30.06.2026

Wood-Frame Construction Installation Level: An Overview of Characteristics, Advantages, and Applications

Building design

Wood-frame construction during the shell phase: A house takes shape step by step. Photo: troyscanon / Unsplash

In wood-frame construction, a single layer determines whether all building services can be installed neatly, flexibly, and without interfering with the vapor barrier: the installation layer. It is not an afterthought, but rather a layer grounded in building physics and carefully engineered to make wood-frame construction what it is meant to be in practice: a precise, durable, and energy-efficient building system. Anyone who understands the installation layer in wood-frame construction understands the heart of modern lightweight wood-frame structures.

What the installation layer is in wood-frame construction and what function it serves
Why the separation of the installation layer and the vapor barrier layer is absolutely essential from a building physics perspective
Which materials and construction methods are used for the installation layer
How the service layer is integrated into the overall structure of a wood-frame wall
Which trades benefit from the service layer and how they utilize it
Which standards and design principles are relevant
What typical errors occur during execution and planning, and how to avoid them
How the service layer should be evaluated in the context of sustainability, repairability, and building operations

Definition and Function: What Is the Installation Layer in Wood-Frame Construction?

The installation layer in wood-frame construction refers to an additional layer located on the interior side of the load-bearing structure, which serves exclusively to accommodate conduits, pipes, cables, and other building services installations. It is located between the vapor barrier—which functions as an airtight and moisture-regulating layer in the wall assembly—and the interior finish, typically drywall or gypsum fiberboard. Depending on the construction variant, its thickness ranges from three to eight centimeters, with five to six centimeters being the most common in practice.

The primary function of this layer is to prevent any penetrations of the vapor barrier by building services. In wood-frame construction, the vapor barrier—often a polyethylene film or a so-called “smart” vapor barrier made of materials with variable diffusion permeability—is the most vulnerable layer in the entire wall cross-section. Every penetration by an electrical cable, a water pipe, or a heating line represents a potential weak point: If it is not properly taped and sealed, leaks will occur in the airtightness layer, leading to uncontrolled moisture ingress into the structure. The installation layer solves this problem structurally by separating the entire installation area from the vapor barrier and relocating it to a separate, non-critical zone.

This approach is not an optional convenience solution, but rather a structural necessity resulting from the requirements for airtight building envelopes, as described in DIN 4108-7 for the thermal insulation and airtightness of buildings. Particularly in the Passive House standard and in buildings constructed in accordance with the Building Energy Act (GEG), which are designed for very low air exchange rates due to infiltration, the integrity of the airtightness layer is of central importance for the building’s energy performance.

Building Physics Background: Vapor Barrier, Airtightness, and Condensation Risk

To fully understand the significance of the installation layer, one must be familiar with the building physics context in which it operates. Wood-frame construction, also known as timber-frame construction, consists of a grid of vertical wooden studs, between which insulation material is installed. On the exterior side is a wind barrier, followed by the exterior cladding; on the interior side, the insulation panel is followed by the vapor barrier, then the installation layer, and finally the interior finish.

Water vapor from the indoor air diffuses through building components from the inside to the outside when there is a vapor pressure gradient, which is regularly the case in winter. If this vapor encounters a zone within the cross-section of the building component where the temperature is below its dew point, it condenses into liquid water. In wood-frame construction, this critical zone is located within the insulation layer or on the exterior side of the stud framing. The vapor barrier on the interior side is intended to reduce the vapor flow to such an extent that no unacceptable amounts of condensation form within the building component. Its effectiveness depends not only on its sd value (the water vapor diffusion-equivalent air layer thickness value) but also, crucially, on its airtightness: Even a vapor barrier with a high sd value loses its protective effect if air flows through it uncontrollably via leaks and carries moisture with it, because convective moisture transport exceeds diffusive transport by a factor of many.

This is precisely where the problem lies when electrical installations, outlets, or pipe penetrations are routed directly through the vapor barrier membrane. Even carefully taped penetrations can become leaky under operating conditions—such as temperature fluctuations, wood settlement, or mechanical stress. The installation layer provides a solution by eliminating this conflict from the outset: The vapor barrier remains intact, and the conduits run entirely within the room-side layer.

Structural Design: Materials, Dimensions, and Design Variants

In practice, the installation layer is constructed in various ways, with the choice of design depending on wall height, installation density, sound insulation requirements, and economic considerations. The most common variant is a substructure made of wooden slats or metal profiles, which are screwed horizontally or vertically onto the vapor barrier, thereby creating a cavity between the vapor barrier and the interior cladding.

Wooden Lathing as an Installation Level

Horizontal wooden lathing made of solid structural lumber (KVH) or square-edged lumber with a cross-section typically measuring 40 x 60 millimeters or 60 x 40 millimeters is screwed onto the vapor barrier at intervals of 50 to 62.5 centimeters. A cavity remains between the battens, providing sufficient space for electrical wiring, data cables, and thin-walled pipes. The interior sheathing—usually 12.5-millimeter-thick gypsum board—is screwed onto this lathing. This method is cost-effective, can be carried out using standard hand tools, and has been tried and tested in timber construction for decades.

Metal stud profiles and double-stud walls

A second option uses metal stud profiles from drywall construction (CW and UW profiles according to DIN 18183), which allow for greater installation depth while also forming a high-quality, dimensionally accurate substructure for the interior cladding. Metal profiles are more dimensionally stable than wooden battens and are particularly suitable where larger pipe diameters—such as for heating supply and return lines or ventilation ducts—need to be routed within the installation plane. A disadvantage is the higher material cost and the need to account for thermal bridges caused by the metal profiles, although these are not a structural concern from a building physics perspective when the profiles are installed on the room side behind the vapor barrier.

A third variant, used particularly when high sound insulation requirements apply, is the double-stud wall: Here, a second, non-load-bearing stud wall is installed in front of the actual load-bearing wood-frame wall, completely decoupled from the load-bearing structure. This decoupling interrupts sound bridges while also providing ample installation depth. However, it results in a loss of floor space of seven to ten centimeters and is therefore used primarily in multi-story residential construction or in areas with particularly high sound insulation requirements.

Integration of Building Services: Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, and Ventilation

The installation level in wood-frame construction serves as the workspace for all building services trades working on the interior side of the building envelope. For electricians, this means that conduit, cables, and flush-mounted boxes can be routed entirely within the installation level without coming into contact with the vapor barrier. Outlets and switches are installed in cavity wall boxes, which are cut into the interior cladding and protrude into the cavity of the installation level from the rear. Special flush-mounted boxes with an integrated airtight seal that are adhered directly to the vapor barrier are available, but they are simply not necessary when the installation level is consistently maintained.

Plumbing installations—that is, cold-water, hot-water, and wastewater lines—can also be routed on the room side if the installation level is deep enough. Particularly in bathrooms and kitchens, where there is a high density of pipes, the installation level offers the decisive advantage that pipes can be accessed and replaced as needed without interfering with the load-bearing structure. This aspect of reparability and ease of maintenance is becoming increasingly important in the context of sustainable building concepts: A building whose systems can be replaced without damaging the building structure has a significantly longer service life and lower life-cycle costs.

Heating pipes for surface heating systems, particularly wall-mounted heating systems, are often laid directly in the installation layer or embedded in a layer of plaster on the interior cladding. Ventilation ducts for decentralized ventilation units or supply air elements can also be routed within the installation plane, provided their diameter does not exceed the available depth. For central ventilation systems with larger duct cross-sections, however, separate duct shafts or suspended ceilings are the more suitable options.

Standards, Design Principles, and Quality Assurance

The installation layer in wood-frame construction is not a building component regulated independently by standards, but rather results from the interplay of several sets of regulations. Central to this is DIN 4108-7, which describes requirements for the airtightness of buildings and the construction of airtight layers. It requires that penetrations of the airtightness layer be reduced to a minimum and that any remaining penetrations be permanently sealed to ensure airtightness. The installation layer is the structural solution to this requirement.

The blower door test according to DIN EN ISO 9972 is the testing method used to measure and verify the airtightness of the building envelope. It measures the standardized air change rate at a pressure difference of 50 pascals between the interior and exterior (n50 value). For passive houses, the limit value is an n50 value of less than 0.6 per hour; for buildings constructed in accordance with GEG, the value is less than 3.0 per hour for buildings with a ventilation system and less than 1.5 per hour for those without. A carefully executed installation layer that leaves the vapor barrier intact is an essential prerequisite for passing this test.

For the design and construction of wood-frame walls with an installation layer, the state wood construction guidelines, the Technical Building Regulations, and the information sheets from the Holz Information Service are also relevant. The latter publishes detailed construction recommendations for wall structures, connection details, and the construction of the airtightness layer, which serve as a reliable reference in planning practice. For fire protection requirements, particularly in multi-story timber buildings, the respective state building codes and the Model Timber Construction Guideline must be observed, as they specify requirements for cladding and cavities.

Typical Design and Construction Errors and How to Avoid Them

The most common error in constructing the installation layer is insufficient depth. If the furring is installed with a depth of only 30 millimeters to save on materials, flush-mounted boxes with the standard 47-millimeter installation depth will no longer fit completely within the layer. The result is either damage to the vapor barrier caused by the box or an unsightly solution with protruding elements. The installation layer should therefore be at least 50 millimeters deep—preferably 60 millimeters.

A second common mistake is a lack of coordination between the carpenter and the electrician. If the electrician installs his conduit before the vapor barrier has been fully adhered and inspected, leaks will occur that are detected during the blower-door test and are difficult to repair later. The correct sequence is: fully install and seal the vapor barrier, conduct a preliminary blower-door test, then construct the installation layer and run the wiring, and finally install the interior finish and conduct the final blower-door test. This sequence requires close coordination on the construction site, which must be explicitly provided for in the construction plans.

A third error concerns the routing of conduits from the service layer through the vapor barrier into the exterior wall assembly, for example, for in-wall appliances or exterior outlets. While such penetrations are sometimes unavoidable, they must be made permanently airtight using certified sleeves and adhesive tapes. If they are sealed with standard adhesive tape that is not approved for this purpose, the seal will lose its effectiveness after just a few years. Properly designed products that are compatible with the specific vapor barrier membrane are not a luxury here, but a basic requirement.

Sustainability, Repairability, and the Installation Layer in the Building’s Lifecycle

The installation level in wood-frame construction is not only a tool for building physics but also contributes to a sustainable building concept. Today, buildings are designed for service lives of fifty to one hundred years, during which building services are replaced multiple times. Electrical wiring has a technical service life of thirty to forty years, while heating pipes last twenty to fifty years, depending on the material and operating conditions. If these lines are routed through an accessible installation level, they can be replaced at the end of their service life without damaging the load-bearing structure, the insulation, or the vapor barrier.

This aspect of repairability and adaptability is an explicitly evaluated criterion in the sustainability assessment of buildings, such as under the DGNB system (German Sustainable Building Council) or the BNB system (Federal Sustainable Building Assessment System). Buildings whose systems can be replaced without altering the building’s structure achieve higher ratings in this regard and have demonstrably lower life-cycle costs. The installation level is thus a detail with strategic implications.

From an environmental perspective, the installation level in wood-frame construction is also beneficial because it ensures the long-term integrity of the insulation layer. An intact vapor barrier protects the wood structure from moisture damage, which in the worst case can lead to mold, wood rot, and structural damage. A building that remains dry and intact for decades has a significantly better environmental footprint than one that must be renovated after twenty years. In this sense, the installation layer is an investment in the durability of the entire structure.

The installation layer as a systematic structural principle

The installation layer in wood-frame construction is far more than a practical solution for routing cables and pipes. It embodies a consistent, layer-based approach to wood construction that assigns a clearly defined function to each component and resolves conflicts between different requirements through spatial separation. This principle, known in English-language technical literature as “separation of layers” or, in the context of building management, as “shearing layers” (after Stewart Brand), leads to structures that are more durable, easier to maintain, and more adaptable than those in which functions are superimposed and intermingled.

For architects and planners, the consistent planning of the installation level is a task that must begin early in the design process. The depth of the layer, the coordination of the trades, the location of the vapor barrier, and the connection details at ceilings, floors, and window reveals must be fully worked out in the construction drawings before construction begins. Subsequent changes to the installation layer are possible, but they are expensive and often result in a loss of quality.

For tradespeople, the installation layer is a quality feature that demands and rewards careful work. A blower-door test, which confirms the airtightness of the structure, provides measurable proof of a professionally installed vapor barrier and a correctly separated installation layer. In a construction industry that increasingly relies on quality certifications and accreditations, this verification is a tangible advantage. The installation level in wood-frame construction is thus not only a structural necessity but also a sign of craftsmanship and planning expertise that strengthens wood construction as a building system as a whole.

18.01.2026

Resilience and sustainability

Permaculture as a Principle for Urban Open Space Planning

Building design

concrete-house-on-calm-water-on-the-day-HsNLzllzW58 — Modern, sustainable concrete house on a still body of water in Switzerland, photographed by Aswathy N

Permaculture in urban planning? To many, that sounds like a self-sufficient idyll or a romanticized vision of the wilderness. But behind the term lies a highly relevant, systemic principle that has long since found its way into urban open-space planning—and has the potential to make cities more sustainable, climate-resilient, and socially inclusive. It’s high time to take permaculture seriously as a toolkit and conceptual framework for the city of tomorrow.

Definition and Origins of Permaculture—More Than Just Gardening for Advanced Practitioners
Permaculture Principles and Their Applicability to Urban Open-Space Planning
Practical examples from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: From community gardens to urban sponge areas
Systemic Thinking: How Permaculture Creates Synergies Between Ecology, Society, and Urban Development
Planning tools, participation, and governance—what professionals need to know
Challenges and Limitations in Integrating Permaculture into Municipal Planning Practice
How Permaculture Can Help Make Cities Climate-Resilient and Livable
Innovative Approaches to Land Management, Biodiversity, and Social Participation
Conclusion: Permaculture as a Source of Inspiration for a New Generation of Urban Planners and Landscape Architects

What Is Permaculture? From Agriculture to Urban System Innovation

The term “permaculture” is a portmanteau derived from the English phrases “permanent agriculture” and “permanent culture.” Originally developed in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in Australia, the focus was on creating permanently functional and sustainable agricultural systems. But it soon became clear that the principles of permaculture could be applied far beyond the farm—to gardens, neighborhoods, cities, and even entire societies.

Permaculture is based on the recognition that natural ecosystems are highly complex, resilient, and efficient because they rely on diversity, circular thinking, and cooperation. Instead of working against nature, human settlements and open spaces should be designed to work in harmony with natural processes. The goal: to create living spaces that conserve resources, prevent waste, save energy, and promote social cohesion.

In practice, this means much more than just a few raised beds or wildflower meadows. Permaculture is a methodological toolkit that encompasses design principles such as “Observe and interact,” “Use edges,” and “Design from patterns to details.” These principles are remarkably universal—and can be applied to open-space planning, urban development, and landscape architecture.

More and more cities around the world are discovering permaculture as a source of innovation. In New York and San Francisco, public parks are being created based on permaculture concepts; in Copenhagen and Zurich, entire neighborhoods are being developed using permaculture designs. But interest is also growing rapidly in German-speaking countries, and the first pilot projects show that permaculture and the city are not a contradiction, but rather a productive alliance.

Perhaps the most important difference from traditional planning is that permaculture does not think in terms of individual measures, but rather in terms of relationships, interactions, and processes. It asks: How can a space store water, promote biodiversity, facilitate social interaction, and at the same time be climate-resilient? This makes permaculture a systemic innovation strategy that playfully transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries.

For professionals in urban and open-space planning, this means that those who understand the principles of permaculture expand their methodological repertoire and can design urban spaces that are resilient, multifunctional, and sustainable. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at how permaculture works in practice in the city—and what opportunities and challenges this presents.

Permaculture Principles for Urban Open Space Planning—Systems Thinking Meets Urban Space

Applying permaculture principles to the city is anything but trivial—but it’s also anything but impossible. The first step is to understand the essential design principles and adapt them to the urban context. Permaculture traditionally operates on a set of fundamental principles, such as observation, circular economy, multifunctionality, the use of synergies, and the principle that “every part serves multiple functions.”

In the context of urban open spaces, this means, for example, that a rainwater garden can not only retain water and promote evaporation but also serve as a place to gather, a learning space, and a habitat for insects. A green strip is not merely seen as a divider between traffic areas, but as a productive edge zone that promotes biodiversity, produces food, and facilitates social interaction. Multifunctionality is the magic word here—and a clear counterpoint to traditional, monofunctional land-use zoning.

Another key principle is thinking in terms of cycles. Instead of consuming resources linearly and producing waste, permaculture focuses on closing material cycles. In urban practice, this means: on-site composting of organic waste, rainwater harvesting in parks, the integration of urban vegetable gardening, and the use of “waste” such as leaves, pruning clippings, or graywater as a resource. Urban open-space planning can thus become not only more sustainable but also significantly more efficient.

Creating synergies between different systems is another central concern. For example, an urban community garden can be designed not only to produce vegetables but also to serve as a learning space for schools, promote social integration, and increase biodiversity in the neighborhood. This is where the strength of permaculture thinking lies: space is designed not as the sum of individual functions, but as a network of complementary relationships.

Finally, permaculture relies on participatory processes. The involvement of the urban community is not a decorative afterthought but an integral part of the planning process. Users become co-creators, local knowledge is incorporated into the design, and responsibility is shared. For planners, this means that participation is not merely relegated to the “participation table,” but is part of the entire planning process—from analysis and design through to maintenance and further development.

The challenge lies in applying these principles within the context of existing planning routines, regulations, and administrative structures. This requires a pioneering spirit, creativity, and sometimes even a dash of civil disobedience. Yet the experiences of recent years show that where permaculture succeeds in the city, it creates not only a new quality in public spaces but also in social interaction.

Practical Examples: Permaculture in German, Austrian, and Swiss Cities

The theory sounds convincing—but what does permaculture in the city actually look like? A look at selected projects in German-speaking countries shows just how diverse the approaches are and what innovations become possible when permaculture principles are specifically integrated into open-space planning.

One flagship project is the “Prinzessinnengarten” in Berlin. On a former brownfield site, an urban garden was developed here in cooperation with residents, initiatives, and planners—a space that not only produces vegetables but also serves as an educational, social, and cultural hub. Composting, rainwater harvesting, biodiversity, and social integration are its cornerstones—and make the site an exemplary testing ground for permaculture in the big city.

In Vienna, too, permaculture-inspired open spaces are increasingly emerging. For example, a public park was developed in the Sonnwendviertel neighborhood based on the principles of the circular economy and biodiversity. Rainwater is collected and used for irrigation; there are community garden beds, insect-friendly plantings, and thoughtfully designed border areas. Maintenance is partly carried out by cooperating neighborhood initiatives, thereby strengthening social participation and responsibility.

In Basel, Switzerland, the “Urban Agriculture Basel” project focuses on integrating permaculture principles into neighborhood management. Here, rooftops, courtyards, and open spaces are systematically designed as productive, multifunctional areas. The goal: to develop food sovereignty, climate adaptation, and social innovation hand in hand. Particularly exciting is the close collaboration with local stakeholders and the integration of urban development, education, and open-space design.

In medium-sized German cities such as Göttingen and Freiburg, more and more “edible cities” are emerging. Here, urban green spaces are systematically enriched with edible plants that citizens are allowed to harvest. The land-use management strategy is based on permaculture principles: utilizing peripheral areas, promoting diversity, and linking ecological, social, and cultural goals. Even traditional parks and recreation departments are increasingly discovering the potential of permaculture interventions, such as “sponge city” elements, species-rich wildflower meadows, or multifunctional rainwater gardens.

These examples show that permaculture is not a niche phenomenon for alternative gardening groups, but rather an innovation strategy that has taken center stage in urban development. It is crucial that these projects be integrated into overall planning not just as isolated initiatives, but as systemic building blocks. Where permaculture becomes a planning principle, resilient, vibrant, and socially just urban spaces emerge that go far beyond ecological benefits.

Strategies, Tools, and Governance: Permaculture in Planning Practice

Integrating permaculture into urban open-space planning requires new planning strategies, tools, and governance models. First and foremost, a fundamental understanding of systems thinking is needed. Traditional instruments such as land-use plans or zoning plans reach their limits when the goal is to create multifunctional, adaptive, and participatory spaces. This calls for flexible planning tools that are oriented toward dynamic processes—such as adaptive master plans, cooperative maintenance agreements, or temporary land-use models.

A key tool is participatory analysis and planning. Methods such as mapping, future workshops, or co-creative design processes help to identify local knowledge and needs. Permaculture design processes often rely on intensive observation and site analysis to identify and strategically harness a location’s potential. Digital tools such as GIS can help visualize spatial synergies and model interactions between land use, the water cycle, and biodiversity.

Governance plays a key role. Traditional top-down management quickly reaches its limits in permaculture projects. Instead, cooperative models are needed in which government, civil society, and local stakeholders share responsibility. Contracting models, public sponsorships, or cooperatives can help ensure the long-term maintenance and further development of permaculture spaces. Transparency is crucial here: Who makes the decisions, who benefits, and who bears responsibility?

Integrating permaculture approaches into existing planning and funding structures remains a challenge. Many funding programs are tailored to traditional green spaces or “investment measures”; securing funding for participatory processes, maintenance, or educational work is often difficult. This calls for a shift in political thinking and new funding instruments that recognize and support the long-term social and ecological benefits of permaculture projects.

Finally, permaculture also presents a communication challenge. Its principles are complex and often require explanation. Professional public relations, transparent communication, and educational programs are therefore essential for gaining acceptance among administrative bodies, policymakers, and the urban community. Anyone who wants to successfully establish permaculture in the city must be persuasive not only in technical terms but also in terms of communication and politics.

For planners, landscape architects, and urban developers, permaculture offers a rich treasure trove of methods—but also the challenge of questioning routines and daring to try something new. The reward: open spaces that set new standards not only ecologically but also socially and culturally.

Perspectives: Opportunities and Limits of Permaculture in the City of Tomorrow

Permaculture is not a panacea, but it is a powerful tool for 21st-century urban development. Its greatest strength lies in its systemic approach: rather than promoting isolated projects, it integrates ecology, economy, and social aspects into a holistic development model. In this way, cities can become not only more climate-resilient, but also more livable, equitable, and innovative.

The opportunities are enormous: Permaculture can help reduce urban heat islands, increase biodiversity, strengthen local food sovereignty, and promote social participation. Cities become more resilient to extreme weather, resources are used more efficiently, and new spaces for education, social interaction, and innovation emerge. Last but not least, permaculture can help optimize land management and design open spaces to be multifunctional.

But there are also limitations. Not every area is suitable for permaculture; conflicts with other land-use demands—such as transportation or housing development—are inevitable. Integrating permaculture into existing legal and planning structures requires patience, creativity, and often political support. Furthermore, there is a risk that permaculture will be misused as a “fig leaf” for greenwashing rather than actually driving systemic change.

The greatest challenge remains the cultural shift in planning and administration. Permaculture demands a new understanding of roles: planners become facilitators, administrative bodies become enablers, and citizens become co-creators. This is unfamiliar, but it also presents an enormous opportunity for innovation and social cohesion. Those who embrace this change will be rewarded with resilient, vibrant, and sustainable cities.

The future of permaculture in the city depends on whether we succeed in permanently integrating its principles into planning and decision-making structures. This requires courage, openness, and a willingness to experiment—but also clear political frameworks and innovative funding models. Permaculture is not an end in itself, but a tool for transforming the city in the Anthropocene. Those who start today can make a difference tomorrow.

The next generation of urban planners and landscape architects faces the challenge of viewing permaculture not as a niche but as an integral part of urban development. The tools and knowledge are there—it’s up to us to use them.

Summary:
Permaculture as a principle for urban open-space planning offers a fascinating, systemic response to many of today’s challenges: climate adaptation, biodiversity, social participation, and sustainable resource use. The principles of permaculture can be successfully applied to urban spaces, as numerous projects in German-speaking countries demonstrate. However, integration into planning processes, governance models, and urban society is crucial—this is where the true innovative power lies. Those who seriously engage with permaculture open up new paths toward a resilient, vibrant, and equitable city. The future of urban open spaces is multifunctional, participatory—and perhaps a little bit permacultural.

17.11.2024

Fairs

Uzin Utz presents its BIM construction database at Digitalbau

Building design

Trade fair

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes. Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit. BIM […]

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes.

Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit.

Users can use it to select the desired system components via a material query and upload them on a project-specific basis. Concrete ceilings, screed constructions for different loads, tile constructions etc. – around 3,000 parts in total – are output via structured online queries. With the help of the plug-in, all components can be updated automatically and collectively. “BIM will continue to gain in importance due to its benefits such as cost and execution security – for building owners, investors, architects and planners, the building materials industry, the building materials trade, construction companies and specialist tradespeople,” said Philipp Utz on the company’s digitalization strategy.