500,001 - $1,000,000 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000

Organization Revenues More than $5,000,001 Blank

0 2 4 6 8 10 Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Respondents No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-27. Annual revenue or operating budget of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

The majority of both the respondents that used BIM for HP and those that did not use BIM for HP indicated that their organization’s annual revenue or operating budgets exceeded five million dollars per year. This almost equal distribution between those that do use BIM for HP (13) and those that do not use BIM for HP (12), amongst the highest category of yearly revenues indicates that the initial capital expenditure required to implement BIM may only be a barrier half of the time.

Survey Questions 9 and 10 respectively asked the respondents what percentage of the work done by their organization pertained to historic preservation and the number of jobs done per year by their organization which were related to HP. The responses to

these questions were cross tabulated with the question concerning the usage of BIM for

HP (Figure 4-28 and Figure 4-29) to determine whether there was a relationship between market penetration and the usage of BIM for HP.

Respondents 2

0 9% 5% 1% 99% 98% 95% 90% 80% 75% 70% 65% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 100% Organization's Percentage of Work Related to HP

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-28. Percentage of historic preservation work of respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

6 5 4 3 2 Respondents 1 0 100 60 50 40 30 25 20 15 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Jobs Per Year Related to HP Done by Organization

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-29. Historic preservation projects of respondent’s organization annually cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

The respondents that indicated that they used BIM for HP did the most number of jobs per year relating to HP (459) while the respondents that did not use BIM for HP did

350 jobs per year relating to HP. Regarding percentage of work relating to HP done by

the organization, seven respondents whose companies did 100% of their work relating

to HP indicated that they did not use BIM for HP. In contrast only one respondent

indicated that 100% of their company’s work was related to HP and that they used BIM

for HP.

The last two survey questions concerning the demographics of the respondent’s

organization were related to project types and project classifications of HP projects. BIM

was developed to be most applicable to new construction. Rarely are HP projects

considered new construction however, additions, reconstructions and complete retrofits

could be considered new construction interventions to an existing HP project. Survey

Question 8 regarding the project types done by the respondent’s organization was cross

tabulated with survey Question 17, which concerned the usage of BIM for HP (Figure 4-

30).

Other (Heritage Site Elements) Other (Civil Structures) Other (Cemetaries) Other (Landscapes) Other (Historic Landscapes) Other (Infrastructure) Monuments by Organizations Project Types Done Types Project Existing Buildings New Buildings

0 10 20 30 Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Respondents No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-30. Project types completed by respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

The respondents who indicated that they used BIM for HP also indicated that the project type worked on the most by their organization were existing buildings (19) followed by new buildings (12) and monuments (6). The respondents who indicated that they did not use BIM for HP responded similarly indicating that their organizations worked on mostly existing buildings (28) followed by monuments (11) and new buildings

(10).

Responses to survey Question 11 regarding the project classification of the respondent’s organizations HP projects were cross tabulated with survey Question 17 which asked about the respondent’s use of BIM for HP (Figure 4-31).

10 Respondents 5

0 Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Reconstruction Secretary of Interiors Classifications of Organizations HP Projects

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-31. Project classifications of work by respondent’s organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

In each of the classifications, Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, the majority of the respondents indicated that they did not use BIM for HP. Only in the last category, Reconstruction, did the most respondents indicate that they used BIM for HP.

Given that BIM has been developed for new construction and requires adaptation to

apply to HP, the increased use of BIM for HP in the reconstruction category was not

surprising.

Respondent Demographics

The last two questions in the demographic section of the survey were related to

the respondent personally. Survey Questions 5 and 6 asked the respondent about their

role in their organization and their age respectively. These questions were then cross

tabulated with Question 17 concerning the usage of BIM for HP to see whether there was a relationship between organizational role and BIM usage or age and BIM usage.

Concerning the question of the role of the respondent influencing the usage of BIM for

HP projects, the results indicated that most of the respondents that used BIM for HP were Designers (14), followed by Owner or Owner’s Reps (4). Of the respondents that did not use BIM for HP most of them were Owners or Owner’s Reps (14), followed by the Designers (7) (Figure 4-32).

Designer Owner or Owner's Rep Constructor Administrative Other (HP Specialist/Consultant) Other (Architectural Historian) Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Other (Intern) Respondents Role Other (Historic Bldg Conservator) No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP Other (Educator) I Do Not Know Activist

0 5 10 15 Respondents Figure 4-32. Role of respondent in their organization cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

In regards to age, the largest group of respondents (14) were in the 30-39 years

of age category and that category was evenly split between respondents that used BIM for HP (7) and respondents that did not use BIM for HP (7) (Figure 4-33).

8 7 6 5 4 3

Resppondents 2 1 0 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Respondents Age Group

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-33. Age ranges of respondents cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

BIM

The second section of the survey contained Questions 12-16 which were related to the knowledge of NBIMS and usage of BIM by both the respondent and the respondent’s organization. The responses to these questions were cross tabulated with

Question 17 which pertained to the respondent’s use of BIM for HP.

Respondent’s Use of BIM

Survey Questions 12 and 13 regarded the knowledge of BIM and use of BIM as a tool by the respondent personally. For Question 12, the NBIMS was provided to the respondents for review and then the respondents were asked if prior to the survey they had any knowledge of BIM. The responses were cross tabulated with Question 17 regarding the use of BIM for HP (Figure 4-34).

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Respondents 4 2 0 Yes I had heard of it but do not No, I had never heard of it know much about it Exposure to National Building Information Modeling Standard Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-34. Respondent exposure to BIM cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

The results indicated that of the 31 respondents that had prior knowledge of BIM,

18 indicated that they used BIM for HP while 12 indicated that they did not use BIM for

HP. Of the 17 respondents that had heard of BIM but did not know much about it, only 1 indicated that they used BIM for HP while 15 indicated that they did not use BIM for HP.

Question 13 regarded the respondent’s involvement in past projects which used

BIM as a tool. The responses were cross tabulated with Question 17 which concerned the use of BIM for HP and the results indicated an even split between the two groups

(Figure 4-35).

Of the group that indicated that they used BIM for HP (20), all 20 indicated that they had previously been involved in projects which used BIM as a tool. Of the group that indicated that they did not use BIM for HP, eight of them had been involved on previous projects which used BIM as a tool but most of them (20) had not.

10 Respondents 5

0 Yes No Involvement with projects that use BIM as a tool Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-35. Respondent involvement in projects using BIM cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

Respondent’s Organization’s Use of BIM

Survey Questions 14-16 pertained to the respondent’s organization’s use of BIM for project management or document coordination, if their organization had a virtual design or BIM department and what BIM software package was used by their organization. The responses of these three questions were cross tabulated with

Question 17 which pertained to the use of BIM for HP.

For survey Question 14 regarding a virtual design or BIM department within the respondent’s organization, the respondents who indicated that their organization did

have a virtual design or BIM department also indicated the most usage of BIM for HP

(15). The respondents that indicated that their organization did not have a virtual design

or BIM department also had the most respondents that did not use BIM for HP (20)

(Figure 4-36).

10 Respondents 5

0 Yes No Organization Contains a Virtual Design or BIM Department

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-36. Respondents with virtual design or BIM departments in their organization cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP.

The cross tabulated results for survey Question 15, which asked the respondent which BIM software was used by their organization, indicated that AutoDesk Revit was the preferred BIM software for both respondent groups. Those who used BIM for HP

(17) and those that did not use BIM for HP (10) (Figure 4-37).

Respondents 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Bentley (Architecture, Structural,… AutoDesk Revit Graphisoft ArchiCAD Gehry Technologies - Digital Project… RhinoBIM Vico Office Suite Vela Field BIM Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Synchro Professional Vintocon ArchiFM No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for EcoDomus HP I do not know I Do Not Know Other (AutoDesk Navisworks) Other (ESRI ArcGIS)

BIM Software BIM Software Used by Organizations Other (Trimble SketchUp)

Figure 4-37. BIM software used by respondent’s organizations cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP.

The last question in this section pertained to the respondent’s organization’s

usage of BIM for project management or document coordination. The cross tabulated

results indicated that of the respondents that chose yes, their organization used BIM for

project management or documentation coordination, the majority of them (26) did not

use BIM for HP while 18 respondents used BIM for HP.(Figure 4-38).

30 25 20 15 10 Respondents 5 0 Yes No I do not know Organizations Use of BIM for Project Management or Document Coordination

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-38. BIM usage for project management or document coordination cross tabulated with usage of BIM for HP.

Documentation Methods

The last section of the survey contained Questions18-22 which were related to

the knowledge of the HABS, the usage of digital documentation methods by the

respondent’s organization and the 3D modeling software used by the respondent’s

organization. The responses to these questions were cross tabulated with Question 17

which pertained to the respondent’s use of BIM for HP.

Survey Question 18 provided the respondents with the documentation method guidelines of HABS and asked if their organization required the use of these guidelines.

The responses were cross tabulated with Question 17 which pertained to the

respondent’s use of BIM for HP. The results indicated that of the 20 respondents that said yes their organization required the use of HABS guidelines, 16 were respondents that did not use BIM for HP while 11 of the respondents used BIM for HP (Figure 4-39).

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 Respondents 4 2 0 Yes No I do not know Organizations Documentation Methods Based on HABS Guidelines

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-39. Respondent’s organization’s documentation method cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

The next two questions regarded the use of digital documentation by the respondent’s organization. Question 19 asked the respondents if their organization required the use of digital documentation and Question 20 expanded the idea by asking if the respondent’s organization required the use of digital documentation for HP projects. The responses of both questions were cross tabulated with the question regarding the usage of BIM for HP (Figure 4-40).

The results of Question 19 indicated that a mix of digital and traditional manual documentation practices were favored by both, the group that does not use BIM for HP

(19) and the group that does use BIM for HP (12)

5 Respondents 0 Yes, we do only No, we do only We do both digital I do not know digital traditional manual and traditional documentation forms of manual documentation documentation Organizations Use of Digital or Manual Documentation

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-40. Respondent’s organization’s use of digital documentation cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

Question 20 regarding the use of digital documentation for HP projects showed similar results in that if the respondents indicated their organization required the use of digital documentation, most of those (21) were respondents who said they did not use

BIM for HP and 15 were respondents who said that they used BIM for HP (Figure 4-41).

10 Respondents 5

0 Yes No I do not know Organizations Use of Digital Documentation for HP

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-41. Respondent organization’s use of digital documentation for historic preservation cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

The results of Questions 19 and 20 reveal that BIM is not being used for HP even when digital documentation practices are used or required.

For survey Question 21 regarding the technologies used by the organizations that used or required the use of digital documentation, the majority (31) of the respondents indicated that 3D Laser Scanning was the most preferred method. Of those that chose 3D Laser Scanning, 15 respondents also indicated that they did not use BIM for HP while 14 of the respondents also indicated that they used BIM for HP. The other popular documentation method was digital photogrammetry. Of the respondents that chose digital photogrammetry (23), 15 respondents also indicated that they did not use

BIM for HP while 7 of the respondents also indicated that they used BIM for HP (Figure

4-42).

16 14 12 10 8 6

Respondents 4 2 0 3D Laser Scanning Digital I do not know Other (please Photogrammetry specify) Technology(ies) Used for Digital Documentation Acquistion

Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for HP I Do Not Know

Figure 4-42. Respondent organization’s documentation acquisition technology cross tabulated with the usage of BIM for HP.

The last question of the documentation methods section and the last question of the survey pertained to the 3D modeling software that was used by the respondent’s organization. The results were cross tabulated with the question pertaining to the use of

BIM for HP. The cross tabulated results for survey Question 22 were similar to the cross tabulated results of question 15 which pertained to the BIM software that was used by the respondent’s organization. AutoDesk Revit (17) was the preferred 3D modeling software and Trimble’s SketchUp (15) was second for the respondents who also indicated that they used BIM for HP. For those respondents who indicated that they did not use BIM for HP, AutoDesk Revit (11) and Trimble’s SketchUp (11) were tied in regards to preference (Figure 4-43).

Respondents 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Graphisoft ArchiCAD AutoDesk Revit AutoDesk 3D Studio Max ViewPoint 3D Sketchup Rhinoceros 3D CityEngine I do not know Other (AutoCAD) Other (AutoCAD Civil 3D) Other (Grasshopper) Yes, My Company Uses BIM for HP Other (FARO Scene) Other (Bentley Pointools) by Organizations Other (AgisSoft PhotoScan) No, My Company Does Not Use BIM for Other (Bentley MicroStation) HP Other (Solidworks) 3D Modeling3D Software Used I Do Not Know Other (IES-VE) Other (Ecotect) Other (Vasari)

Figure 4-43. Respondent’s organization’s software preference for 3D modeling cross tabulated with the use of BIM for HP.

Correlation Analysis

The collection of the sample is assumed to be of a Simple Random Sample

(SRS). Most of the data was categorical in nature. Using the categorical data, some

proportional information could be determined. The sample showed that 38.5% of the

respondents indicated that they used BIM for historic preservation projects. However,

the proportion was adjusted to delete the four respondents that selected the response

labeled “I do not know.” The new sample proportion, based on 48 respondents, was

41.6%. As shown in Table 4-1, it can be inferred with a 95% confidence level that between 27% and 56% of all HP practitioners in the U.S. are using BIM for HP projects.

Table 4-1. 95% CI test output from Minitab

Method Event: HP BIM Usage =1 p: proportion where HP BIM Usage = 1 Normal approximation is used for this analysis.

Descriptive Statistics

N Event Sample p 95% CI for p 48 20 0.416667 (0.277197, 0.556136)

A Pearson correlation test was run in the statistical program Minitab. The survey data entered for the variables were the results from the primary question of the survey and six other questions which were expected to have some correlation to the primary question. The primary question of the survey Question 17 asked the respondent if their organization used or required the use of BIM for HP projects. The six questions tested for correlation to the primary question were:

• Question 6. What is your age? • Question 7. What are the yearly revenues or operating budget for your organization (department)? • Question 14. Does your organization have a virtual design or BIM department? • Question 12. Prior to this survey, had you been exposed to BIM or the National BIM standard? • Question 13. Have you been involved with any projects that used BIM as a tool? • Question 16. Does your organization use BIM for project management or document coordination?

The results indicated that there were two variables that appeared significant and had a strong correlation to the usage of BIM for HP projects (Table 4-2). The p values for the indicators, involvement with a project that used BIM as a tool and the usage of

BIM for project management or documentation coordination, were .714286 and .871316 respectively. As shown on Table 4-2, the p values for these two indicators approach 0.1 which indicates a strong correlation.

Table 4-2. BIM usage for historic preservation correlation matrix

Correlations HP BIM Age Revenue BIM Dept. BIM Std. BIM Involve Usage Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Question 6 Question 7 Question 14 Question 12 Question 13 Question 17 (Primary)

Age -0.088838 0.5482 Revenue 0.341614 0.069277 0.0175 0.6399 BIM Dept. 0.494727 -0.171550 0.217715 0.0004 0.2437 0.1371 BIM Std. 0.480079 -0.065663 0.275724 0.367058 0.0006 0.6575 0.0578 0.0103 BIM Involve 0.714286 -0.083107 0.267026 0.438187 0.567367 <0.0001 0.5744 0.0665 0.0018 <0.0001 BIM Usage 0.871316 -0.150954 0.477864 0.452439 0.362988 0.684091 <0.0001 0.3058 0.0006 0.0012 0.0112 <0.0001

Cell Contents: Pearson correlation P-Value

The results of the test suggest that if a survey respondent used BIM for any kind of project management or document coordination or if they had previously been involved in a project that used BIM as a tool, there is a high probability that they will use

BIM on future HP projects. The other four variables, respondent age, revenues of the organization, having a BIM department in the organization or being familiar with the

National BIM Standard, showed little or no correlation to the usage of BIM for HP.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusions

Building information modeling (BIM) is currently being adopted by many members of the construction industry. Since BIM was developed with new build construction at the core of its design, implementation into the workflows of modern construction is relatively straight forward. As the adoption rate of BIM rises within the architecture community, an opportunity to affect the development of historic building information modeling (HBIM) is becoming a possibility.

To gauge the extent of adoption of BIM in the historic preservation (HP) community, a survey was developed and posted into several online historic preservation forums. Responses began coming back almost immediately. An interesting observance, regarding the posting of this survey into a topic centric forum, was the discussions that were generated. The topic of BIM usage for HP was openly debated in the forum. Over the course of a week, the comments about the research topic, continuously raised the posting to the top of the discussion roll allowing for increased visibility. Several respondents expressed interest in a continued dialog and others offered future participation to further the research.

The results of the survey for this research are encouraging for industry professionals engaged in HP. It is apparent from this research that HP practitioners are using BIM. The survey results indicated that 42% of survey respondents use BIM for historic preservation. While this is less than half of the survey respondents, statistically the proportion can be inferred with a 95% confidence interval that between 27% and

56% of all HP practitioners in the United States are using BIM for HP projects. There

appears to be no relationship between the usage of BIM for HP and geographic location, role within the organization, age of the respondent, revenues or operating budget of the organization or organization type based on the cross tabulated analysis of the demographic section of the survey results. Cross tabulation analysis of the BIM section of the survey results indicates that there is a relationship between exposure to

BIM in concept or experience by involvement in projects which use BIM as a tool for project management or documentation coordination and the usage of BIM for HP projects. The results of the Pearson correlation tests reinforce this idea by suggesting that if a respondent used BIM for any type of project or had been involved in a project that used BIM as a tool there is a high probability that they will use BIM on future HP projects. Results of the survey indicate that overwhelmingly, the software of choice for both BIM and 3D modeling is the AutoDesk product Revit with Trimble’s SketchUp product being the second most popular 3D modeling software. Interestingly, there were respondents that indicated the use of 3D modeling software, software that does not have the functionality for BIM, as a BIM software. These responses may indicate either a misinterpretation of the survey question or a lack of understanding the difference between BIM and 3D modeling.

Recommendations for Improvements to the Survey

While the primary goal of the survey was to determine the extent that BIM is being used for HP, an improvement to the survey would be a question regarding the respondent’s definition of BIM. A supposition of the respondent’s idea of what BIM is could be guessed by their answer to the question about what software package they used for BIM. Since 87.9% of the respondents selected the AutoDesk Revit option when asked what BIM software they used and 67.4% selected the same software when asked

what 3D modeling software they used, it is impossible to decipher if the respondents clearly understood that while BIM is predicated on the use of a 3D model, BIM is not only 3D modeling. Posing the question directly and providing multiple choice answers as well as an Other/Please Specify option would provide clarity. Another improvement relates to the demographic inquiry about geographic location. Several possible respondents commented that they would have liked to participate but felt unwelcome to do so because of the limitation placed on the geographic area. Increasing the area might result in an increased number of responses.

Recommendations for Future Research

As BIM increases interoperability and becomes more standardized, the development of HBIM into a true BIM becomes more possible. An area that deserves further research would be the development of a framework that advances HBIM into a true BIM. An application of such a framework might be the inclusion of HBIM into the

HABS guidelines. The inclusion of HBIM into the HABS guidelines would foster broader acceptance of technology into the HP community.

APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONAIRE

APPENDIX B INTERNATIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER

APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS

APPENDIX D EXCERPT FROM THE NATIONAL BIM STANDARD

LIST OF REFERENCES

Akboy, S., 2011. The HABS Culture of Documentation with an Analysis of Drawing and Technology. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX

Attar, R., Prabhu, V., Glueck, M., Khan, A., 2010. 210 King Street: a dataset for integrated performance assessment. Proceedings of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multiconference, Society for Computer Simulation International, 177.

Carmona, J., Irwin, K., 2007. BIM: Who, What, How and Why. [online] Available at: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/software/article/BIM-Who-What-How-and-Why--7546 (Accessed on 14th September 2014).

Davidson, P., DeSousa, D., Lavoie, C., Price, V., 2013. Historic American Buildings Survey Guide to Field Documentation [online] Available at: http://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/HABSGuideFieldDoc.pdf (Accessed on 21st September 2014).

Dore, C., Murphy, M., 2012. Integration of HBIM and 3D GIS for Digital Heritage Modelling, Digital Documentation, Edinburgh, Scotland. (22nd – 23rd October, 2012).

Dore, C., Murphy, M., 2012. Integration of Historic Building Information Modeling (HBIM) and 3D GIS for recording and managing cultural heritage sites. Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM) 2012. 18th International Conference, 369-376.

Eppich, R., Chabbi, A., 2007. Recording, documentation, and information management for the conservation of heritage places: Illustrated examples. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA

Fai, S., Rafeiro, J., 2014. Establishing an Appropriate Level of Detail (LoD) for a Building Information Model (BIM)-West Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Canada. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 1 123-130.

Grussenmeyer, P., Landes, T., Voegtle, T., Ringle, K., 2008. Comparison methods of terrestrial laser scanning, photogrammetry and tacheometry data for recording of cultural heritage buildings. ISPRS Congress Proceedings, Beijing, 213-218.

Gu, N., London, K., 2010. Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction 19 (8), 988-999.

Hamil, S., 2011. Isn’t BIM just 3D CAD? [online] Available at: http://www.thenbs.com/topics/BIM/articles/instBimJust3Dcad.asp (Accessed on 1st November 2014).

Holt, E. G., 1957. A Documentary History of Art: Volume I. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Doubleday, Anchor Garden City, NY

Ibrahim, M., Krawczyk, R., Schipporeit, G., 2004. Two approaches to BIM: a comparative study. eCAADe Conference, (22) 610-616.

Jokilehto, J., 1999. A History of Architectural Conservation, Rediscovery of antiquities, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA, 26-33

Komas, T. W., 2005. Historic Building Documentation in the United States, 1933-2000: The Historic American Buildings Survey, A Case Study, Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

Murphy, M., McGovern, E., Pavia, S., 2011. Historic Building Information Modelling- Adding Intelligence to Laser and Image Based Surveys. Proceedings of the 4th ISPRS International Workshop, 5.

Murphy, M., McGovern, E., Pavia, S., 2007. Parametric Vector Modelling of Laser and Image Surveys of 17th Century Classical Architecture in Dublin. The 8th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST.

Murphy, M., McGovern, E., Pavia, S., 2013. Historic Building Information Modelling – Adding intelligence to laser and image based surveys of European classical architecture. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 76, 89- 102.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 2014. Four approaches to the treatment of historic properties – Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service. [online] Available at: http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four- treatments.htm (Accessed on 27th September 2014).

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 2014. HABS/HAER/HALS. [online] Available at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hdp/standards/guidelines.htm (Accessed on 27th September 2014).

National BIM Standard, United States Version 2, National Institute of Building Sciences, 2014. About the national BIM Standard-United States | National BIM Standard – United States. [online] Available at: http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/about.php (Accessed on 30th September 2014).

Neeley, Dennis., 2010. “Good News, You are Part of a New Era – Bad News, You are Part of the Start of a New Era.” CMD Market Intelligence, [online] Available at: http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/Market-Intelligence/Articles/2010/1/Good- News-You-are-Part-of-a-New-Era--Bad-News-You-are-Part-of-the-Start-of-a- New-Era-RCD007980W/ (Accessed on 5th October 2014).

Neeley, Dennis., 2010. “The Speed of Change.” CMD Market Intelligence, [online] Available at: http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/Market- Intelligence/Articles/2010/6/The-Speed-of-Change-RCD008819W/ (Accessed on 5th October 2014).

Núñez Andrés, M. A., Buill Pozuelo, F., 2009. Evolution of the architectural and heritage representation. Landscape Urban Planning, 91 (2), 105-112.

Oreni, D., Brumana, R., Cuca, B., Georgopoulos, A., 2013. HBIM for conservation and management of built heritage: Towards a library of vaults and wooden bean floors. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume II-5/W1.

Peterson, C., 1957. American Notes: The Historic American Buildings Survey Continued. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XVI, no. 3, 29-31.

Peterson, C., 1957. Photogrammetry for HABS. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 16, no. 4, 27.

Philippot, P., 1996. Restoration from the Perspective of the Humanities. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. 216-229.

Rua, H., Alvito, P., 2011. Living the past: 3D models, virtual reality and game engines as tools for supporting archaeology and the reconstruction of cultural heritage – the case-study of the Roman villa of Casal de Freiria. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38 (12), 3296-3308.

Sax, J. L., 1990. Heritage Preservation as a Public Duty: The Abbé Grégoire and the Origins of an Idea. Michigan Law Revue, 88 (5), 1142-1169.

Schara, M., 2008. HABS Guidelines Recording Historic Structures and Sites with HABS Measured Drawings. Historic American Buildings Survey, Washington D.C.

Shapiro, G.F., 2014. Setting a Standard in Building Information Modeling – Architect Magazine [online] Available at: http://www.architectmagazine.com/bim/setting-a- standard-in-building-information-modeling_o.aspx (Accessed on 5th October 2014).

Simonian, L., 2014. Legal Considerations Associated with Building Information Modeling [online] Available at: http://www.caed.calpoly.edu/pdci/research- projects/simonian-10.html (Accessed on 5th October 2014).

Skarmeas, G. C., 2010. From HABS to BIM: Personal Experiences, Thoughts, and Reflections. APT Bulletin, 41(4, Special Issue on Documentation), 47-53.

Stipe, R. E., 2003. A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century America’s Preservation Ethos. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 1-45

Stubbs, J.H., 2009. Time Honored a Global View of Architectural Conservation. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 25-187.

Volk, R., Stengel, J., Schultmann, F., 2014. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for existing buildings—Literature review and future needs. Automated Construction, 38 109-127.

Watson, A., 2011. Digital buildings – Challenges and opportunities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25 (4), 573-581.

Weeks, K. D., Grimmer, A. E., 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring & reconstructing historic buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Woo, J., Wilsmann, J., Kang, D., 2010. Use of as-built building information modeling. Construction Research Congress, 538-547.

Yang, W., Chen, M., Yen, Y., 2011. An application of digital point cloud to historic architecture in digital archives. Advanced Engineering Software, 42 (9), 690-699.

Yastikli, N., 2007. Documentation of cultural heritage using digital photogrammetry and laser scanning. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 8 (4), 423-427.

Yong, L., Mingmin, Z., Yunliang, J., Haiying, Z., 2012. Improving procedural modeling with semantics in digital architectural heritage. Computer Graphics, 36 (3), 178- 184.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Marla began her college experience as a non-traditional student. Attending the

University of Florida from 1990 – 1994, she was one of six women enrolled in the M.E.

Rinker, Sr. School of Construction Management. The delay in her life between high

school and college gave Marla life experience and perspective to obtain her degree and

be successfully recruited by the large international general contracting company

McDevitt Street Bovis. During her time there she was mentored in the pre-construction

department and became a construction professional specializing in hospitality pre-

construction services. Within a few years, Marla turned to consulting. She partnered

with a colleague from McDevitt Street Bovis to develop HDC & Associates, Inc. Marla

worked on many prestigious hospitality projects during her time with HDC. During this

time she also pursued interests in other fields. In early 2000, she attended The

Southeast Center for Photographic Studies and began studying photography. In her

travels for construction projects she also took time to document the countries she visited photographically. Over the years, she has amassed a photo library containing roughly

60,000 images. This large and diverse library has given her some success as a travel stock photographer. Another interest Marla pursued was culinary arts. In 2006, Marla attended Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts in Orlando. During her time there she became an accomplished pastry chef, winning several school affiliated competition events. After working in the construction industry for almost twenty years and engaging in her other varied interests, Marla decided to return to UF to pursue her graduate degree. Equipped with her experiences in the construction industry and other life pursuits, Marla intends to obtain her master’s and doctorate degrees from her alma mater then go on to teach young construction professionals as a college professor.