Case Vollack Group: Applying a seamless workflow to coordinate slots & openings

Tune in to our monthly webinar series Customer Insights to hear how our customers use Solibri to find solutions to problems or challenges, improve quality, and increase efficiency. Learn best practices and get ideas from other users. 

Webinar content:

• Case Vollack Group: Applying a seamless workflow to coordinate slots & openings. Florian Keim, Head of BIM, and Anees Alomar, Architect at Vollack South.
• Q&A: Going through audience questions.

Case Vollack Group: Applying a seamless workflow to coordinate slots & openings.

If you are detecting clashes between disciplines, you need to streamline the actions you need to do to get the clash detection finished on time and each discipline has time to finish modifying the issues.

In this webinar, Florian Keim and Anees Alomar will present a seamless workflow to detect clashes, coordinate slots and openings. This revolutionary workflow is called VDI 2552 Blatt 11.2, which has been recently applied in Germany and it helped Vollack to achieve their goals in BIM coordination in an effective way. During this webinar you will get to know:

• A streamlined process “VDI 2552 Blatt 11.2” to coordinate disciplines, and the pitfalls that you can avoid when applying it.
• One successful example of detecting clashes and coordinate openings.
• An overview of the issues in that project.

Florian Keim is the Head of BIM at Vollack South, since 2021. After his apprenticeship as a draftsman and his architecture studies at the University of Applied Sciences Karlsruhe, he works as a BIM Manager in the Vollack Gruppe, where he is responsible for the BIM Tools. He is also a lecturer for CAD at the Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences.

Anees Alomar is an Architect at Vollack South. He is also a certified BIM professional. In 2006, he started his journey as an architect in Syria. Later on, in 2017, he joined Vollack Gruppe and he is now responsible for doing Clash detection in Solibri.

Further Questions and Answers

Have you a separated Opening (provisionforvoid) model from the architecture side?

Anees Alomar: The big advantage of the workflow is, that you don´t need openings in the architecture Modell, until they are finally checked.

Do the architects and structural engineers issue IFC's with the openings formed once the PFV has been agreed?

Anees Alomar: That's right!

How are you solving the situation when you have to MEP openings from different disciplines and these openings are overlaping or are very close each other?

Anees Alomar: We have a separate rule (SOL/222) to check if two PVF are close to each other

What is the smallest size of services you would expect the MEP consultant to model the provision for void? And what about services cast within the concrete slab?

Anees Alomar: It is dependent on the instructions of the structural engineer, he/she will determine the smallest size we need to model a PFV for.

You said that the tolerance of the PFV in walls and slabs is set to zero. I have the experience, that it is better to lead the PFV to outstand 2cm out of the wall to generate a proper opening.

Anees Alomar: 00.00 from the inside, and no limits from the outside. Because if we miss 1 mm from the inside we wouldn't be able to get a complete opening in the architectural model