# Development of Railway Infrastructure BIM Prototype Libraries
## 6 Library Development and Test
### Modeling and Test  
Modeling and testing were conducted on four designers who could design using BIM. The expert group consisted of one year, three years, seven years, and twelve years of experience. Testing quantitatively compared the time modeled without using the developed library with the time modeled using the library. We also received opinions from experts who participated in the test and received qualitative opinions on the results of this study. Figure 1 is the test data modeled in this test. Figure 2 is a 3D drawing modeled using libraries developed by reference to existing 2D drawings and 2D drawings. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{Upper structure} & PSC BEAM & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & IPC GIRDER & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & RPF BEAM & 20 & 20 & 34 & 34 \\ \cline{3-6} Bridge & & Rahman bridge & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Abutment & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Pier & 16 & 16 & 16 & 16 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Pile foundation & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Others & 4 & 4 & 6 & 6 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Total & 68 & 68 & 86 & 86 \\ \hline  & & Lining & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Shotcrete & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Rock bolt & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \cline{3-6} Tunnel & & Steel rib & 6 & 6 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Side drainageway & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Open-cut tunnel & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Portal & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Total & 32 & 32 & 34 & 34 \\ \hline  & & Feeder & 19 & 19 & 19 & 19 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Protective wire & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 \\ \cline{3-6}  & &
\begin{tabular}{c} Catenary pole and \\ catenary pole \\ foundation \\ \end{tabular} & 34 & 34 & 102 & 102 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Fixed beam & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Beam suspension & 12 & 12 & 14 & 14 \\ \cline{3-6} Electricity & & Catenary pole substitute & 7 & 7 & 10 & 10 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Drop tube & 12 & 12 & 13 & 13 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Cantilever & 4 & 4 & 22 & 22 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Straining device & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Strain pole crossarm & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Hand hole & 18 & 18 & 18 & 18 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Concrete trough & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Total & 139 & 139 & 231 & 231 \\ \hline  & & Signal device & 39 & 39 & 39 & 39 \\ \cline{3-6} Signal & & Trope & 1 & 1 & 6 & 6 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & Total & 39 & 39 & 44 & 44 \\ \hline  & & Gross total & 43 & 320 & 312 & 237 & 525 & 517 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._To test the constructed libraries, roadbed and bridge sections were modeled. Roadbed modeling consists of (1) initial topography creation; (2) linear information input; (3) standard crossing creation; (4) corridor creation; (5) corridor surface creation; and (6) planned terrain creation (initial topography + corridor terrain). BIM libraries based on 2D cross-sections can be utilized for standard crossing creation. 2D-profile-based 3D libraries were utilized for bridge modeling. The target bridge was a PSC beam type. The time that it took four experts in BIM tools (Civil 3D and Revit) to perform modeling with the libraries was compared with the time (minutes) that it took them to perform modeling without the libraries. As a result, a 38.2% average difference was observed for roadbed modeling, and a 50.2% average difference was observed for bridge modeling (Table 8). The qualitative opinions of the experts involved in this test are as follows. 1. As a result of modeling using developed libraries, the time required to model a typical type of structure can be greatly reduced. 2. Developed library models are basically made up of parametric modeling, which can reduce errors that occur when modeling. Figure 1: (**a**) Standard crossing creation and (**b**) corridor model creation.