›

24 TheStructuralEngineer Project focus

November 2013 Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre

W Figure 1
View through Stavros Niarchos Park
towards Stavros Niarchos Cultural Centre

On their own, each of these buildings

would have been a major project. However,
combined, and with associated car parking,
amenities buildings, and major civil works,
the €566M project presents an enormous
coordination challenge. In keeping with the
approach of the practices involved, the core
team of Renzo Piano Building Workshop
(architects), Expedition Engineering
(structural engineers) and Arup (MEP
engineers) decided at an early stage that
the engineering should be integral to the
building architecture, carefully intertwined
with an attention to detail that would

RPBW
deliver a project of monumental quality.
This required a very precise harmonisation

Jumping in at
between disciplines.
In 2008, when the SNFCC project was
in its infancy, BIM, as we now know it, was
only just starting to take root in the UK
and European construction industry. It was
certainly not a process that was discussed

the deep end: at project start up meetings and by clients in

the way that it is now; particularly following
its mandate for centrally procured UK
Government projects. However, it was clear
that to deliver a project of this quality, a truly

how a small collaborative approach was required by

the design team, and with the geographical
separation of the team, this process would
need to be managed in a way that would
not just compensate for the separation,

company but would go beyond the current industry

standard.
The following is an analysis of the lessons
learned from the process that could be
replicated and expanded upon in the future.

applied BIM to a The team. The mind-set. The decision.

We did not take a conscious decision to use
BIM. We took a decision to collaborate as
closely as possible; and for this team, on this

huge project
Alessandro Maccioni MIStructE
Senior Engineer Expedition Engineering
Jared Keen MIStructE
Associate Director Expedition Engineering
Andrew Weir MIStructE, MICE
Director Expedition Engineering
Peter Winslow MIStructE, PhD
Senior Engineer Expedition Engineering
The project. The challenge.
The desire of the Stavros Niarchos
Foundation was to create a new educational
and cultural destination for the city of
Athens, Greece. From the beginning, the
design team shared their desire to make
these buildings something special. The
Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural
Centre (SNFCC) is set within the expansive
new 170 000m2 Stavros Niarchos Public
Park (Figure 1) and consists of new buildings
for the Greek National Opera and the
National Library of Greece (Figure 2).
project, that decision to collaborate led to
the adoption of integrated building models.
More importantly though, it involved using
those models with the absence of many of
the barriers that can sometimes arise during
the design process.
The decision to undertake a highly
collaborative approach to the project,
was made by the core team following the
completion of the project feasibility study
as the project moved into early scheme
design. At the time, the team as a whole had
limited experience of placing a structured
digital format as the heart of collaboration,
especially on a project the size of SNFCC.
However, of greater importance was that the
organisations and individuals involved had a
shared approach to the delivery of projects,
and a shared ethos of quality design and the

TSE23_24-30.indd 24 29/10/2013 15:16


utilisation of the best tools available for the
job (Figure 3).
In 2008, Expedition already had wide-
ranging experience of working in 3D and
digital information management using
software such as McNeel’s Rhino; often
utilising scripting to generate structurally
informed geometry. We also had experience
of communicating this information to other
members of the design team or project
collaborators in the most applicable
format. The most appropriate manner for
communicating this information tends to
differ from project to project, but developing
workflows that allow effective data
transfer to enable a collaborative design
process was already ingrained within the
way Expedition worked. The Stockton
Infinity Bridge, which won the Institution
of Structural Engineers’ Supreme Award
in 2009, used Rhino extensively and the
primary method for conveying construction
geometry to the fabrication contractor
was through handover of a digital model.
This, in fact, was a BIM process, although
the information issued was quite different
to that produced by general purpose BIM
software packages developed by companies
S Figure 3
Physical locations of key consultants showing geographic diversity of team
TSE23_24-30.indd 25
like Autodesk and Bentley.
Similarly, the 2012 Olympic Velodrome
used extensive 3D modelling to develop
a highly integrated design. The step from
doing this in an ad hoc manner to something
that was more formally agreed across the
project team, was therefore not seen as a
big step to take. While the industry is now
calling for a digital BIM approach to projects,
it's worth remembering that at its core is
something all good engineers already look
to achieve: a collaborative design process,
combined with effective data handling and
sharing – another skill which engineers have
historically excelled at. The process itself
may require some additional planning but its
eventual success will ultimately rest on the
approach, capabilities, and mind-set of the
individuals implementing it.
The client for SNFCC did not expressly
stipulate a collaborative digital workflow,
but it was seen by the team as the most
appropriate method to achieve the quality
of project which the client had specified,
and which the team desired to achieve. The
proposal to use Autodesk Revit came from
Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW)
as previous experience within its office had
25
W Figure 2
Greek National Opera
House (left) and Greek
National Library (right)
RPBW
indicated that coordination benefits during
the design stages could be beneficial in
achieving a more thoroughly and rigorously
integrated design. Expedition at the time
had some limited experience using Revit but
not an extensive portfolio to draw upon.
Looking back, the greatest hurdles we
overcame were our own concerns about
what might go wrong. Engineers are natural
appraisers who, on picking up a task, will
easily spot the ways in which things might
not work. There is always the voice at the
back of our heads suggesting we wait for
a smaller, simpler project, or delay until
software has advanced further. But if
engineers are adroit at spotting problems,
we are even more so at solving them. Once
we had made the decision to implement
BIM we could then use all of the tools which
make us good designers – careful planning,
an ability to perceive broad goals with
the same eye as we see fine detail, and a
balance of creativity and thoroughness – to
successfully use BIM to take collaboration
to the next level.
Implementation
Once the decision was made to use
a collaborative design approach with
Autodesk Revit as the central tool, a project
deliverables and documentation planning
meeting was held between the key members
of the team to scope out and agree a way
forward. Out of this meeting the following
key decisions were made:
• The principle that work in progress
models would be exchanged on a weekly
basis. These models were understood not
to be complete and merely intended as
information to inform of interim changes.
Any issues identified could then be
discussed via appropriate communication
• At key milestones models would be fully
coordinated and frozen record copies archived
– generally coincident with project deliverables
• Arup MEP, while working primarily in CAD
Duct, would generate Revit compatible files
to facilitate full model sharing
• It was identified that 3D files, while not
29/10/2013 15:16

26 TheStructuralEngineer
November 2013
N Figure 4
Structural model of opera house
(left), library (right) and car park (beyond)
contractual deliverables, may eventually be
passed to the contactor for information in
the interests of best practice
• Models would be overlaid and compared
in suitable software to facilitate model
coordination
• A BIM FTP (File Transfer Protocol) set was
to be set up to act as the repository of the
project models, accessible by all of the team
The importance of the weekly model
exchange cannot be overstated. Clearly this
led to very rapid and direct coordination –
much more so than is typically achieved by
the standard coordination process of issuing
a semi-formal coordination set on a longer
cycle. More subtly, but far more importantly,
it both required and created a very high level
of trust within the design team. As the team
was sharing its working models with each
other as fast as we could create them, there
was nowhere to hide. None of the parties
could conceal omissions or errors, but
equally, all of the parties understood that
parts of the model would be well developed
while other areas lagged behind. In our case
it created a series of very open and honest
working relationships. However, for some
organisations, the decision to so openly
place their work on public display, with the
risks that such action might entail, would be
considered unpalatable. This is perhaps one
of the greatest challenges in realising the
full benefits of collaboration via BIM, rather
than simply rolling past practices over into
different software.
Although in this case the project team’s
working relationship was in its infancy and
the project requirements novel, this planning
meeting would still be essential at the start
of any project, even for teams with extensive
experience of working together. It is always
likely that projects, project programmes, or
project deliverables will require the agreed
workflow to be modified in some way and
this meeting also provides a chance to
discuss opportunities to implement new
ideas on a project.
TSE23_24-30.indd 26
›
Project focus
Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre
Creating our model
At the time these decisions were being
made, the project was progressing
through the scheme design stage, with all
the associated changes and exploration
inherent in early design phases. Partly
for this reason, we decided that the first
project models would be created by the
project engineers working on each section
of the project, rather than a CAD team.
Investment was made in these individuals
in the form of appropriate training, with the
view that at this stage their more intimate
knowledge of the project (and already
developing relationships with the design
team) would permit efficiently developed
and appropriately detailed (not necessarily
highly detailed) models to be created for the
scheme design stage of the project (Figure 4).
The use of engineers rather than CAD
technicians to create the Revit model at early
stages was essential to the success of the
process. During scheme design, the model
is like a virtual sketch, but whereas a wobbly
line on a sketch can convey the appropriate
level of uncertainty, a 3D model tempts the
modeller to examine increasingly finer levels
of precision. An engineer’s understanding of
the transient nature of scheme design allows
them to resist this temptation to make early
models perfect, whereas in our experience a
CAD technician’s natural drive for accuracy
E Figure 5
Weekly model
exchange and
coordination cycle
and absoluteness can make it difficult
for them to allow a scheme model to be
sufficiently vague.
The other major advantage of having
engineers involved with Revit is that it
gave the engineering team an intimate
understanding of Revit’s strengths and
weaknesses. Most of us understand the
sorts of tricks and tools available in CAD
to allow a drawing to be completed leanly
and correctly with a minimum of fuss.
In Revit the old set of tricks and tools
are gone, though largely replaced by an
entirely new and different set. Having the
engineers understand the Revit modelling
process enabled the whole production team
to efficiently determine the best way to
approach the document production process.
How we shared
The limitations of the software and internet
connections of the time, meant that a truly
live exchange of models was never going
to be possible. The weekly exchange of the
initial models did however prove to be a
success, and communication was certainly
stimulated by the weekly exchange of work
in progress models. It is worth highlighting
that with the geographical separation
between the team, it would have been easy
for communication to be less frequent than
on a wholly UK based project. The project
models provided a platform to regularly
generate debate and discussion of the
design, which could then be carried out
via a combination of hand drawn sketches,
electronic mark-ups of the model/drawings,
interactive online meetings using software
such as GoToMeeting, and teleconference
calls. The sharing of computer screen
visuals helped form the basis of numerous
conversations and at the scheme design
stage, when project engineers were still the
model owners, any required model updates
could be completed in real time, with no
need to create mark-ups that would then
need to be transcribed into the model by
technicians.
29/10/2013 15:16
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

27

S Figure 8
Opera House auditorium S Figure 9
Stage pit theatre equipment within structural model

The file sharing process began as a
weekly manual transfer, but was quickly
streamlined into an automated process,
whereby all parties would automatically
upload their files onto an FTP server on a
Saturday, and automatically download the
others files on Sunday. Monday morning
rapidly became a model perusal opportunity
(Figure 5).
The model sharing was not limited to
Expedition and RPBW. The collaborating
local engineering and architectural
practices were also brought into the
process as they were appointed to the
project. This, again, relied upon professional
trust and understanding of the proposed
process. Omete, Expedition’s collaborating
engineer in Athens, was initially a little
sceptical of the process, having no prior
experience of using Revit, although again,
it had extensive experience of working in
a 3D CAD environment and the transfer
of this data between different software
packages for design and documentation.
Its fears were, however, successfully
addressed, through developing the
professional relationship, building trust and
making clear that as a team, support would
be offered and that risk would effectively be
shared between the practices. This was an
important agreement as it greatly simplified
the interface between the Opera House
and Library substructures, which were to
be developed and designed by Omete,
and the superstructures that were to be
developed by Expedition. By linking models,
the structural interfaces could be more
easily coordinated and it was possible to
generate documentation of these interfaces
based on combined data from independent
sources (Figure 6).
We were well aware that not all members
of the team and supply chain would be
able to read the native Revit files and so
we generated interpretable data for these
colleagues. For instance it was likely, as
specialist sub-consultants joined the team
as the project developed, that they would
need access to 2D CAD versions of the
building information. The exchange of
data between parties internally (including
collaborating organisations) and externally,
was carefully planned from the beginning of
the project. The interoperability of project
data remains one of the key challenges to
BIM processes to this day.
Using the models
The software allowed the designers to
overlay various models to enable ‘clashes’ or
uncoordinated items to be clearly identified.
Tools within the software were utilised
to create coordination views that could
be used to aid this coordination process
(Figure 7). Contrasting coloured visuals were
used to easily identify inconsistencies. This
process was seen to go a long way towards
avoiding design problems and conflicts that
could not have been identified so easily in
a 2D environment. A key benefit was the
ability to embed additional information within
the model, which, while not required for the
generation of drawing deliverables, could
be used to communicate to the rest of the
design team.
An area of the project which was a
particular focus for the design team, was the
Opera House’s main auditorium, the main
stage and its subsurface stage pit (Figures
8 and 9). The creation of an international

W Figure 6
Division of
structural models
between Expedition
and Omete

E Figure 7
Project
coordination view
showing structural
model coordination
(red) with lifts and
bathrooms

TSE23_24-30.indd 27 29/10/2013 15:16


28 TheStructuralEngineer
November 2013
quality performance space as required for
the Greek National Opera comes from the
careful blend of constraints essential for
maintaining the quality of the performance
space, combined with a creative design
process to produce a unique experience
for the performers and audience.
Space planning requirements, extensive
mechanical theatre equipment, lighting and
scenery, acoustic performance, necessary
sight lines and environmental performance,
all had to fit within the architectural concept
and structural engineering, to make this
possible. It was arguably in this area
that some of the greatest benefits of the
collaboration were achieved. 3D spatial
information could be coordinated between
Expedition, RPBW and Arup MEP, while
these models could then form the basis
of acoustic and environmental models for
analysis, as well as sight line analysis by
the theatre consultant, with their own 3D
models being round-tripped back into the
primary architectural model to confirm
coordination.
Although the initial focus had been on
generating the model for the creation of 2D
drawings and coordination, it soon became
apparent that additional benefits could be
derived from assembling a data rich model,
including:
• live material quantity counting
• development of construction sequences
• fast production of images/renders
(Figure 10)
• live manipulation of scheduled data
• ease of document control via live linked
drawing titles, revisions, numbering and
batch publication tools
TSE23_24-30.indd 28
›
Project focus
Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre
W Figure 10
Base isolator unit showing clearance zone
S Figure 11
Architectural model wrapped around structural model (red)
Going further for bigger gains –
moving to BIM ‘Level 2’
When the project moved into the
construction information stage, a decision
was made by the team that greater design
coordination and accuracy could be
achieved by avoiding the replication of
the structural model by RPBW. This was
accomplished by moving to a workflow
whereby the current structural model was
inserted directly into the architectural
model (Figure 11). The base structural
model was then effectively supplemented
(as it would be in real life) with the various
finishes and secondary elements to create
the envisaged building. As the drawings
generated by the software are always live
views of the 3D model in its current state,
this created a position whereby a high
level of coordination between structure
and architecture had to be achieved, since
uncoordinated elements would be quite
clearly visible on the generated architectural
drawings. Although coordination overlays
had been used previously there was still a
noticeable second wave of coordination
at this point. The move to this workflow
required a high level of trust between the
consultants, as each other’s deliverables
became highly dependent on the model and
the quality of information supplied by the
other consultants. This big step in terms of
trust and collaboration could be quite easily
seen as one of the major steps required
to develop from BIM Level 1 to 2, where
information production moves from being
managed in separate isolated files to sole
instances combined within a single model
environment, thereby avoiding duplication or
misrepresentation.
While the final workflow provided
obvious benefits in terms of the level
of coordination achieved during the final
coordination of the project, it can be
questioned whether an earlier move to
such an approach would have provided
any further benefits. Earlier in the design
process the evolution of the project is still
quite fluid and creating a structural model
with the required level of detail and fixity
(upon which to base an architectural stage
D model for example) would require a far
higher level of input from the structural
team, with quite possibly very little benefit
to the project as a whole. It could even
be argued that the increased fixity of the
design at an earlier stage could prevent
designs developing to their full potential
in response to the design brief. The stage
at which this fixity is sought is therefore
likely to vary from project to project and
will no doubt be a strongly debated topic
(Figure 12).
While it can be argued that we
successfully achieved BIM Level 2 from
stage E, from our observations it would
be exceptionally challenging (and quite
possibly directly detrimental to design) to
attempt it at a significantly earlier stage for
a project such as this, given the way our
industry is arranged. The building design
industry has evolved with distinct divisions
between disciplines, but to have both a
flexible design and BIM Level 2, these
divisions can no longer exist. We hope and
expect that project teams will continue to
push these boundaries, but we anticipate
that for significant progress to occur,
organisational and contractual innovation
will be required.
29/10/2013 15:17
 www.thestructuralengineer.org

29

Could BIM hamper the design

exploration?
S Figure 12
Indicative representation of gradual tightening of coordination between consultants, leading to adoption of BIM Level 2

The project was not without its difficulties.

As many users report, challenges were
faced in relation to computing power, file
sizes and allowing access for multiple
users at the same time. In most instances a
resolution was achieved with some research
and clever thinking, but a number of these
are issues that could be overcome by
software providers.
Without doubt, a collaborative use of BIM
will improve the coordination of a building
during the design stage. There is however
a risk that it may stifle creativity earlier in
a project if not appropriately implemented.
Many architects are comfortable with
using 3D models at concept stage to throw
together visualisations of options. Engineers
however, tend to have a more exacting view
of what a model should be – likely influenced
by years of tuning analysis models. On the
SNFCC, it required a conscious effort and
deliberate plan with regard to how we would
use BIM at early stages. We handled it by saving opportunity, and to have incorporated
trying to deliberately adopt a mentality of
using Revit as a virtual sketch – but even
"Once we had this into the design team deliverable, such
that it can form part of the tender package.
so it required constant wariness to avoid
slipping into too early coordination at the
made the decision Clearly the additional deliverable will mean
extra costs for the consultants. In our
expense of allowing the design to evolve. In to implement view, even those clients with considerable
some cases, the current software available
is likely to push BIM into being simply too BIM we could construction industry experience do not
fully appreciate the subtleties of BIM and its
precise a tool for application at the very
early stages. then use all of role in the coordination process, to be able
to adequately leverage it to their advantage.

Where to next?
While successful use was made of
collaboration via a BIM approach, there are
still multiple aspects that could be explored
further.
As shown on this project, it is possible
to intertwine models between consultants.
In our experience it is also possible to
link between structural analysis models
and structural BIM models, although the
achievability of this on complex projects
may be argued, with the currently available
tools regularly proving a challenge. Creating
a workflow that moves from analysis
model, to structural BIM model, to other
consultants' BIM models, creates an
additional order of interoperability. Although
there are challenges involved, we believe
they are largely within the realm of the
project technical team, and thus entirely
solvable given enough care and thought.
On the SNFCC, the Revit models
were handed over to the contractor for
information only, as they are explicitly
not contractual deliverables. A significant
challenge for the building industry (and
one in which clients must be intimately
involved) is how to maximise the value to
the client of using BIM on a project. Our
the tools which
make us good
designers"
view is that a competent contractor should
be able to realise cost savings if provided
with a robust, coordinated set of building
models. This should be achievable through
increased certainty of coordination, and the
ability to more fully understand the project
at tender stage from the 3D data provided.
It should also be achievable through the
ability to pass on the model to steelwork
fabricators, reinforcing detailers, equipment
suppliers, pipework installers and any other
subcontractors, many of whom are able to
make heavy use of 3D modelling due to their
specialisation. The challenge is for clients to
be able to recognise and quantify this cost
We believe that in the short term, design
consultants are better placed than any other
to advise their clients of the opportunities,
and in the longer term we would be looking
for industry frameworks to catch up to the
evolving technology.
Another area that could be exploited
further is embedding more data directly into
the 3D model. Specification information,
connection information and loading data
could all be usefully and directly attached
to elements in the model, which would be of
great use to a competent contractor on site.
Again, contractual and fee arrangements
currently offer little incentive for designers
to do so, and the burden would likely fall to
design consultants to express the potential
benefits to clients for this to happen in
practice.
Finally, in the infrastructure sector,
it’s largely the bigger institutional clients
(that are focused on improving their
asset management capabilities) that are
generating the momentum behind BIM
implementation. Generally, in buildings,
asset management is a simpler affair, yet
in time we anticipate that advances being
made with regard to BIM in the world of
infrastructure will percolate through to
buildings.

TSE23_24-30.indd 29 29/10/2013 15:18


30 TheStructuralEngineer
November 2013
Conclusions
• The right attitude is essential. The design
team must trust each other and have a
strong relationship. If that trust exists,
then collaboration through BIM can further
enhance relationships. If it doesn’t exist then
true BIM collaboration is unlikely
• An SME can successfully implement BIM on
projects; even large, complex ones. It takes care
and deliberate planning, as well as a design
team that is willing to accommodate each
other’s needs. Training and staff skills profiling
when putting together the team are essential
• Planning is key. Integrated BIM models require
upfront investment of time for later benefits.
The process needs to be thought through and
agreed with the team at an early stage
• The more team members involved, the
greater the potential benefits of integrated
BIM. The biggest rewards could be achieved
by actively carrying the building information
models through to construction and facilities
management, which requires the client and
contractor to also buy in to the process
• Undoubtedly there are time, cost and
quality benefits that can be achieved for
clients, designers and contractors through
use of BIM, if it is carefully planned.
However, insufficient planning can result in
3D modelling causing more problems than it
solves. Additionally the construction industry
has yet to find an appropriate framework to
efficiently realise the full benefits of BIM
TSE23_24-30.indd 30
›
Project focus
Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Centre
The SNFCC has now been on site since
autumn 2012, and what was once only a N Figure 13
Construction of undercroft
virtual building is now emerging from the
silty ground in the Kallithea district of Athens
(Figure 13). Time will be the best judge of
"Engineers are
whether the SNFCC achieves its aim of
becoming a new monument for the people
natural appraisers
of Athens, but we are quite sure that the BIM
process adopted by the design team has
who, on picking up
increased its chances, by creating a truly
integrated response to the architectural
a task, will easily
concept. BIM can make designs better,
but only if people are committed to the
spot the ways in
philosophy at its heart; collaboration. which things might
Acknowledgements not work"
Client: Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural
Centre; Design Architect: Renzo Piano
Building Workshop; Executive Architect:
Betaplan; Structural & Civil Engineering:
Expedition Engineering and Omete; MEP
Engineer: Arup and LDK; Landscape
Design: Deborah Nevins and Associates
and Helli Pangalou; Acoustic Design: Arup
Acoustics; Project Manager: Faithful+Gould;
Façade Consultant: Front; Theatre Design
Consultant: Theatre Projects Consultants;
Library Consultant: Alexi Marmot Associates;
Traffic Consultant: Denco
If you have any comments or questions on
this article please visit our twitter account
@EXP_Eng
29/10/2013 15:18