*2.1. BIM Implementation in Final Projects in Engineering Degrees*

The work presented in this article completes the implementation of BIM initiated in technical project subjects in an industrial engineering school. This implementation extends to the FPD of the engineering school so that students can acquire a BIM maturity level [26] greater than that obtained in the degree subjects in which BIM is already implemented.

FPD is a mandatory subject of the engineering degrees, and it is the last step to complete engineering degree studies. The FPD consists of an autonomous project developed by the student under the supervision of a tutor, where the student implements the skills of the degree and develops skills related to the student's specialization. The FPD has 12 credits and occurs in the last four months of the curriculum. The student's final grade in this course is given for the student's public presentation of his/her work to a court of 3 teachers. The court assesses the presentation and the defense of the results obtained, as well as the project documents produced by the student.

The implementation of BIM is developed within a collaborative methodology of active learning. The methodology begins with the presentation of the proposed project to the students, along with the collaborative methodology between teachers (FPD tutors) and students that will be used for the development of the project and the preparation of the BIM Execution Plan (BEP) (step 1). BEP specifies in detail the assignment of BIM uses, roles and responsibilities, deliverables, types of models, software versions, temporal planning through phases and milestones, planned collaborative work, etc. All the documentation generated in the BEP during this phase was allowed to be accessed by the entire team (students and tutors) in multi-platform cloud file hosting services.

In the face-to-face sessions, the different tasks to be performed by each student are presented, together with the necessary theoretical-practical explanations by the teachers (step 2). Through the student's autonomous learning and the queries that the student makes to his/her tutor, each student addresses his or her doubts and presents his or her proposal as a solution for the tasks assigned to them (step 3). The proposals of each student are discussed in a face-to-face session with the whole team (students and tutors) (step 4), giving way to the proposition of new activities when a consensus is

reached on the proposed solutions (step 5). This process is repeated until all the tasks planned for the proposed project are completed (Figure 1).

**Figure 1. Building information modeling** (BIM) implementation in final project degree subject: Overview of the active collaborative learning methodology applied.

The main tasks of the project are included in three phases: Recording the building's information (phase 1), modeling the existing building (phase 2), and designing the intervention as a proposal for the new use of the building (phase 3). These phases were developed in four steps (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Phases and steps proposed in the real estate rehabilitation of an industrial heritage site using BIM for the case study presented.

For planning the new-use design, the location and analyses of the site, i.e., from studies on the topography, vegetation, and climatic conditions, were taken into account [20].

To carry out the project, the following BIM software was used: Autodesk Revit for 3D modeling and installation, Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional for structural calculations, Archimedes (Cype) for the implementation of measurements and budgets, KeyShot for the renderings, and Navisworks to perform checks and detect collisions. Different scientific publications show the high utility of 3D models, renderings, and simulations to achieve the objectives outlined in heritage studies [27–29].

As for the collaboration procedures provided, which are the essence of BIM, due to the possibility of different locations of team members, a synchronized workflow was organized in real time in the cloud through the Dropbox platform. The coordinator of the work team was one of the tutor professors for the FPDs. Through Revit, the coordinator of the work team created a central file located in Dropbox, and each component created its local copy of the file, allowing simultaneous work in different locations through subprojects synchronized with the central model, following a rigorous systematic process.

FPD and its evaluation and feedback are an important part of engineering training [30]. Considering the score from the court responsible for the evaluation of FPD, the assessment by FPD tutors, and the point of view of the student in relation to the use of BIM and its acquisition of competencies, it has been possible to evaluate the results of this implementation in the FPD.

#### *2.2. Project Proposal: Heritage Intervention as Final Projects in Engineering Degrees*

The intervention focuses on the old flour mill "La Julita", which is located in Simancas Valladolid (Spain) and was built in 1865. It is an industrial complex of four buildings; the main building is located on the banks of the Pisuerga River, and the other three buildings function as warehouses. The main building, the factory body (Figure 3), is located perpendicular to the course of the river, and the three annexed warehouses are configured approximately parallel to the river. The present study focuses on the main building, as it is the most important and the largest in the group in terms of both surface and height. The building consists of four accessible floors plus a basement, which features canals and turbines to take advantage of the motive power of the water. To this factory body, years after its construction, without knowing the exact date, a two-story warehouse was added to its north face and in parallel, which we will study only in the context of its relationship with the main building. The mill was located in the main building, and most of the works were concentrated therein, especially those dedicated to transformation processes. Its surface, despite its trapezoidal geometry, resembles a 40 × 10 m rectangle. The auxiliary buildings, with two floors, are arranged at an angle greater than 90◦ with the main building. The location and configuration of the complex correspond to the need to take advantage of the motive power of the water in the river, which is necessary to carry out grain-grinding processes. The factory was active until 1960–1962 [31].

Following the BIM methodology proposed by Succar [32], it is necessary to generate an object-based model that allows correct collaboration on the network model. Focusing on heritage buildings, one of the great advantages offered by BIM is the possibility of working in phases. This system allows the reconstruction of the different stages of the building and the different interventions that may have occurred over time. In this way, it is possible to document not only a specific condition, but also the entire life of that work, and thus be able to access its characteristics at each point and at each moment; that is, it is possible to create a navigable timeline that narrates the tangible and intangible changes in the past and their parametric relationships over time, and projections for the future [15].

**Figure 3.** Photographs of the factory, 2019.

However, there are challenges when using BIM technology for industrial heritage, because BIM has to account for a number of particular characteristics and determine the differences compared to newly constructed buildings. To begin, if we compare a historic building with a recently constructed one, we can see that the list of its constituent elements is similar, i.e., both have doors, windows, enclosures, structure, etc., but the difference lies in the specific characteristics of each of these elements in one case and in the other. Therefore, the first issue is that historical objects/buildings have certain characteristics

whose geometry and material are not usually represented in BIM libraries [13]. To address this issue, which is derived from the architectural complexity of many historic buildings, the HBIM approach has been developed. HBIM has been defined as the registration and modeling of existing buildings, generating a BIM geometry of point clouds [33]. Murphy defines HBIM as a new modeling system of historical structures that creates complete 2D and 3D models, which include details on the surface of objects in terms of their construction methods and material composition [34]. HBIM includes highly protected buildings that generally require broader intervention projects and careful management of their life cycle. Dore and Murphy [15] propose six HBIM elements: heritage documentation standards, technical data collection, 3D modeling concepts, "as-built" BIM, and procedural modeling. From HBIM, complete 3D models can be produced automatically, along with drawings with technical engineering language [13,34], documentation for the conservation of buildings (analysis of historical structures), and precise visualization [35].

The difference between existing common buildings and heritage buildings is that heritage projects consist of architectural, historical, and archeological documentation, which implies the technical reproduction of a context [1,36]. Project management of a historic building involves recording building information, modeling the existing building and its information, designing the intervention, developing construction works, and planning the conservation of the monument. All of these tasks are achieved through a multidisciplinary approach to the process [37].

Figure 4 shows the 5 criteria that the project team considered in the evaluation of proposals and the selection of solutions to the different tasks proposed in the project. Any proposal that does not meet criteria A (Fulfillment of the Eight Points of Modern Restoration) and E (Fulfillment of Law and Regulatory Requirements, Norms and Legislation) is rejected. The criteria of cost, profitability, and sustainability are evaluated using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores given to solutions that perform better. Lower-cost alternatives are given a higher value. In the pooling with the entire project team, the alternative that meets criteria A and E and obtains the highest score by adding the scores of the other criteria is chosen.

**Figure 4.** Proposal evaluation criteria.

#### **3. Academic Feedback Results & Discussion**

Students completed their FPD in approximately five months. All students' FPDs scored above average or better for their degrees. The results showed that students were able to demonstrate the use of BIM methodology and a positive impact on the acquisition of independent learning, problem-solving abilities, groupwork, decision-making, and communication skills. Macdonald also reports a positive impact, similar to that found in this experience, of the use of BIM and the acquisition of skills [38].

The applied collaborative methodology has been adapted from the methodology used in the second-year project subject taught at the engineering school where the experience described in this study has been carried out [39]. The results of this experience regarding the acquisition of competencies are in agreement with those obtained in the evaluation of this methodology by Blanco et al. [40].

Bower and Richards [41] describe peer review, mentoring, group-based tasks, and problem-based learning as options that involve some form of collaborative learning. These options have been used in this work, and our results are in agreement with Bower and Richards's results for groupwork skills.

The objective of the proposed study, using the collaborative methodology described in Section 2.1, is to develop a project. This point is common to methodologies such as project-based learning (PBL) [42,43] and cooperative-based learning [44]. The problem solving of some of the tasks proposed in the project, using the methodology of this study, is also a common element with methodologies such as cooperative problem-based learning (CPBL) [45].

The use of a collaborative methodology is not without barriers and limitations. Collaborative methodologies present, among others, the main barriers: construction, composition, and organization of working groups, design of activities to be carried out in groups, organizational guidelines, student learning pace, and evaluation of tasks. A systematic review of the scientific literature published in the last five years on the incorporation of collaborative methodology in different educational programs shows 11 different collaborative learning methodologies [46]. Revelo-Sanchez et al. [46] indicate that the application of a successful collaborative methodology consists of approaches and resources from various methodologies. In this line, as described, the methodology used presents elements of other methodologies that help reduce the barriers described. In this study, group size is very small, and students have previously taken courses in which they have used a collaborative methodology. These factors, together with the characteristics of the use of a BIM environment, make the limitations to the use of a collaborative methodology for the case proposed in this article smaller.

The use of the methodology described in this study assumes greater effort and dedication on behalf of the professor-tutor than the use of an approach with a non-collaborative methodology.

The FPD course aims to specialize the student in an engineering field. Different studies propose guiding FPD in a field of engineering specialization with good results [47–51]. Some authors propose the implementation of FPD with collaborating students [48,52,53], but not in the way in which it is proposed in this work within a BIM environment.

In previous courses, different students have performed FPDs aimed at a practical application of the BIM methodology. In all of these courses, the work was carried out by only one student, remained in the partial stages of BIM, and did not develop a complete model in any of the cases. The academic experience described in this study presents an approach that truly allows a group of students to collaborate in a BIM environment.

Students' perception was collected by professor tutors through interviews conducted with the students during the face-to-face delivery of their FPDs. Student's point of view in relation to their perceptions of their use of BIM and acquired skills indicates an average score of 4 (very satisfied) using a 5-point Likert scale on questions about to the independent learning, problem-solving abilities, groupwork, decision-making, communication skills, and assimilation of the BIM concept and its application. On the other hand, students' perceptions of the use of Revit indicate an average score of 3 (moderately satisfied). In relation to the acquisition of competencies, the use of BIM and its tools, these results follow a certain parallelism to those found by other researchers with students from other countries [54,55]

The incorporation of BIM in the project subjects in the engineering school in which the work described in this article has been developed is currently being evaluated. In relation to the point of view of the students in this experience, the results obtained in this study are in agreement with those already obtained in the study of the student's perception regarding the use of BIM and the assimilation of competences carried out in the advanced projects course of the final year of the degree in industrial technology engineering [56].

It is important to keep in mind that the academic proposal has been made in only one academic year. Currently, it has been proposed to conduct this academic experience in successive years to explore all the possibilities that this academic approach to the FPD subject can have.
