Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to Evaluate the Economic Benefits of Designing Aging-in-Place Homes at the Conceptual Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology for the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to assess the economic implications of designing aging-in-place (AIP) homes at the conceptual stage. With the global increase in the aging population, there is an increased demand for housing solutions tailored to the needs of elderly individuals. Focusing on the importance of the early phase of design, this study aims to improve the process of making efficient decisions by providing a comprehensive assessment of the life cycle costs associated with AIP homes. The study introduces a semi-automated model for the economic evaluation of AIP homes, enabling the estimation of costs throughout the houses’ entire life cycle, from design and construction to operation, maintenance, and eventual renovation or disposal. The said model facilitates the exploration of the long-term economic feasibility of design’s related decisions with an emphasis on the importance of considering the life cycle costs early during the design process to optimize the functionality and economic viability. By investing in accessible and universal design features upfront, the initial costs for modifications can lead to long-term savings by reducing the need for extensive retrofits. The model can easily do comparison between different design alternatives in terms of their lifecycle costs, allowing designers to assess the financial impact of using important features in their design such as wider doorways, accessible bathrooms, and elevators. Overall, this study provides valuable insights for designers and homeowners about the economic aspects of designing AIP homes as a support for efficient decision-making during the early stages of the design process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".