Unintended consequences: Why a LOD400 model is not always desirable

Building Information Modelling (BIM) has brought about significant improvement to the
Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. As this article will explore, however, is
that the enforcement of specific BIM deliverables can be counterproductive and result in worse
project outcomes. Specifically, the article unpacks the requirement of a fabrication-level model,
known as ‘LOD400’.

When challenging the fitness-for-purpose of BIM, some readers may be inclined to jump to the
conclusion that if you are challenging BIM, you must be advocating CAD. This assumption is
misguided. For those that know the work of Parametric Monkey, they will recognise that our
positioning is based on a deep understating on BIM’s strength and weaknesses and current industry
trends. This article is therefore not about reverting to CAD, but rather questioning how together, we
can improve the BIM process to achieve better things.

Level of Development

Central to the BIM process is the philosophy of gradual model refinement. This philosophy is best
illustrated in the Level of Development (LOD) specifications found in guides such as the BIM Forum 1.
This much-cited guide shows how an element is progressively refined from a generic representation
(LOD 100) through to an accurate, as-built model (LOD 500). The guide makes explicit that “it does
not prescribe what Levels of Development are to be reached at what point in a project but leaves
the specification of the model progression to the user.” 2 The guide is, therefore, a reference to
articulate the content and reliability of a model. While the LOD definition makes allowances for non-
graphical information, this article is specifically focused on the graphical content of the elements.

Exterior Wall Construction (Masonry), BIMForum 3

It is often assumed that the more resolved a BIM model is, the better the outcome. This assumption,
in turn, leads to the client or contractor-side BIM manager to specify that certain elements be
modelled to LOD400. LOD is defined by the BIMforum as follows:

An LOD 400 element is modeled at sufficient detail and accuracy for fabrication of the represented
component. The quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation of the element as designed can be
measured directly from the model without referring to non-modeled information such as notes or
dimension call-outs.

BIMForum4

You might be asking, how does developing a BIM model to a high level of development possibly
result in a worse project outcome? Well, here’s why. Below, we illustrate two scenarios. The first is
what many imagine BIM to be – We’ve called this ‘BIMtopia’. The second scenario is what we’ve
witnessed time and time again on projects that we’ve been involved with, across multiple countries.
As you will see, there are several unintended consequences from what was intended. We’ve
concluded that this dynamic is not an isolated one-off, but rather a systemic issue in the AEC
industry.

Scenario 1: BIMtopia

In scenario one, we follow the textbook BIM workflow, which looks something like this.

Stage 1: LOD300

A design model is authored by the architect usually to LOD300, where LOD300 is defined as model
elements being “graphically represented within the model as a specific system, object or assembly in
terms of quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation.” In other words, they are a reasonably
accurate approximation of what should be constructed for coordination purposes. In the case of a
LOD300 exterior window wall, for example, we know its location, overall dimension and spacing of
mullions. But the element does not contain sufficient detail to accurately describe how it should be
manufactured or assembled as neither the mullion profile nor the actual dimension of the glazed
pane is defined.
LOD300 model of exterior window wall, BIM Forum 5

Stage 2: Tender drawings (optional)

From the LOD300 model, the architect extracts 2D views and produces a set of tender drawings.
Note that this step is indicated as optional and in an ideal BIM process, many would argue that this
step should be skipped, with the BIM model forming the tender information. 

Stage 3: LOD400

Once the contract has been awarded, the various sub-contractors take ownership of the BIM model
and continue to develop the model to LOD400 as per the BIM Execution Plan (BEP). That is, the BIM
model becomes an accurate representation of what is to be fabricated, including reinforcement,
fixings, sealants, flashings and membranes.

LOD 400 model of exterior window wall, BIM Forum 6

Stage 4: Shop drawings

Most BEP contain clauses to the effect that all 2D views must be extracted from the BIM model.
Therefore, all 2D shop drawings are dynamically linked to the BIM model to minimise potential
coordination issues.
Stage 5: Construction

Unless there were any on-site changes, little to no modification is needed to update the BIM model
for as-built (LOD500) submission.

Scenario 2: BIM as an afterthought

In scenario two, market forces dictate changes to the preferred BIM workflow, as outlined in
scenario one. We call this scenario “BIM as an afterthought’.

Stage 1: LOD300

As per scenario one, a design model is authored by the architect, usually to LOD300.

Stage 2: Tender drawings

As per scenario one, the architect extracts 2D views from the LOD300 model and produces a set of
tender drawings.

Stage 3: Shop drawings

Once the contract has been awarded, the various subcontractors take ownership of the BIM model
for their package. But instead of developing the LOD300 model as in scenario one, the
subcontractors take the architect’s 2D tender drawings and develops them to produce their shop
drawings. This process breaks the golden rule of gradual model refinement.

Step 4: Construction

Once the shop drawings have been signed-off, and elements are in production, the updating of the
BIM model to LOD400 is out-sourced to a third-party.

Step 5: BIM as-built

The BIM model is submitted at the end of the project to fulfil a contractual deliverable.

Cause and effect

Why does this occur, and what are the so-called market forces driving this change? We’ve spoken to
many subcontractors and manufacturers, and the overwhelming response is unsurprisingly time and
money. They tend to occur at three main points in time:
Tender

As projects progress, it is common for concessions to be made on the contractual BIM deliverables.
Knowing that this will likely occur, many subcontractors are reluctant to submit a tender price that
includes the full BIM deliverables for fear that they will be priced out of a job. The main contractor
accepts the lower tender because they too don’t wish to be priced out of the bid. Win the job first,
then deal with the deliverables.

Contract award

Most construction projects follow a waterfall model whereby project activities are broken down into
linear sequential phases. A critical path can be established, stating when each package or system
must be approved to achieve the desired end date. The subcontractor puts forward an argument to
the main contractor that specific BIM deliverables need to be relaxed to meet the critical milestones.
The contractor agrees with the caveat that the BIM model must be submitted at the end of the
project. The priority is to complete the building on time – the digital model is supplementary.

Design development

Progressively developing a LOD400 model in parallel with design development is a slow process. Not
because the modelling process is necessarily slow, but because of the stop-start nature of the
approval process. Like most things, it is often quicker and easier to complete something in one go
once everything is resolved. Since subcontractors and manufactures tend to use either AutoCAD or
manufacturing-specific software such as Inventor or Solidworks, many prefer to use the software
they are comfortable with and resolve any BIM deliverables at the end. Moreover, by adopting this
approach, the BIM deliverables may have been relaxed to such an extent that far less effort is
required.

Deliberations

At this point, one might point out that the value BIM offers is far higher than its cost. As a general
principle, I agree with this statement, but when it comes to LOD400 models, I’m not so sure. Of
course, there are many elements which should be resolved to a LOD400 level. But there are also
many which do not. I see two main related factors influencing if a LOD400 model should be adopted,
and when it should not.

Shop drawings vs fabrication drawings

There is a common misconception that shop drawings are the actual drawings that an element will
be fabricated from. While this might be true for some items, often there is an additional set of
drawings produced for fabrication. Shop drawings are therefore used for the approval process,
whereas fabrication drawings are used for the actual fabrication process.

This distinction is evident in our article ‘UTS Central: A case study in digital fabrication‘. In this
project, there were remarkably few shop drawings produced. Those that were produced showed
typical connections and non-graphical information. The rest of the graphical information was shown
in the model. The architect then used this model for the approval process. 
Fabrication model, UTS Central

Another set of drawings was then created with the unfolded pattern of each element. These
fabrication drawings were then nested and fed straight into the CNC machine. This set of documents
didn’t form part of the approval process. Their purpose was solely to improve the fabrication
process. By automating the process of generating 2D fabrication drawings from the 3D ‘shop
drawing’ model, there were enormous benefits. The least of which was the fact that the LOD400
model served a purpose beyond a mere BIM deliverable. 

2D fabrication drawings, UTS Central

Level of information needed

However, consider the example of the exterior window wall highlighted at the beginning of the
article. Once a glazing system is chosen, is it really necessary to model every fixing, backing rod and
sealant in 3D? What purpose does this serve?

A manufacturer doesn’t need this information. They have already manufactured their product
thousands of time before and know how it goes together. The architect doesn’t need this
information. They just care what the system looks like and that it works. The client doesn’t need this
information either. They just need to know what system it is, who supplied it, and the associated
warranty information.

Even clash detection is a moot point. After superstructure, the façade is the next element in the
building hierarchy. If something clashes with the façade, it’s the other element that needs to move,
not the façade. And in any case, detailed 3D models of concealed fixings and silicon joints are
unlikely to impact any clash detection results. In this example, I would argue that a LOD400 model is
not providing any additional benefit. Especially if it is provided at the end of the project.

Recommendations

So back to our two scenarios – instead of asking for a LOD400 model from the subcontractor, it
would have been far better for the main contractor to ask for a LOD300/350 model. Why? Because
updating the architect’s existing LOD300 model to an accurate LOD300/350 model is much more
achievable. It is therefore much more likely to happen. The main contractor and subcontractor could
have then benefited from progressive model development and performed all of the tasks one
expects – clash detection, 4D and 5D scheduling, etc. But by enforcing a LOD400 model, they
received additional detail but which was of little benefit to anyone. By asking for less, they would
have received more.

Conclusion

This article shows that while it is possible to arrive at the same end-state, the two processes are very
different. To get the best project outcomes, we recommend that LOD400 requirements be reserved
for specific elements where the digital model will be used for fabrication, such as steel structures,
ductwork, CLT, etc. This mindset requires restraint from BIM managers when writing BIM execution
plans, to avoid making blanket LOD assignments and instead adopt a more nuanced approach.

References
1
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data.
2
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data, p.4.
3
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data.
4
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data, p.13.
5
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data, p.80.
6
The Associated General Contractors of America Inc. (April 2019). Level of Development (LOD)
specification part 1 & commentary: For Building Information Models and Data, p.82.

Categories: BIM, Digital Fabrication, Insights

Tags: Popular

Leave a Comment

Parametric Monkey

Back to top