The Development of an Automated System for a Quality Evaluation of Engineering BIM Models: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing adoption of Building Information Modeling (BIM) within the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector raises questions about the quality of BIM data deliverables for project owners. Therefore, assessment and evaluation of such BIM data against relevant documents such as the BIM Execution Plan (BEP), the Level of Definition (LOD)/Level of Information (LOI) matrix, and quality control customized checklists become critical, especially in large construction projects. This study primarily aims to create an automated system for assessing the quality of 3D BIM model data, utilizing a proposed project quality control checklist. The automated system consists of four key elements: a BIM-based model, a Data Extraction and Analysis Module, a Data Storage Module, and a Data Visualization Module. The Data Extraction and Analysis Module extracts relevant information and parameters from BIM models to evaluate their quality against predefined checklists. Then, it transfers the information and stores the results in a database. The database is connected to an engineering project collaboration tool, ProjectWise, to automatically update and store the data in the cloud. The database is then connected to an interactive data visualization platform, Power BI, to enable automatic visualization of the generated quality assessment results of the BIM models’ data. This system was applied to a Canadian infrastructure construction project by its BIM department during the preliminary and detailed design phases. It demonstrated an average quality score (AQS) of 87.6% for the BIM models and significantly reduced failing items by around 30%. This study concludes that the system offers a robust, practical solution for enhancing the quality control process in BIM model data management, thereby aiding engineers in timely model adjustments to meet project requirements.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".