Advertisement

Maintenance of Facilities and Aircrafts: A Comparison of IT-Driven Solutions

  • Karoliina Parhiala
  • Mehmet Yalcinkaya
  • Vishal Singh
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 442)

Abstract

Building Information Modeling (BIM) can significantly impact both new as well as existing architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) projects. It can provide a virtually simulated and large integrated database that can be leveraged not only in design and engineering, but also in planning and management operations, and facilities maintenance. Although most of the BIM tools are now mature enough to use in various phases of project lifecycle, they have been primitive and under-developed for many years. The concepts underpinning BIM have been around since the 1960s through various manufacturing industries such as automotive, ship building or aerospace. In the aerospace industry, especially in aircraft design and manufacturing, the concept similar to BIM is a Digital Mock-Up (DMU). It is both a tool and a product of engineering. As in BIM, aircraft’s DMU is also a comprehensive digital product representation that is used to simulate the use, behavior and performance of a finished aircraft. While BIM and DMU are used for different industries and products, they do share similarities and differences. This paper briefly describes BIM and DMU technologies and their context, specifically focusing on implementation of these two technologies for operation and maintenance (O&M).

Keywords

Building Information Modeling BIM Digital Mockup DMU Configured Digital Mockup cDMU Maintenance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    European Federation of National Maintenance Societies, http://www.efnms.org/
  2. 2.
    Dolezal, W.R.: Success Factors for Digital Mock-ups (DMU) in complex Aerospace Product Development. Technische Universität München, Genehmigten Dissertation, Munich, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Airbus SAS, Setting new standards with the A350 XWB Digital Mock-Up, http://videos.airbus.com/video/dc6bd25e7f3s.html (accessed: January 11, 2014 )
  4. 4.
    Parhiala, K.M.: Utilising Configured Digital Mock-Up in Aircraft Continuing Airworthiness Management. Aalto University School of Engineering, Master’s Thesis, Espoo, Finland (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garbade, R., Dolezal, W.R.: DMU@ Airbus—Evolution of the Digital Mock-up (DMU) at Airbus to the Centre of Aircraft Development. In: The Future of Product Development, pp. 3–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Associated General Contractors of America. The Contractor’s Guide to BIM, 1st edn., http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/thesis/portfolios/2008/tjs288/Research/AGC_GuideToBIM.pdf (accessed: October 14, 2013)
  7. 7.
    Innovation, CRC Construction. Adopting BIM for facilities management: Solutions for managing the Sydney Opera House. Cooperative Research Center for Construction Innovation, Brisbane, Australia (2007) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh, V., Gu, N., Wang, X.: A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Construction 20(2), 134–144 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dispenza, K.: The daily life of building information modeling (BIM), http://buildipedia.com/aec-pros/design-news/the-daily-life-of-building-information-modeling-bim (accessed: January 25, 2014)
  10. 10.
    Khemlani, L.: Top criteria for BIM solutions, http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2007/BIMSurveyReport.html (accessed: September 6, 2013)
  11. 11.
    Coates, P., Arayici, Y., Koskela, K., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C., O’Reilly, K.: The key performance indicators of the BIM implementation process. In: The International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Nothingham, UK, June 30-July 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu, N., London, K.: Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry. Automation in Construction 19(8), 988–999 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maintenance Organisation Approvals – PART-145. Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material. Luxembourg: European Aviation Safety Agency (2012) ISBN 978-92-9210-121-3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Continuing Airworthiness Requirements – PART-M. Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material. Luxembourg: European Aviation Safety Agency (2012) ISBN-13 978-92-9210-123-7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aubin, B.R.: Aircraft Maintenance: The art and science of keeping aircraft safe. In: Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes. CS-25. Luxembourg: European Aviation Safety Agency, June 14, 2012 (2013) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whole Building Design Guide, Facilities operation&maintenance, http://www.wbdg.org/om/om.php (accessed: January 19, 2014)
  18. 18.
    NIST, Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S capital and facilities industry, http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/art022.html (accessed December 23, 2013)
  19. 19.
    Madritsch, T., May, M.: Successful IT implementation in facility management. Facilities 27(11/12), 429–444 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    East, W.: bSa Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE): Means and Methods, The National Institute of Building Sciences (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karoliina Parhiala
    • 1
  • Mehmet Yalcinkaya
    • 2
  • Vishal Singh
    • 2
  1. 1.Aalto Design FactoryAalto UniversityFinland
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Structural EngineeringAalto UniversityFinland

Personalised recommendations