Download the AEC (UK) documents here.

AEC (UK) BIM Protocols

AEC (UK )BIM Technology Protocol v2.1 (Main document)

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol v2.0 (Russian language version)

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol – BIM Execution Plan v2.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol – Model Matrix v2.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For Autodesk Revit v2.0 (Supplementary document for Autodesk Revit)

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For Autodesk Revit – Model Validation Checklist v2.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For Bentley ABD v2.0 (Supplementary document for Bentley AECOsim Building Designer)

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For Bentley ABD – Model Validation Checklist v2.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For GRAPHISOFT ArchiCAD v1.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For GRAPHISOFT ArchiCAD – Template Checklist v1.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For GRAPHISOFT ArchiCAD – Model Validation Checklist For Import v1.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For GRAPHISOFT ArchiCAD – Model Validation Checklist For Export v1.0

AEC (UK) BIM Protocol For Nemetschek Vectorworks v1.2 * NEW! *

AEC (UK) CAD Standard

AEC (UK) Protocol For Layer Naming v4.0.1 * NEW! *



49 Responses to Documents

  1. Christopher smith says:

    Hi, I’m current reviewing MAG current cad standards👍🏻. And I’ve just noticed that Uniclass tables have change. Are AEC publishing an up to date CAD standards to fall in line with this change?
    Many Regards
    Christopher Smith

  2. Mark M says:

    Are the Layer Naming standards likely to adopt Uniclass 2015? Is it OK to start using them?

  3. Hendrik Smit says:


    Can someone confirm the status or purpose of these documents please? I am confused.
    Do these documents supplement the BS and PAS 1192 or are they interpretations of those documents?
    Are the documents official and a recognized standard with the same importance as BS/PAS documents?


    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      Hi Hendrik

      The purpose of these is defined in the documents themselves. In simple terms these would be Common Standards & Protocols for BIM authoring tools based on the family of 1192 documents.

  4. Alan Lucas says:

    Hi. I’m very new to the world of BIM, so forgive me if I have misconstrued something that is stated in the new BIM Technology Protocol. I am confused by one statement, which I would like clarifying, if possible. The penultimate bullet point of Clause 7.5 reads “Switching between Imperial / Metric units shall be avoided where possible in order to maintain proper or conventional measurements, such as 50mm rather than 50.8mm.” To my mind there is no mention of Imperial measurement here. There is also no switch. 50mm and 50.8mm are both metric measurements. Or am I missing something blindingly obvious? Apologies if I am. I’m currently at the lower end of the steep part on the learning curve! Many thanks for your patience/clarification.

    Kind regards

    Alan Lucas

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      In brief, this refers to modelling in one unit of measurement then converting the model to another. If you were modelling 2″, you’d end up with 50.8mm which isn’t an accurate metric size. Or more specifically, a 4″ wall is not the same as a 200mm wall.

  5. Stefan Brorsen says:

    Looking for a naming convention for Levels I found the BIM Technology Protocol v.2.1.1 and find it very helpful. Any BEP could refer to this document.
    Regarding the Project Level Code Examples in 11.1 I have a few questions and comments based on what I have seen in BIM models.
    Is the elevation of 00 Ground Floor always = FFL? (I hope all would say yes). M1 is not necessarily the mezzanine above Level 01 but just the first mezzanine in the building? What about a code for the terrain? (Have seen this named Ground Level and had it confused with the ground floor named L00 GA).
    What is the recommended punishment/encouragement for BIM coordinators/authors naming levels with these seen examples: Door, High Eaves, Bottom of Cladding, Base of Cladding, Cladding Base, Blue Brick Top, Top of blue brick, Band Base, Blue Façade Panel, GF TW, FFC Level, Verge, Roof Curve Alignment etc.?

  6. David Simpson says:

    PAS1192-2 refers to BS1192-2007 for the final word on file naming (remember that the status of a PAS is not as high as that of a BS), which states: “For all levels below the ground floor the prefix “B” should be used: B1, B2, etc.”
    On this basis, I would retain the 2 digits only, and ignore the PAS reference to LG1.
    Specifying a consistent (not just minimum) length of a field makes it far easier to run macros / formulae based on interrogating file names for ease of QA checking of naming; in this matter both the PAS and the BS’s approach of expanding the number of digits in the Role code to cope with more specialisms is very irritating!

  7. David Simpson says:

    Chris, This is exactly our understanding, too. The uniqueness of a drawing number is given by the whole code, with the Number field indicating the same location on each level. e.g. 1447-AAR-Z1-00-GA-A-2001 and 1447-AAR-Z1-01-GA-A-2001 would both be internal partitions drawings of the same plan extract, but on levels 00 and 01 respectively. We define how large buildings breakdown onto multiple drawing sheets in our BXP, and use View Matchlines in Revit to ensure that it’s consistent.

    • Chris D says:

      I’d be interested how you actually implement 25 character drawing numbers in practice (especially in Revit)

      We’ve implemented it as per the PAS (first I’ve heard that the PAS is incorrect) which results in unique 10 character drawing numbers, (Sheet Numbers in Revit), with all other fields dealt with via Shared Parameters (added to the file name on export by RTV Xporter). This is a neat workable solution as 10 characters can just about fit in a callout head or section head etc for cross referencing between sheets. No idea how you cope with 25 character referencing.

  8. Chris D says:

    One further comment:
    Field 4 in the protocol (level or location) is specifically limited to 2 characters. The PAS has an example with 3 characters: LG1 for Lower Ground 1. We initially adopted two characters but moved to three characters to accommodate things like LG1. Why can’t the protocol say “2 or 3 characters” like you’ve done for Discipline?

    • Rob Jackson says:

      Again there is inconsistency between the documents. BS 1192:2007 suggests “00 Base level of building (where ground floor is not appropriate)”. LG1 in PAS 1192-2 is the only example anywhere that I can see that uses 3 characters. Using 2 characters provides greater consistency as well as not creating stupidly long codes. However, I will take this back to the committee and gather a greater consensus when version 3.0 is developed to see if it is necessary to expand to 3.

  9. Chris D says:

    Thanks for all the hard work on the revised document.

    One comment: PAS1192-2 suggests that the ‘unique’ part of the full reference is the number, when concatenated with File Type and Discipline, i.e. you concatenate fields 5+6+7. This isn’t exactly the same as the wording on page 34 of the protocol.

    • Rob Jackson says:

      Note that the wording in PAS 1192-2 is actually incorrect and is due to be corrected. I confirmed this with Mervyn Richards one of the author. The whole code should create the uniqueness not certain parts. So for example if the Level changes then the Number part does not change.

  10. Allen Holland says:

    Are the documents available in native file format?
    What has happened to

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      Hi Allen
      No, they’re not available in native format, just the PDFs. We didn’t want uncontrolled edited versions to be in circulation. The PDFs are all open for copying what you need out of them though.
      We let lapse. Didn’t see the point when the WordPress site we use now serves us perfectly well.

  11. hi there,
    please where
    can i find the standard BS1192:2007 free?

  12. […] What the AEC standards do now is assist designers to use common technical terms, as they did before, but with reference information on how to manage BIM projects using a ‘BIM Execution Plan.’ […]

  13. Grace Lim Singapore says:

    Hi, Really appreciate the document. Just highlight 2 minor typo in aecukbimprotocolforautodeskrevit-v2-0.pdf, PDF page 5 & 6, it should be “Revit” sub-committee, instead of “Bentley” sub-commmittee.

  14. Brian says:

    Can someone suggest which CAD Layer reference to use for Car Parking Equipment such as automatic barriers, Ticket Dispensers, POFs & P&Ds?

  15. Daniel Penna says:


    Thanks for providing these Standards. They’re well written and clear to implement. It’s a refreshing change from the theoretical brain-storming that many experts still seem to be hung up on. The theory is clearly implicit in this Standard, but it’s instrumented through straightforward procedures.

    One question though; where can the Project BIM strategy pro-forma and BIM Strategy guidance note be downloaded? I’d really like to have the complete package.

    Kind regards

  16. Kevin Fielding says:

    The AEC Standards for Revit include naming standards for Models, Views, and Worksets, but not for Sheets, how are people naming, and organising them in a Revit environment?

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      The sheets are covered in the standard. It specifies using the same naming convention as for your drawings. So, for example, if you had a drawing number a/101, your sheet should be A101.

      • Kevin Fielding says:

        My query was more related to relationship between the file number and the sheet number in relation to the concatenated filename structures of the AEC and BS1192 standards. I suppose this is more of an implementation issue, and outside the scope of the documents. Revit cannot easily handle the BS1192 file naming of exported sheets / drawings without 3rd party plug-ins.

        Looking forward to the 2.0 standards.

  17. Does anyone know when version 2.0 of the BIM and Revit standards will be released?

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      We’re working on v2.0 generic, Autodesk and Bentley right now, Balazs. We’re also hoping to release a Vectorworks version as soon as possible afterwards as well.
      We don’t have a guaranteed release date yet, but we hope it will be before the summer.
      Thanks for getting in touch and watch this space for future updates.

      • Rob Jackson says:

        Still forgetting Graphisoft ArchiCAD :( Volunteered to help in July last year – see post on this forum. Disappointed we (as a community) still have no involvement / inclusion.

      • AEC (UK) Chair says:

        Hi Rob
        ArchiCAD is still on the list – once we have the new versions out of the way. I have not forgotten your offer.

  18. Chris D says:

    I notice that dates are included as a necessary part of the interchange process but date formats are not included in your standard.

    The ISO format for dates is YYYY-MM-DD e.g. 2012-12-31

    The ISO date format should be included in your BIM standard to facilitate transfer of data with North America, as parochial US/UK date formats are easily confused.

  19. David Simpson says:

    Great work!

    Will you be producing DWT files for AutoCAD based on the AEC (UK) CAD Standards, or DWG Layer Export files from Revit?

    I don’t want to start creating these from scratch, if there are imminent “official” versions!

    David Simpson

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      Yes, there are already DWT files in existence for v2, and we plan to update those shortly for v3.
      Remapping tables will also be prepared.
      We will confirm schedules shortly.

  20. Paul Oakley says:

    Why did AEC(uk) use an unpublished own version of Uniclass instead of waiting for CPIC, the owners of Uniclass to publish the correct version?

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      The purpose of AEC (UK) is to provide a current workable implementation of British Standards and Uniclass. In lieu of the updated versions, we have published with what is currently available to avoid discontinuity. Rest assured that when Uniclass finally publishes we will review the updates and revise the AEC (UK) Standards to suit.

  21. Rob Jackson says:

    Could you confirm when you will be producing the AEC (UK) BIM Standard for ArchiCAD, Microstation and Vectorworks?

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      We’re heading for the first release of the Bentley Building BIM standards in September, with discussions set to take place for VectorWorks beginning in August. As for ArchiCAD we’re still short of volunteers to help put in the effort needed. Anyone out there ready to take on the challenge?

      • Rob Jackson says:

        Well as an ArchiCAD user for 10+ years i guess i’m reasonably well qualified in understanding the needs of an ArchiCAD user. I have also written all our office CAD and BIM standards.

        As a company we are also one of the biggest users of ArchiCAD in the country and have used ArchiCAD for 17 years.

        My issue as an ArchiCAD user at the moment with standards is that we are being asked to conform to BS1192 AND AEC by contractors. Whilst they are similar they aren’t fully compatible and this is leading to confusion from others. The AEC standards are currently impractical for us (for example lots of references to Revit terminology) and not workable on ArchiCAD projects and so we have adopted BS1192 as our standard. In truth this isn’t perfect either but is a little more adaptable to international standards which are also important for architects carrying out both work in the UK and abroad.

        Personally i would rather see the AEC standard get either the BS amended or a new BS produced? Whatever emerges needs to be compatible with government thinking.

        Happy to participate in discussions regarding development of UK ArchiCAD standards. I have some reasonable connections to find a few more users if this would help. If you want to set something up then you can contact me on

  22. As a grumpy ex-pat, I’m in, even on the west side of the pond. Over here we refer to it as “lonely BIM” (John Tocci, of Tocci Constructors and BIM evangelist)

  23. I note that in your standards you sometimes refer to the first field as “Discipline” and sometimes as “Owner”, and this field is (usually) a single character. A single character will not always be sufficient for both definitions. It is quite common for projects to have multiple owners that share the same discipline – even quite modest projects. For a real example, working on a refit of a retail unit in a shopping centre we have the shell architect, the existing fit-out architect, and ourselves, the proposed fit-out architect. When the data is handed over at completion the landlord needs to be able to retain this split. I realise that I can modify the standard to suit the project, but by doing so it ceases to be THE standard and dilutes the advantage of using a published standard.

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:

      The standard is a baseline level of compliance, not an exhaustive, prescriptive rulebook for every situation. We recognise that a single approach is critical, but there has to be flexibility to allow for an extensive range of companies, projects and methods. This is exactly why the Discipline code (nominally 1 or 2 characters) has been extended with an Originator to help define the owner when exactly your situation arises:

      “Where necessary this field should include an Originator code to help identify the owner of the contents. For example on larger projects where two architects are involved, it may be necessary to add the company’s initials before the discipline:
      ABC-A- ABC Architects
      XYZ-A- XYZ Architects”

      If you need the originator, use it. If you don’t, don’t. But in every case, “Variations to this convention, either additions or simplifications, should be noted in the project BIM Strategy document.”

      It’s not modifying the standard to something different, and thus diluting it, it’s working within the baseline constraints and still providing an identifiable and common method.

      I hope that helps, and thanks for the comment.

  24. Chris Price says:

    The sample diagram for the model breakup is an interesting break up of the model? Certainly not the approach I would take… Separating overlapping and interacting elements is not a good breakup.

    As model breakup is extremely project specific, I think the diagram should stop at the discipline specific level with a note to simply state “further break down may be required on larger scale projects, but will be specific to the project”

    My 2 cents…

    • AEC (UK) Chair says:


      Yes, the break-down of the modelled components is very important, and is something we intend to look at in more detail in the future. But just as a best practice guide, not a definitive standard. Each project and package is going to have specific requirements which can’t really be generalised. The important factor is the “project BIM strategy document” which can clarify the project-based approaches to this challenge. We will be publishing an example/template very soon.


  25. Claude Bredell says:

    I’m going into a BOM (Big Office Meeting)this a.m., with your 4 Handbooks. There is no agenda (yet), but we will be discussing the training programme of the 5 new Revit workstations. Virtually all of the 12 odd operators have developed their skills in autocad (Only 2 of us know MicroStation, me on SE, and the other guy on V8). I’m going to put these manuals on the server, and hopefully initiate some orderly, dgn/dwg thinking and practices.
    Regards, Claude Bredell

    • Iain Crawford says:

      Hi Claude,

      I was wondering how your BOM went that you described in your previous post. I appreciate this was some time ago but we have found ourselves in a similar situation in our office. We are in the process of setting up 4 or 5 Revit workstations and it would be good if you could provide any feedback (good or bad) with your experiences.

      Kindest Regards

      Iain Crawford

      • Claude Bredell says:

        Hi Iain,
        They went the revit route. I feel it was the correct choice as they are all autocad users. I wasn’t using much CAD at the time, so I wan’t personally affected. But they are not yet using it as a BIM tool, just 3D modelling,drawing and schedule extractions, and cloud rendering.
        The handbooks were useful to me, but I think they use the generic set that is built into the software.
        My apologies for taking so long to answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: