Integrating BIM with Green Building Certification System, Energy Analysis, and Cost Estimating Tools to Conceptually Design Sustainable Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owners, architects, and engineers are highly concerned about the sustainability and energy performance of proposed buildings. Evaluating and analyzing the potential energy consumption of buildings at the conceptual design stage is very helpful for designers when selecting the design alternative that leads to a more energy efficient facility. Building Information Modeling (BIM) assists designers assess different design alternatives at the conceptual stage of a building life so that effective energy strategies are attained within the green building constraints. As well, at that stage, designers can select the right type of building materials that have great effect on the building's life cycle energy consumption and operating costs. The aim of this paper is to propose an integrated method that links BIM, energy analysis, and cost-estimating tools with the green building certification system. The successful development of the proposed method helps owners and designers evaluate design alternatives, taking into consideration the sustainability constraints in an efficient and timely manner. BIM's tool is customized to allow its integration with the energy analysis application to identify the potential gain or loss of energy for the building, detect and evaluate its sustainability based on the U.S. or Canadian Green Building Council (USGBC or CaGBC) rating systems, and approximately estimate the costs of construction early at the conceptual design stage. An actual building project is used to illustrate the workability and capability of the proposed method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".