Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoberto Pietroforte
dc.contributor.authorPaolo Tombesi
dc.contributor.authorDaniel D. Lebiedz
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:33:28Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:33:28Z
dc.date.copyrightMarch 2012
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.other%28asce%29ae%2E1943-5568%2E0000060.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/56061
dc.description.abstractOver time, the growing use of modern construction technologies with different tolerances and installation requirements for buildings has made reliance on full-size mock-ups essential for addressing the interfaces between design and construction. Three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) models have been introduced and developed over the past 10 years and are seen by some as eliminating the need for physical mock-ups. However, notwithstanding the recognized capabilities of digital models, mock-ups are still needed for capturing and eliciting the tacit knowledge that characterizes many construction operations, which cannot be visualized fully by the digital world. This argument is developed by illustrating the challenges experienced in the erection and testing of full-size mock-ups of curtain walls, particularly in constructability and functional requirements. It is argued that digital and physical models must be considered complementary tools in the realization of design intents.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleAre Physical Mock-Ups Still Necessary to Complement Visual Models for the Realization of Design Intents?
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume18
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleJournal of Architectural Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000060
dc.treeJournal of Architectural Engineering:;2012:;Volume ( 018 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record