At present, the major advantage of using 3D construction models is to be able to visualise and make collision controls. The collision control itself internally in the individual discipline of a 3D construction model is carried out by the discipline’s own software programs.

But when it comes to inter-disciplinary collision control, ie between constructions, installations and architects, an external program is used. At Ramboll, we have commenced utilising Solibri Model Checker, which at present gives us what we need, ie a collision control where you are able to prepare reports and specific visualisation of the exact spot of the collision. In order to use Solibri, files have to be exchanged in IFC format, which is neutral. Hence, careful attention shall be paid to apply the newest software programs, which can use IFC for interchange.

Does anybody else have some good experience with the use of collision control on other projects? What are the disadvantages of other collision software programs?

At Ramboll we have come so far as to model our building projects in 3D, and the advantages are really fantastic. The advantages are many but difficult to measure, but one thing we see is that many geometrical difficulties are resolves at an earlier stage than before.

We note that the architect and the engineer are right up front and make use of the best software programs on the market. This opens up for truly new ways of communicating. The fact that the consultancy business has seen the advantages of using 3D modelling put pressure on the remainder of the construction industry. So how do we do to get all parties involved? As I see it, we are short one stage to make it work. There are many advantages in 3D models, but we still hand over the documentation in the traditional way, ie in 2D drawings. It would be much applicable to hand over the finished materials together with a building model in 3D.

Do we apply 3D models correctly? Where is the challenge of getting 3D into all stages of the construction process?