{"id":25568,"date":"2024-04-24T01:44:46","date_gmt":"2024-04-24T08:44:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/bridging-the-gap-using-computational-design-to-meet-todays-infrastructure-demands\/"},"modified":"2024-04-24T01:44:58","modified_gmt":"2024-04-24T08:44:58","slug":"bridging-the-gap-using-computational-design-to-meet-todays-infrastructure-demands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/essential.construction\/news\/bridging-the-gap-using-computational-design-to-meet-todays-infrastructure-demands\/","title":{"rendered":"Bridging the Gap: Using Computational Design to Meet Today\u2019s Infrastructure Demands"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"-\"<\/a>
\n<\/p>\n

\n

In the race to repair our failing infrastructure, BIM and computational design can help us build faster, better, and cheaper<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2013 Mac Little, Computational BIM Lead and Anton Dy Buncio, COO, VIATechnik<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The transportation infrastructure of the U.S. is approaching failure at an alarming rate \u2013 the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card<\/a> issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) graded the various forms of transportation infrastructure a D+. Even if we narrow the scope to bridges only, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association estimates that 7.6% of bridges<\/a> \u2013 some 47,000 bridges throughout the US handling around 178 million daily crossings \u2013 are structurally deficient and in need of major repairs. At our currently decreasing rate of repair, it would take 80 years to fix these problems, to say nothing of the additional 188,000 bridges in need of smaller repairs. This is an unacceptable timeline. At VIATechnik, we have been focused on utilizing computational BIM workflows<\/a> to tackle this problem. Using Grasshopper, Rhino 3D, and Tekla Structures, we are merging structural engineering and computational design to disrupt the way we design and build bridges. We believe this workflow can significantly reduce the resources and cost required to replace our failing infrastructure.<\/p>\n

Typical Bridge Design and Detailing Workflow<\/h2>\n
\n
\"Steel
Steel Rebar Bridge Photo: Pexels<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

With some exceptions, a standard highway
\nbridge is built in precast concrete sections lifted into place by crane. This
\nincludes the superstructure of piers and girders that support the road surface.
\nEach of these pieces must be carefully designed to certain structural and
\nenvironmental requirements, creating complex rebar designs that must be
\nreviewed and tested during the design and shop drawing phase. Today this is
\ntypically performed with 2D software such as AutoCAD or Microstation. A bridge
\ndesign is broken into precast sections, then into typical and atypical details
\nthat are individually drafted and placed into a digital sheet set. A model
\nbased on these drawings can be created and analyzed for capacity in a 3D
\nmodeling platform, but all changes or findings must be recorded and tracked
\nback to the separate drawing creation platform. Introduce any amount of
\ncomplexity in the bridge geometry and the atypical details quickly outnumber
\nthe typical ones and the workload increases exponentially. Neither of these
\nprograms considers constructability or rebar clashing; they are typically
\npurely documentation tools or rote structural analysis. And they are being used
\non significant projects. We routinely see $50 million bridges with complex
\ngeometry approached with little more technological innovation than a
\nhand-drafted set of blueprints.<\/p>\n

This
\nworkflow is almost entirely manual, and even if we suppose portions might be
\nattempted in a 3D software such as Civil 3D, adapting to changes can be a
\nweeks-long process. After all, a change in overall bridge geometry means every
\nsection needs to be modified accordingly. This involves coordination across
\nmultiple digital files and data within those files. Even if you know exactly
\nwhat to do and make no mistakes, the sheer amount of time this takes is
\nastonishing. Moreover, exceptionally complex bridge designs can present
\nproblems from a purely geometric point of view \u2013 multiple layers of curved
\ngeometry are harder to initially analyze and draft in 2D and therefore more difficult
\nto modify. This can lead to compromised designs from the outset, as more
\ncomplex \u2013 but more efficient \u2013 designs are eschewed in favor of options more
\neasily fit into 2D confines.<\/p>\n

BIM and Computational Design Workflow<\/h2>\n
\"Section\"Section
Section view of longitudinal bridge rebar and diaphragms created in Tekla, bridge tendons modeled in Revit Photo: VIATechnik<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But what if there were a way to automate the entire process of modeling and shop drawing production, irrespective of bridge geometry?\u00a0 Our client, approached us with a bridge design that was proving difficult to model accurately in our 3D software due to the complex curvature of its intermediate diaphragms. Using a combination of Excel, Grasshopper Parametrics, Rhino 3D, and Tekla Structures, our team created a live-linked model that uses only the real-world elevation points of the road surface to generate a complete bridge geometry.<\/p>\n

\"Tekla\"Tekla
Axonometric view of longitudinal bridge rebar and diaphragms created in Tekla, bridge tendons modeled in Revit Photo: VIATechnik<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

These elevation points are entered into Excel, which feeds into a customized Grasshopper algorithm that generates a conceptual massing model complete with structural girders and piers. The Grasshopper-Tekla Structures live-link<\/a> plugin allows Grasshopper to drive geometry natively in Tekla, eliminating the need to re-model from scratch. The model can then be populated with rebar to an extremely high level of detail, all of which is automatically numbered and output into drawings for fabrication.<\/p>\n

\"Bridge\"Bridge
Axonometric view of bridge rebar in longitudinal and transverse directions created in Tekla, bridge tendons modeled in Revit Photo: VIATechnik<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

With
\nthis workflow, changes were incorporated in drastically shorter timeframes over
\ntraditional means. The entire process, from elevation adjustments to updated
\nshop drawings, is a matter of days. It requires less dedicated modeling staff,
\nfreeing resources for other projects. This greatly reduces the opportunity for
\nhuman error which reduces time spent correcting mistakes in drawings sets and
\nin the field. Further, this raises the possibility of tighter and more accurate
\nconstruction schedules, saving time, capital, and labor while increasing the
\nrate at which projects can be completed.<\/p>\n

3D views of bridge rebar, diaphragms and various sections created in Tekla, bridge tendons modeled in Revit Photo: VIATechnik<\/em><\/p>\n

The Future of Infrastructure<\/h2>\n

Since the inception of the ASCE Infrastructure Report Card, a passing grade has been issued only once<\/a> \u2013 a C in 1988, the first year of the report. Our present way of working is not<\/em> working at all. At stake is some $4 trillion in GDP and 2 million jobs estimated to be lost by 2025<\/a> if the infrastructure investment gap is not closed. But it is not simply a question of resources \u2013 it is a question of strategy.\u00a0 New workflows like those we are pushing with our clients can increase our rate of infrastructure repair exponentially. It is time for us to educate governments on the possibilities of BIM, computation design, and automation so they can craft policy demanding the disruption of traditional means and methods. VIATechnik is already beginning to see this in places like New York and Arizona \u2013 teams are now required to deliver projects through VDC methods. The future of our infrastructure relies on the proper implementation of a new way of thinking, and with this combination of industry innovation and education we can get our nation\u2019s infrastructure from a D+ to at least a B+.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n