This may be controversial...

?

The images shown here are from a series of building and construction technology lectures delivered over the last 3 years for the first year students of the BSc (Hons) in Architectural Technology at TU Dublin. Unlike a typical lecture using a slide deck of images and diagrams from publications or projects, this series requires the students to construct a "real" building over the course of a semester. In my recent posts I have shown teaching exercises at TU Dublin that embrace experiential learning and value in-person, hands-on, and hand-made approaches. However, it is also vital that we provide world-class digital learning resources and experiences too. When I say real building above, I mean virtually a real building of course.??

Each week the students who attend the lecture receive a digital 3D model file with a kit of pre-made components on a wooden pallet. They must assemble these parts into a junction or zone of the chosen building.?The students, with some guidance and discussion, arrange the materials provided by simply moving them from the pallet to the construction zone. Modification and copying of the parts is discouraged generally to take the focus away from the software application and to keep the focus on the assembly and solution.??

In this example pictured, we "build" a modest dwelling from foundation up to ridge in stages and include EVERYTHING. Every reinforcement bar and support chair in the strip footing trench, every drainage pipe and access junction, every sheet and turn?in damp proofing membranes, every lintel, every joist and joist hanger, every nail in the joist hangers, every T&G plywood sheet over them, and every screw in that plywood sheet. We have even included the storage of materials on site, welfare facilities, and equipment, to show staging and sequencing. All these parts have been pre-modelled for the students and represent a very rich open educational resource (OER).?As?everything is included and present, we can therefore say that this is virtually a real building site. ?

?There are several reasons why this model has been created in advance and provided to the students. Crucially, we want the students to explore architectural technology through “building” rather than confound it with the skills of drawing or modelling, which, very often, become distracting and overwhelming for them. Over the last number of years, I have observed students from our architectural technology programme, along with students from other courses I have acted as an external examiner for, working through the technical design process and struggling to reconcile these skills. During the process of initially being exposed to 2D drawing techniques and modelling software and using them to explore basic geometries, you will observe students wrangling with drawing techniques or modelling software, along with trying to comprehend the technical problem. Usually one or both areas suffer and assessment quality and learning attainment are reduced. For students at an early stage, particularly, this gets in the way of the development of their technical problem solving knowledge.?Often, solving the graphic output problem, the drawing or model, seems to become more of a focus than the problem solving itself. ?

Even though I value drawing and modelling very highly and see them as central tools and catalysts for exploring and resolving architectural design problems, the quality of the solution is the most important result, not the quality of the associated graphic output. In the exercises described here, the mode of presentation is rightly made subservient to the solution. The student must lay digital bricks and blocks beside and above others or insert a wall tie to fit between a board of insulation and a sheet of damp proof course. They cannot ignore that there is a set-out point and depth for each material that the builder will have to grapple with and coordinate. The students need to demonstrate that they can assemble this series of components into a system that controls gravity, water, air, heat, light, and sound in a comprehensive and, ideally, elegant manner. Typical design workflows don't attempt to address this complexity because this level of comprehensiveness has been very difficult to achieve at design stage historically. In a recent post I showed a project that involves the making of 1:20 physical scale models where students are set the challenge of including and making as much as possible of the real components themselves. This includes the casting of concrete foundations and the making of tiny clay bricks. It proved, if not impossible, impractical to make something like wall ties, or a screw fixing, or a hinge at that scale. However, a digital virtual building site allows us to do this relatively easily.??

?

Most digital (BIM) models level of detail, what is created and included in the virtual space, ends at about 1:50 scale (LOD 400, RICS Accuracy Band D, +/-25mm tolerance). After which call-outs and drafting views are used to complete documentation typically. This means we move from a comprehensive 3D process that must consider the full geometric complexity of building, back to a largely flat, isolated, and abstracted 2D workflow. Apart from generative and non-uniform geometry options, the potential of digital construction design tools and building information modelling has always lay in the power to create a more comprehensive, more coordinated, more accurate design process, with less effort. BIM promised the opportunity to do exponentially "more" at a higher level of detail and quality. However, you will be aware yourself, this transformation and potential has not been fully realised. I would go further to say that what I have suggested above does not just apply to education, it applies to professional design workflows also. We are not leveraging the full power of digital design technologies. We seem to be still within the phase of innovation diffusion which merely replicates the old technique and output (a 2D drawing) with the new technology. So far, the digital transformation has failed to significantly influence or improve our technical problem solving process in architecture and construction, dare I say it. (I must qualify this statement by saying that there have certainly been some recent excellent digital initiatives exploring productivity, procurement, and quality. Particularly, by my colleagues in TU Dublin).?

?A key factor to consider is that the notion of the "typical" detail, whether 2D or 3D, is not an adequate design approach. It will not fully resolve, nor optimise, an assembly of parts at a junction or continuous run. For example, insulation board joints that repeat around a perimeter may land awkwardly on a joint or component, those same boards may need to be cut around a sloping lintel, a flexible membrane will take a turn and require a pre-made corner piece, brickwork coordinating dimensions will start from a set-out point on the other side of the building, or the lengths and positions of fixings may substantially impact buildability and the sequence of works. These issues are normally invisible within our technical design workflow and modes of representation; drawings. An isolated and "idealised" design detail will not resolve these issues. They will end up being argued about on the site in the rain and mud on a Tuesday afternoon, more than likely, and a compromised solution will be bartered between the parties. This suggests that our typical teaching approaches for exploring?building technology are not adequate. Furthermore, the same issue probably exists within professional design practice. ?

?

The images included here show the potential of a model that attempts to create a high fidelity digital twin. Students can see the full geometry and complexity of a radon barrier, for example, as it overlaps and turns around thermal blocks. They can also isolate this as a single system to see it in its entirety, rather than as a dotted line on a 1:5 scale 2D detail. In certain circumstances, for educational purposes mostly, an isolated detail may be necessary but we should be aiming to always show the context and origin of that assembly. In the final images of this post you will see an exercise that explores a window opening in a wall. The full model was first created after which the junction or zone was isolated (approximately a 1m offset from the structural opening down to the foundations). The parts were then disassembled and laid out on the virtual wooden pallet. There are then 814 parts for the student to move into place. All 814 parts must be accounted for and located (a bit like a complicated Kinder Egg toy!).?Depending on the learning level of the students, a model answer “ghost”?is provided as a guide and framework. This can be seen as a transparent green-highlighted geometry in the images below which the student uses as?a template. As?students become more advanced they receive the parts and instructions on the intended design intent only, like a builder would.

Over the years of using this educational approach, the results have been very positive. It's particularly easy to see if an assembly has been understood or not, much more so than from reviewing 2D drafted details a student has produced. The drafting error cannot be confused with a lack of awareness of how the system should work. In fact, the student can see for themselves in most cases what has gone wrong because components just don't fit or are left over. This is a form of initial validation which does not occur in drawings; there's an element of a game to the exercises. The model can be used by students and teachers as both a resource for understanding how a building is put together and as a way of assessing that knowledge.

I believe this approach is novel and has lots of interesting implications for our teaching, learning, and assessment approaches, and for professional practice also. Questions arise about the practicalities of creating the resources at increasing building scales or using this level of detail as part of a professional design workflow. My initial research at a domestic scale suggests that modelling time versus benefit is reasonable and viable. I have not found model latency to be a problem either (#Autodesk #Formit works very well for this workflow).?

We currently have dissertation students exploring this topic as a part of their thesis which might uncover further challenges and opportunities, but my hunch currently, based on a series of test models, is that the principle is sound and will scale adequately. The quality of BIM families available from OEMs and housed within 3D model repositories is very poor at present. This makes the time required to create components excessive but this is likely to be improved with more widely available photogrammetry scanning tools and a greater awareness of this approach.?The main barrier therefore is only one of hardware and software capability. And the dreaded advent of widespread AI might even help us with that in fact.?Some might, understandably, harbour concern or resignation that AI will simply automate all this and make the designer obsolete. I would have a more optimistic view (I have to, I'm a techie after all). When a new(ish) technology or process emerges, the counter-balance to its negative impact on human labour demand is to both extend and deepen the existing workflow it now forms part of and enables; i.e. improve the quality of its end product substantially. In that way, we may generate new roles for curation, critical analysis and innovation. The approach I am advocating here might be such a tactic.??

Other existing uses of this "virtual assembly" approach to teaching building technology that we are currently exploring include immersive reality applications where the models can be used for augmented (AR) and extended reality (XR) versions. This allows students to appreciate the full scale of the construction assembly as a simulator in effect. Furthermore, as a fun twist, there are ways for users to step back Through the Looking Glass by using 3D Printing of components at small scale so students can build physical models, like an AirFix model perhaps. I have trialed both of these additional applications and will post about them soon...

As mentioned, the model showcased here, and others that will follow, are?likely to be of benefit to other teachers and professionals. We are willing to share these as open educational resources if you are willing to provide feedback for refinement and improvement, and possibly partake in future beta testing of larger scale versions. To create a?very high quality virtual design and construction (VDC) artifact,?input from all stakeholders in the architecture, engineering, and construction sector will be required, obviously. Even though I have been a little brash in my claim that "everything" is?included, I'm sure I have left something out that designers and builders will point out to me in quick fashion. If you would like more information please provide your contact information at the form HERE.

?

(Views are my own based?on personal experience as a teacher in this subject area and as a designer. They don't represent the Architectural Technologies department of TU Dublin).??

?

?

?